{"query": "Should election day be a national holiday?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named Content: This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.", "qid": 44, "docid": "4f3adbc7-2019-04-18T12:51:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7573980689048767}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7533644437789917}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7526124119758606}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. \" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7407436966896057}, {"content": "Title: Potato day should be a national holiday for all places Content: I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't", "qid": 44, "docid": "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7384946942329407}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state \"If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests.\" What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply \"Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws.\" I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state \"Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day.\" You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state \"Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote.\" You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state \"The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work.\" This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state \"If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting.\" Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state \"Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional.\" It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7360581755638123}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7355446219444275}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the \"beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe\"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++\"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented\"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++\"His \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey\"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse \"from sea to shining sea\" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates \"genocide and imperialism.\"++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 44, "docid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7350581884384155}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day in the United States of America Content: I am glad I got to debate this with someone; I have always been intrigued by this topic. Thank you, my opponent, for the opportunity. I will be arguing that Columbus Day should remain a federal holiday in the United States. Christopher Columbus' voyage was monumental in the history of both American continents. The discovery of the New world made way for the ability for European powers to being to develop and colonize a vast new reservoir of economic and agricultural resources, and eventually along the way leading to the creation of the United States. While Christopher Columbus was no moral hero, his discovery is still highly significant and is worthy of historic remembrance with a federal holiday, as his actions would eventually provide the avenue for the creation of this country. My points are as follows: 1) Columbus' discovery opened the door for a new wave of colonization and economic opportunity, fueling the growth of European empires 2) Columbus' discovery, while not of the American mainland, sparked interest for other explorers to eventually find the mainland. He is indirectly responsible for the continents' discovery. 3) While Columbus was no hero of equality and peace, his actions regarding the natives do not detract from the historic significance of the voyage and discovery 4) The day celebrates his first voyage, not his reign as governor in Hispaniola or the actions which occurred under his following voyages. His first voyage was a peaceful affair of observance, not a military assault. Columbus day celebrates his discovery, which as I said is definitely historically significant. While Christopher Columbus certainly should have treated the Native Americans better on his following voyages, the celebration of Columbus day is still a historically significant event that led to the establishment and founding of the United States. This is enough to validate the observance of the holiday which bears his name. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 44, "docid": "e3581e77-2019-04-18T17:20:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7261877059936523}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments", "qid": 44, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7233280539512634}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Content: Good morning, noon, or evening!My name is arrowjaw. Today I will be participating in a debate in which I am the Pro, or the Affirmative. I am for the resolution. It is my burden to prove to you, the voter, that the resolution is true or should be carried out. It is also my burden to refute the arguments of the Con, or the Negative, who is against the resolution. Similarly, the opposition must prove to the voter that the resolution is false or should not be carried out. This debate has the following resolution:Should Columbus day be a national holiday in the United StatesMy opponent has set the character limit to 3,000, so I cannot structure an adequate debate. I will, thus, respond to my opponent only. My opponent begins by saying that Columbus day is a holiday because \"he was Italian and Catholic\". Italians and Catholics first lobbied for Columbus Day to become a federal holiday in the United States. This is in no a way a detriment to Columbus day. African-Americans were proud to be of the same heritage of M.L.K., and the rest of America admired him for his achievements. Columbus is the same. Just because his holiday was first urged on by members of his heritage does not mean that it should not be a federal holiday. My opponent says that \"[Columbus] did not discover America...there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed\". When people say 'Columbus discovered America', they are referencing that he discovered it for the more civilized and more technologically advanced part of the world: Eurasia and Africa. This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant attempt to discredit Columbus for a monumental achievement. My opponent said that \"[Columbus] never touched down in the modern-day United States\". How can you blame him directly, place only the blame on him for all the deaths of the Natives of the Americas if, in your own words, he never even landed there. He paved the way for the colonization of the New World. He is not, however, responsible for the disgusting way in which the New World was conquered and colonized. My opponent then goes on to consent that \"his exploration led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas.\" If that is not an achievement worthy of a holiday I do not know what is. My opponent has contradicted himself and consented, in his own words, that Columbus completed a monumental achievement, which is obviously worthy of, at least, a federal holiday. The Spanish Conquistadors may have killed millions in their conquests of South and Meso America, but that does not mean that Columbus is responsible for those deaths. Just as Karl Benz created the car but is not blamed for automobile-related deaths, Columbus should not be blamed for the horrific actions of others whom he had no control over.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7224531173706055}, {"content": "Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.", "qid": 44, "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00022-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7217569351196289}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)", "qid": 44, "docid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7214279174804688}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\"t follow politics so they don\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?", "qid": 44, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7210492491722107}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less", "qid": 44, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7195233106613159}, {"content": "Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.", "qid": 44, "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7136099338531494}, {"content": "Title: The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia Content: Fist I would like to address some problems in cons argument: When people make a holiday out of something it's normally a day of celebration. In Australia, We have a public holiday for Anzac day. This is about our fallen soldiers in the wars. This is not a celebration. I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. Australians only care if they get a day off. (most) A public holiday is the only way to speed to the news. Most Australians don't even know we had an emu war. This is why I believe a public holiday would make it a well known and commemorated event. Also if we did maybe Americans would start pronouncing emu correct.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7130096554756165}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day Content: This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. In this country, we should categorize men like this as a murderer instead of a national hero. Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not \"discover\" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you \"discover\" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. To give credit where credit is due, his explorations led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas. However, that is not how Columbus is perceived is most parts of our society. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES!", "qid": 44, "docid": "5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7081233263015747}, {"content": "Title: We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Content: Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.", "qid": 44, "docid": "481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7066481709480286}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D", "qid": 44, "docid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7055792808532715}, {"content": "Title: The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia Content: I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said \"Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)\" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though", "qid": 44, "docid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7024266123771667}, {"content": "Title: Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a holiday in his name. Content: Hello and thank you for accepting. This is a debate about whether Christopher Columbus should be \"honored\" with a holiday, and therefore this debate is about whether he should be honored, and not about the holiday itself. For the sake of organization and to assure that no point will go unheeded, I will quote each of your points and then provide my rebuttals. <<\"My first contention is that Columbus day isn't celebrating christopher columbus, but rather his achievments Making knowledge of the Americas known\">> This contention is valid, yet outside the range of this debate. If you will notice the resolution, it is not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate his achievements, but whether we should have a holiday to honor him. This debate is about whether he as a person is worthy of being honored with a holiday. Not whether we should have a holiday to celebrate the events leading to American independence. Saying that Columbus has merit, because his actions very indirectly led to the existence of the United States, is akin to giving Hitler merit because his actions indirectly led to the formation of The United Nations. The United Nations was formed after WWII so that a diplomatic crisis such as a world war would not occur again. Since Hitler played a large part in the starting of World-war II, he \"paved the way\" to the UN. So basically, having a holiday to honor Columbus is about as sensible as having a \"Hitler day\" on September first (the day he invaded Poland). http://www.un.org... <<\"My Second Contention is that the Affirmation isn't fairly portraying Columbus.\">> I gave the general gist of what Columbus did: went across the ocean driven solely by self-gain, found aborigines, and then used them for his self gain, by using them as slaves and using them for gold. The ONLY \"good side\" that you can attest for in his nature is that his actions inadvertently set off a chain reaction which led to the US. This does not contribute to the virtue of his personality or good-intent of his actions in any way. It merely illustrates that horrible actions from people like Columbus can accidentally bring good things\u2026centuries later. The comparison to the Fourth of July does not fit for the following reasons: 1. The Fourth of July celebrates the independence of the US, not the guy who wrote the declaration of thus. It is not \"Jefferson day\", but \"The Fourth of July\". Unlike the holiday which is implied by the resolution, the Fourth of July celebrates the instance that was incurred by the man, and not the man himself. 2. While Thomas Jefferson had many quality attributes, Columbus had none worthy of note \u2013nor have you denied this- but the persistent idea from you that he should be honored because his wickedness inadvertently led to the independence of America 300 years later. This however is not an attribute to his nature as a person, but the fortunate turn of events that history took. Thomas Jefferson had many virtues and his motive was pure, unlike Columbus who acted merely on the Motive of self-gain. Morality and virtue can only be measured by the intent with which actions are partook, and not the consequence of said actions. <<\"My third contention is that actions such as slavery were acepted at the time, and according to Spanish Monarchy during the 1400's Native Americans were not deemed people, so in essence he wasn't doing anything wrong in the eyes of his time period.\">> You have seemingly made this assertion about the time period with no backing. And my guess is that you aren't exactly an expert on the 1400's, either. With some research you will find that the very nature of the documentation of Columbus' grievances denies that slavery was the morally accepted standard of the time period. Much of what we know about the matter stems from what is written by Bartolome de las casas, who thoroughly opposed the selfish grievances of Columbus. He originally helped in the conquest of Cuba, but then realized that it was wrong. He wrote \"History of the Indies\", which provides much information for historians on what Columbus did. Here is a quote from book 2 of this series: \"[Columbus] was so anxious to please the king that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians\u2026\" Are these the words from someone of a period where genocide and slavery were morally acceptable? No. It was just that the Spaniards where greedy and acted immorally. After recording the horrible conditions of the dwindling Indians, who were reverting to suicide, and who were quickly being depopulated, he said thus: \"My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write\u2026\" Even if it was 500 years ago, there was still many basic ideas about human nature and morality that persist today. Things such as religion make sure of this. The ten commandments are very, very old. Las Casas wrote: \"Two of these so-called Christians met two Indian boys one day, each carrying a parrot; they took the parrots and for fun beheaded the boys.\" I hope these quotes from Las Casas served to illustrate the point that people with a sense of morality at the time did not approve of the actions of Columbus and the other Spaniards. And as far as you're assertion that Indians were not considered Human, the quotes have also contradicted this. You're only backing for that claim was that of \"according to Spanish Monarchy\". To this I reply: the biased views of those in power do not reflect upon the moral code of the era. \"Since my opponent is insinuating that Columbus day shouldn't be celebrated since christopher columbus held slaves, the [sic.] he is suggesting that noone [sic.] who has ever held a slave, or mistreated another culture should be celebrated.\" The words you have put in my mouth are an absolute statement, stating that \"noone\" of those specifications should be celebrated. I do not imply this, however. Columbus should not be celebrated because he had absolutely no virtuous attributes that are worthy of note. If he did, then it would be acceptable to celebrate him. Not only was he not a hero, though, but he was greedy and performed acts of genocide solely for self-gain. Once more, morality can only be measured by the intent of actions, and the intention of Columbus was evil, unlike so many great people in history who did great things and were good in nature, contributing greatly to humanity, but also had slaves. You have yet to provide any positive quality about the nature and personality of Columbus. The only thing you have provided is that he very distantly and inadvertently caused American independence to occur. <> I apologize that I have not provided the sources yet, but I would like to point out that holding them void would be unnecessary, because I made the only real citation that was necessary: Citing that it was the words of Christopher Columbus. However, for you're convenience I will tell you where I found the quotes. I got the quotes and subsequent information from \"A people's History of The United States\", by Howard Zinn. Alas, it is not an internet source, as you assumed, but a book. If you wish to use it for reference, you may find it at you local public library. If you wish to seek whether the quotes are \"made up\" or not, that is you're burden. I give you my word those are quotes from Columbus, and I have provided the way in which you may verify this. If for convenience you would like to find the quotes from another source (internet), than that is also upon you. -Harlan", "qid": 44, "docid": "470ed1f-2019-04-18T19:34:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7009966373443604}, {"content": "Title: U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Content: Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.", "qid": 44, "docid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7005227208137512}, {"content": "Title: Students should have school off for Veterans day. Content: People should have work/school off because it is a day where we can celebrate, by doing parades, having cookouts, and many other things. Your argument is that we should celebrate them every day, although I agree, I do not believe that we should have parades, cookouts, and other celebratory activities. My father is 5th group 1st battalion in the united stated special forces, so I know about respect.", "qid": 44, "docid": "7f77decc-2019-04-18T14:03:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.6966630220413208}, {"content": "Title: Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. Content: I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.", "qid": 44, "docid": "7c0b669f-2019-04-18T18:19:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.693641185760498}, {"content": "Title: It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions Content: It is already difficult enough for members of minority religions to have time for their own religious celebrations. It seems unlikely that employers would be likely to respect the rights of other religious groups to celebrate their own days of rest if employers were already compelled to recognise Sundays as a compulsory day of rest. Equally, for the state to identify one particular day as the \u2018religious\u2019 day worthy of commemoration would be a statement that one particular religious persuasion was in some way superior to others.", "qid": 44, "docid": "6d756994-2019-04-15T20:22:48Z-00015-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6923685073852539}, {"content": "Title: Celebrate Columbus Content: Lately I have noticed that school districts across America have began to veer away from celebrating Columbus Day. I find this to be interesting and a little sad. I will be arguing the position that Columbus Day should be still celebrated across America. Con can either decide to lead with arguments or wait until Round Two. If Con starts now they will be exempt from Round Three's final argument.", "qid": 44, "docid": "e195db50-2019-04-18T18:33:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6904292702674866}, {"content": "Title: I know what day of the week you will vote. Content: Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!", "qid": 44, "docid": "497d9f24-2019-04-18T18:12:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6886963844299316}, {"content": "Title: Abolish all holidays Content: Hello again. And welcome to Debate.org. To be honest. I agree with just about everything you presented in round 2. What you have presented though, is at least six different contentious issues, all of which deserve to be debated in their own right. I'm thinking that you and I are similar minded individuals and probably wouldn't disagree about much. Nonetheless, the one thing I do disagree with is your opening proposition. \"Abolish all holidays\" Even public holidays have their merits. On these occasions we all have free time together, allowing us to meet up with family and friends and to hopefully have an enjoyable time. As to the events we are supposedly celebrating. Well, you can give these as much regard as you care to. In your case I would suggest you give them no regard at all. And just enjoy a day of work. Whether or not we are any happier after holidays. I would say, depends on what we choose to do with that time. Over complicated and costly arrangements can often lead to frustration anxiety and discontentment. Whereas a simple get together with family and friends. At the end of the day, will probably end up being far more enjoyable and rewarding. For goodness sake, don't abolish holidays.", "qid": 44, "docid": "2d5917aa-2019-04-18T12:15:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6878209114074707}, {"content": "Title: You choose the topic Content: International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b38b6b92-2019-04-18T13:11:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6869238018989563}, {"content": "Title: British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's Content: Con asserts that Family Day is stupid. However, Family Day allows Canada to have a holiday that lines up with President's Day in the United States. (1) This is useful due to closeness of Canada & the US's border, economic ties, etc. For example, before Canada had Family Day, the TSX and other Canadian markets would be open while New York and other American markets are closed. This is also inconvenient because while earlier in the month when most Canadians and Americans are working, those in BC will have to catch up to their colleagues out of the province. (2) Therefore, BC should move Family Day to match the rest of Canada's. 1-http://en.wikipedia.org...(Canada) 2-http://www.cbc.ca...", "qid": 44, "docid": "1b4e2dec-2019-04-18T14:47:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6857497096061707}, {"content": "Title: The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Content: Pro established that the Government shall observe \u201cNO public holiday,\u201d provide \u201cno public funds for Christmas trees,\u201d and grant \u201cno official acknowledgement of the day.\u201dPro wrote an additional paragraph about holiday observance in the southern hemisphere, but he immediately withdrew the argument. Pro established a burden without cause. We still do not know \u201cwhy\u201d the Government should remove itself from Holiday observance. Therefore, I will turn it over to Pro. Hopefully we will see a case presented in round two.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6855850219726562}, {"content": "Title: Voting should be compulsory in the UK Content: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution", "qid": 44, "docid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6855688095092773}, {"content": "Title: All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Content: I accept the challenge and welcome Pro to DDO as I see that he is new. I am assuming that we are debating that people should be able to take those days off without fear of negative consequences from their employers or schools, as they already can take those days off, they just have to worry about being fired or suspended for cutting work or school. With that clarifying statement, I'll turn it back over to Pro, so that he can present his argument as to why they should be allowed to take these days off. I am most interested in his proof for his statement, \"the incredible importance of International Talk Like a Pirate Day.\" And wish for him to explain how \"incrediby important\" that day is.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5e30e768-2019-04-18T19:07:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6852673292160034}, {"content": "Title: should September 2 be a holiday Content: I accept. I will be arguing that September 2 (end of World War II) should not be a holiday. What PRO fails to understand is that we already have a holiday in honor of anybody who served in wars and all the civilian casualties --it takes place on November 11 and its called Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day. Estimates about how many people that have died from war range from 150 000 000-1 000 000 000 people [1]. Let's suppose that only 150 million people died in wars. PRO admits that 60 million people died in World War II, so all of the deaths in every other wars amount to 90 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?If only 150 million people died in every war ever, making a special holiday for those who served specifically in World War II would be extremely unfair to people who served in other wars, as they aren't getting as much respect and credit for their efforts. Not only that, but 60 million people are getting honored rather than 90 million. Singling out specifically 60 million out of 150 million is unfair to the other soldiers/civilians and ludicrous, especially since it is more probable that a higher number of casualties were a result from wars.Yes, World War II was a tragedy, but PRO's claim that specifically those who were involved in that specific war rather than every person involved in every war should somehow receive more credit, respect and honor than others who were involved in every other war is ridiculous, not to mention we already honor everybody who served and/or died in wars.Therefore, vote CON.Ciatations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 44, "docid": "eb5233c9-2019-04-18T15:04:28Z-00008-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6841908693313599}, {"content": "Title: Columbus Day in the United States of America Content: Before I begin, I would like to state that the first round will be for opening statements and a numbered list of main points that will be expanded on in the second round. The third round will be for responding to the points from the second round. The fourth round will be responding to the responses and for concluding statements. If research is used to further arguments, links to articles should be posted. Columbus Day, an official federal holiday in the United States, celebrates Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. It is celebrated on the second Monday of October, around the date of Columbus' historic voyage. I argue that Columbus Day should not be an official federal holiday because it celebrates a man who was not a hero but a villain, and who was a poor role model for Americans. 1. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed Native American societies. 2. Columbus committed many human rights violations. 3. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed African societies. 4. Columbus supported slavery. 5. Columbus never reached territory that is in modern-day United States. 6. Columbus was not the first European to reach the Americas. Although some might argue that Columbus was respectable, that opinion should not be imposed on every American. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com...", "qid": 44, "docid": "e3581e77-2019-04-18T17:20:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6840815544128418}, {"content": "Title: The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Content: In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round \"Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else.\" Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated \"Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters.\" But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement \"Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!\" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.", "qid": 44, "docid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6812394261360168}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States Content: I told Pro to tie this debate. He might accept, or not. I wish he does. Everyone needed a holiday in Thanksgiving. Sorry. Please make this a tie.", "qid": 44, "docid": "8a21cca-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.680273175239563}, {"content": "Title: The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia Content: So i am not completely against making a holiday in australia, I just think there are better way to commemorate the fallen people. When people make a holiday out of something its normally a day of celebration. There are (in america) veterans day and other events so its not completely a bad idea. Instead of making a holiday, I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. What I find in holidays is people make a Mockery of the event, Even in america, So there are better ways to commemorate it my opinion. Also I give full respect to you and hopefully have a good debate.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6790013313293457}, {"content": "Title: Should Monday be a school day Content: Doesn't this mean I win the debate because you agree with me that Monday should be a school day?", "qid": 44, "docid": "495f145-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6787053346633911}, {"content": "Title: The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Content: Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I\u2019ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate \u201ceven for\u201d non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up \u201cChristmas\u201d trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the \u201cChristmas\u201d festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a \u201ccore objective of U.S. foreign policy\u201d (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...", "qid": 44, "docid": "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6763126850128174}, {"content": "Title: Abolish all holidays Content: I am new to this so I posted my argument in the comment section.... Ok. For one I do believe everyone who works for a living should have the means to have plenty of time off work. Here in the U.S. we have many set holidays where everybody does there thing on the same weekend or day which causes mass congestion and takes from the quality of enjoying time off . My second thought is that are largest holidays are based on falsehoods and make-believe and the truth and facts of history will never be accepted because of it. There is know known birthdate for Jesus and the winter holiday was based on paganism and earthy things. There was no cozy get together between native A americans and Pilgrims, the west was one through brutal massacres and genocide and so on and so forth. My third thought amount many is that I believe it is healthier to spread it evenly and make everyday important fun and meaningful and there are studies that show that people are not any happier after holidays and are more likely to be less happy .", "qid": 44, "docid": "2d5917aa-2019-04-18T12:15:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6755640506744385}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \"\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \"\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \"a lot of hacking in internet\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...", "qid": 44, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.674003005027771}, {"content": "Title: Is an atheist celebrating Christmas hypocritical Content: This is a by-product of the generalization of all holidays in any given country. The reality is that if you are not a member of a populace, no matter what that populace is, celebrating their day makes no sense. To that end Saint Patrick's Day, Saint Valentine's Day, and Halloween are all holidays that are commonly celebrated in the United States and other portions of the world that only have lore in Catholocism or if you are Irish. No one else should celebrate them. Yet many people do and it is recognized that this is part of the culture of the nation versus a matter of ownership in relation to the holiday itself and that is now impractical to call those who celebrate these things outside of the proper orders hypocrites or demand respect in the face of the obvious cultural absorption.", "qid": 44, "docid": "2080394b-2019-04-18T15:35:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.673693835735321}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don", "qid": 44, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6708934307098389}, {"content": "Title: Voting should be compulsory. Content: I accept, thanks for bringing up a new topic!I don't want my opening round to be very long, so I will bring up one point and let you present your opening arguments.Forcing people to vote (assuming if you don't, you are punished in some kind of way) is both immoral and can lead to donkey votes. The majority people who don't want to vote will vote to get it over with and not put any thought into it, giving the candidate an unfair advantage or disadvantage based really on luck, with no actual thought going into the vote. More candidates will be elected due to luck rather than what the general public really wants.Thanks, looking forward to a good argument!", "qid": 44, "docid": "70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6702508926391602}, {"content": "Title: Longer Christmas Break Content: Well the opponent didn't defend position so by default just vote me. And also I agree why does it matter. Why do we need a longer break? We don't lol 2 weeks is more then enough and I am not willing to give up another holiday like that extra Monday off after the weekend to extend Christmas break.", "qid": 44, "docid": "afac854e-2019-04-18T13:59:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6694093942642212}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.", "qid": 44, "docid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6692218780517578}, {"content": "Title: Scream at the Sky day is useless Content: In my last debate about this, i did not take con very seriously, and that cost me the debate. this time, i will attempt to use evidence and not just logic to prove that liberal holidays like these are useless.", "qid": 44, "docid": "e85f616c-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6691423654556274}, {"content": "Title: There are many reasons for not participating in elections. Content: Balaji Chithra Ganesan. \"The Case against Compulsory Voting.\" Musings. January 16th, 2010: \"People have genuine reasons not to vote. They could be working away from home and cannot afford to go home for voting. Daily labourers cannot miss a day's work. People might be sick, old and dying. People might be travelling for causes that are much more important like ... family. In the ridiculously staggered elections we have, people can have a holiday when their place of work goes to polls and not when their hometown goes to polls. Now how incredibly arrogant and perverted should someone be, to ask the above people to come, stand before a babu and explain their conduct? Or else face punishment! Really? How arrogant? How can citizens be treated with such disdain?\"", "qid": 44, "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00078-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6689381003379822}, {"content": "Title: The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Content: Pro stated:\"On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so.\" Rebuttal: The Federal Government does not force it's employees to \"celebrate this religious festival\". The paid holiday period can be observed, but it can also be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion best suited to their ideology. In fact, not all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays. The Department of Defense requires it's employees to submit a request for Holiday-down time. All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty. The military leave policy can be review here: Army --Army Regulation 600-8-10 - Leaves and Passes Air Force --Air Force Instruction 36-3003 - Military Leave Program Navy --MILPERSMAN 1050, Leave and Liberty Marine Corps --Marine Corps Order (MCO) P1050.3H - Regulations for Leave, Liberty, and Administrative Absence To satisfy the burden of this premise, Pro must show that observance of the Christmas ceremony is being forced upon federal employees, that mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee. ------------------ Pro stated:\"Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars.\" Rebuttal: The Unites States government's gross annual revenue from domestic product sales is estimated at 2.9 trillion dollars at the Federal level. [1] Approximately 19.5% of these sales occur over the Holiday season. [2] The average Federal revenue for holiday sales in 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay. ------------------ Pro stated: \"No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar.\" Rebuttal: The Jewish Holiday of Purim is a big Israeli gift-exchanging holiday, but Hanukkah celebrates eight days of gift-giving in the North American tradition. The Muslims exchange gifts over two Eids in Ramadan as well. The Indian celebration of Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities. Hence: The Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact, while wikipedia reports that 78% of Americans are Christians, a recent Gallup reported in the \"Statistical Illusion\" article showed that only 20% of Americans are truly Christians, as defined by their Church. [3] That means 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday. ------------------ Pro Claimed: The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate \"even for\" non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights, Putting up \"Christmas\" trees, Giving gifts, Sending greeting cards\" Rebuttal: I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation. Which federal law, passed in which year by what ruling body made the above list a federal \"designation\"? This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists. Federal observance of the Christmas Holiday was passed in 1870. It did not dictate how the holiday should be observed. Conclusion: It should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance. Non-government entities are not required to shut down for Christmas. \"Constitutionally, there are no \"national holidays\" in the United States because Congress only has authority to create holidays for federal institutions (including federally owned properties) and employees, and for the District of Columbia.\" [4] Lastly, it should be noted that getting time off for the Christmas season does not mandate Church attendance or religious observance. You are free to spend Christmas catching up on sleep, getting drunk, or like most Americans, try to take advantage of spectacular discounts on retail prices. Going to Church is optional. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [1] http://www.nrf.com... [2] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]", "qid": 44, "docid": "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6676480770111084}, {"content": "Title: It would help distinguish between levels of elections Content: Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.", "qid": 44, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00011-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6648659706115723}, {"content": "Title: Change the date Content: Most people don\"t even care about that actual date, they just want a day off work, or to have a few drinks or to have a barbecue or to wear Australian colours or whatever it is that people do. None of these things can only be done of the 26th of January, and if it was on any other day then maybe more Indigenous people would feel like celebrating with the rest of the nation. Changing the date would show that we have aspirations for this country to become greater than it is. Our treatment of Indigenous peoples, of asylum seekers, of the homeless, of the unemployed, of women, of veterans, of pensioners (the list goes on and on) is not great. It is not something that is worth celebrating, and there is nothing about the arrival of the First Fleet that gives pause to reflect on what it would take to become great. BTN. 2016. Moving Australia Day. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.abc.net.au.... [Accessed 19 May 2016].", "qid": 44, "docid": "8a31ff75-2019-04-18T13:21:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6646621823310852}, {"content": "Title: Should there be a new day of the week Content: Though everyone would enjoy another day off work I'll show that this is actually a bad idea. The first instance of this new system we can use the example of the French Republic Calender. It had 10 days in a week and 10 months in a year. With some extra days added in at the end. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This was appart of the French's war against the clergy as they sought to remove all things religious from society. If we do this here we can see that it would face the same backlash as we would be attempting to rid a religious 7 day week. So if you want to incite a religious war then be my guest, but I highly doubt that such a topic area should be ventured into as you could see a lot of religious backlash from it. Another key flaw is that the days would no longer be 24 hours nor would we have a regular year to to the breaking up of the calender. This would cause havoic upon the average person as not only are they being foreced to change their lifestyles you are living and force them to buy new clocks and systems to account for this extra day which can place a finacial burden on the average citizens.", "qid": 44, "docid": "52f83b27-2019-04-18T15:19:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6639446020126343}, {"content": "Title: January First is New Years Day Content: Well a substitution of the predicate \"is celebrated on\" for the predicate \"is\" clearly does not work. Independence is celebrated on July 4 but that does not mean it is July 4. Also invalid is your transposing of \"If January First and New Years Day are to be the same then they must mean the same things to all people at all times\" into its converse \"If January First and New Years Day are to be different then there must be some etc.\" They could be different in some way other than that. Out of.", "qid": 44, "docid": "e0ea8f69-2019-04-18T19:26:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6636248230934143}, {"content": "Title: Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting Content: As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.", "qid": 44, "docid": "33d6b29e-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6629211902618408}, {"content": "Title: This year will have one of the lowest voter turnouts Content: Hi! First off let me explain my reasoning. With little interest of each candidates ideals,motions,and agendas,this election year will have one of the lowest voter turnouts in american history. I can back up a lot further, but I'll save it for the real action", "qid": 44, "docid": "70b4a3fc-2019-04-18T12:55:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6626216173171997}, {"content": "Title: That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth Content: I guess he needs the extra time. Did I mention that today is actually international vote-Pro day? No? . ..", "qid": 44, "docid": "e33b1a82-2019-04-18T19:02:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6623311042785645}, {"content": "Title: voting should be compulsary Content: I believe that voting should not be compulsary as it is not a civic duty but a civil right. Making voting compulsary can be seen to infringe basic rights of freedom of citizens ie many Jehovahs Witnesses believe they should not participate in political events forcing them to vote explicitly denies them their freedom of religious practice. Also there is random votes if people are made to vote and many people have no interest or knowledge of the candidates running.", "qid": 44, "docid": "f9133f8b-2019-04-18T19:16:23Z-00009-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6622703075408936}, {"content": "Title: All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Content: Since no evidence or reason was given as to why \"talk like a pirate day\" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5e30e768-2019-04-18T19:07:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.661644458770752}, {"content": "Title: Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date Content: My opponent's points were not correct as the day all the states in Australia united was in fact called Federation Day and was actually on January 1st 1901. My opponent also mentioned how Australia Day is a very historical day, which it is but today's generation sees it as a day that does not fully represent all citizens in Australia. To reaffirm my previous arguments, Australia day does not represent the multicultural country we live in. Every year many migrants and refugees enter our country and become Australian citizens. It\"s 2016 and Australia day still doesn\"t recognise the many other cultures that live in Australia, as we are a very multicultural country. According to (http://www.skwirk.com......) 25% of Australians were born overseas and since 1945 six million people have migrated to Australia.Currently Australia Day really only represent the day Europeans arrived on Australian soil. Moving into the future I believe we need to recognise all cultures as well as the original owners of the land. Currently Australia day being on January 26th doesn\"t work for our population and there are numerous other dates it could be held on. Such as Federation day (January 1st 1901 when Australia became one country), when Indigenous Australians were allowed to vote (27th Of May 1967) and when the government apologised to the Aboriginals for the Stolen generation (February 13th 2008). These alternative dates would be better choices for the date of Australia day and are days of great celebration without being about only one culture. In Conclusion, January 26th should not be the date for Australia day. It does not fully represent the original inhabitants of Australia\"s land as well the multicultural country Australia has developed into.", "qid": 44, "docid": "672a41c7-2019-04-18T13:21:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6614958047866821}, {"content": "Title: Primaries in US elections Content: The primary system pushes elections back in the calendar", "qid": 44, "docid": "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00028-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6611512899398804}, {"content": "Title: Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting Content: Cheers! WE AGREE THAT IT IS BETTER TO VOTE MOST OF THE TIME I am glad that my opponent agrees that it's better to vote most of the time. However, he posits three claims in negation of my resolution. I will refute each of his claims with the following contentions. [1] IT's BETTER TO BE COUNTED THAN DISCOUNTED My opponent suggests \"not voting can be a way to send a message in times of great injustice. \" What message can be sent when someone chooses to NOT vote? A non-voter hopes that those in high office and other observers will realize that her lack of participation reflects a grievance that must be addressed. There are a few problems with this. (A) Election observers cannot understand what the grievance is if the only message is silence in the form of a passive non-vote. Political observers are likely to assume that the non-voter is lazy or apathetic. No subversive message will be received. (B) But what if a non-voter writes a letter to a representative explaining why she chose not to vote? A politician has little incentive to listen to someone not interested in voting; politicians can discount what cannot be counted on election day. In this case, this move would be strengthened if she chose to back up her convictions with a vote. A letter is more persuasive if she explains, \"if you do not support X then I will vote for your opponent. If you support X then I will vote for you. \" Voting is a better way to send a message than not-voting. When you vote you send a message that you support a candidate and or the ideas she stands for. In a direct referendum a person can communicate her support for a particular policy, and possibly help it get passed into law by voting for it. If you do not vote, you lose your chance to make that difference. In each case one\"s vote is a clear sign that a policy or particular leader has a certain level of support among the people. In a democratic society, it is in the interest of the leaders to be receptive to those ideas with support so they can win reelection. EXAMPLE: SOUTH AFRICA, 1994 South Africans had been living in times of great injustice. They lived under a policy of apartheid in which they were treated like second-class human beings. What message would have been sent if they chose to NOT vote in that historic \"94 election? Would observers understand that they were expressing their dissatisfaction after decades of oppression by not voting? Probably not. The white Frederik Willem de Klerk would have been re-elected and continue to be the face of South Africa after blacks earned suffrage. Instead, despite decades of injustice, they chose to vote and elected the nation\"s first black president, Nelson Mandela. [2] EVALUATE ELECTIONS THROUGH THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF A VOTER My opponent asserts \"I don't agree that more voters produces a more democratic result or even a good result necessarily. \" First of all, if more people vote, whether or not you favor the results, the election is by definition more democratic and more representative of the constituency (body of eligible voters) being represented. But do more voters produce a better result? How should my opponent and I consider this contention? If one provides a partisan historical example in the affirmative or negative it will prejudice one\"s consideration of the proposition. If I argue a low voter turnout led to a BAD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice conservatives against my position. If my opponent argues that a low voter turnout led to a GOOD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice progressives against his position. And I assume my opponent, like me, does not wish to explode the topic by debating the virtues of progressivism over conservatism and vice-versa. Therefore, let\"s consider this question from the Original Position first posited by John Rawls. In one's current shoes, it's easy to assert that the world would be better if your ideological opponents stayed home on election day while your people vote in big numbers. But imagine if you could be any voter in any democratic election throughout time and space. To vote or not vote? That is the question. It will always be better to vote your conscience. Let\"s say you are a Republican in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in low taxes, low regulation, and traditional social values. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. In 2000, if you are a sincere Republican then you should vote for Bush. Not voting would decrease the likelihood that your values will be promoted in high office and increase the likelihood that a candidate will be elected who is antithetical to your values. Therefore, you should vote. From the point of view of many Republicans, Bush was a success. Under Bush, taxes were cut and traditional social values were championed. OR Let\"s say you're a Democrat in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in a strong social safety net, regulated capitalism, and social liberalism. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. From the point of view of a Democrat, more Democrats should of voted, especially in Florida. Under Bush more people fell into poverty and civil rights were pushed back a decade. In 2000, suppose you are a Nader supporter. It would still be better to vote than not vote because by voting you (1) increase the probability that your candidate may win, and (2) increase the apparent support for Nader and his ideas. By not voting you (1) have no impact on the election for either party, and (2) forsake your duty to express your point of view in a democracy. Imagine you are a voter in a fledgling democracy where there may be some election fraud. You want to live in a stable society represented by honest leaders. In this case it is better to vote than not vote. If there is a high chance of fraud what will not voting accomplish? It will only make the ballot-box stuffer's job easier and the corrupt politician may cheat to achieve a legitimate win. If you do vote then there is at least an initial record of your choice. The corrupt leader might try to destroy this record or crowd it out with fake votes, but the corrupt leader will still have to expend energy, money, and resources to cheat. Voting is still better because voting provides a chance that the corrupt leader could be ousted. If he cheats, voting is better because the international community may discover the fraud and pressure him to perform a re-count. If there is a re-count you will want to be among the counted. Lastly, voting is better because it will make the corrupt leader aware that a sizable percentage do NOT support him. With this new information he may consider instituting popular reforms or even consider a graceful exit in the near future so that he will not be embarrassed in the next election. Therefore, even in the case of a corrupt election, voting provides at least some marginal advantages while not-voting provides no advantages. [3] CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PREVENTS GREATER EVIL OR SEND A REAL MESSAGE WITH A WRITE-IN or THIRD PARTY VOTE My opponent said that non-voting may be better \" when there is no good choice available. \" Not voting accomplishes nothing. If you dislike the two mainstream party candidates then vote for a third party or write-in a candidate! Your candidate could win. List of third party wins: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 44, "docid": "c4f7d17e-2019-04-18T16:45:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6603415012359619}, {"content": "Title: Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date Content: My opponent's points were not correct as the day all the states in Australia united was in fact called Federation Day and was actually on January 1st 1901. My opponent also mentioned how Australia Day is a very historical day, which it is but today's generation sees it as a day that does not fully represent all citizens in Australia. To reaffirm my previous arguments, Australia day does not represent the multicultural country we live in. Every year many migrants and refugees enter our country and become Australian citizens. It\"s 2016 and Australia day still doesn\"t recognise the many other cultures that live in Australia, as we are a very multicultural country. According to (http://www.skwirk.com...) 25% of Australian\"s were born overseas and since 1945 six million people have migrated to Australia.Currently Australia Day really only represent the day Europeans arrived on Australian soil. Moving into the future I believe we need to recognise all cultures as well as the original owners of the land. Currently Australia day being on January 26th doesn\"t work for our population and there are numerous other dates it could be held on. Such as Federation day (January 1st 1901 when Australia became one country), when Indigenous Australian\"s were allowed to vote (27th Of May 1967) and when the government apologised to the Aboriginals for the Stolen generation (February 13th 2008). These alternative dates would be better choices for the date of Australia day and are days of great celebration without being about only one culture. In Conclusion, January 26th should not be the date for Australia day. It does not fully represent the original inhabitants of Australia\"s land as well the multicultural country Australia has developed into.", "qid": 44, "docid": "672a41a8-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6601214408874512}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is not a woman's right Content: Let the polls be open", "qid": 44, "docid": "1bed8809-2019-04-18T16:25:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6598685383796692}, {"content": "Title: Voting should be compulsory Content: Defense: ==Voting is a Right, not a Duty== I disagree that this is invalid; the point is that there exists legal protections that, if one were to accept, should extend to the issue of compulsory voting. These legal protections are themselves based on certain principles that are central to the underpinnings of democratic societies. Since I didn't establish otherwise you're entitled to attack this as a kritik, but in the context of this debate it seems we've both accepted a democratic governmental framework as the starting point, so it would indeed be relevant. -Informed Apathy- I think this US presidential election cycle demonstrates loudly and clearly that informed voters can easily be inclined to reject available options. I would accept that those who do not wish to actively support any candidate could spoil the ballot, but then why compel them to participate in the process if it does not equate to actual participation? Why compel people to turn up at polling stations and waste an hour of their day just to spoil a ballot, when staying home would have accomplished the same thing? ==Poorly Informed or Random Votes Compromise Elections== As I demonstrated with the \"donkey vote\" phenomenon in Australia, it's inevitable that some people will cast random votes instead of spoiling the ballot. It is an act of protest in itself; they are deliberately derailing the integrity of the electoral process as an objection to being coerced into voting. In tight races, this can be a game-changing factor. As for \"compelling them to be informed,\" not only is that not realistically possible, but to the marginal extent that it could be, it raises a whole host of problematic questions about how the state is going to present information to voters. Especially when incumbent candidates are already part of the government that would be tasked with this, and therefore they could and would manipulate things to give a more favourable impression of themselves and less so of opponents. This would just further expand the existing incumbent advantage. You can mandate voting but you can't mandate knowledge. People who do not care and do not want to know won't suddenly absorb information by force. And if they could, that's even more troubling a prospect.", "qid": 44, "docid": "fb61a49b-2019-04-18T12:48:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6596248149871826}, {"content": "Title: It is prejudicial to other religions to give Sunday a significance not ascribed to the holy days of other traditions Content: Different cultures have varying traditions of rest. Approaches towards the number of days of vacations taken each year, the length of the working day, which annual festivals should be treated as public holidays, siestas, work levels during Ramadan and so on are all taken on the basis of the culture and history of that particular country. As a result it is not unreasonable for a country with a Christian background to identify Sunday as their designated day of rest. The work ethic of any country relates to their history as is reflected in the festivals that are given significance. Observation of Christmas or Eid or Cheoseok has little to do with the personal values of the individuals concerned but rather the historical norms of that society.", "qid": 44, "docid": "6d756994-2019-04-15T20:22:48Z-00014-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6594505310058594}, {"content": "Title: As candidates, Donald Trump's policies are better than Hillary Clinton's Policies Content: Nothing after Election Day, 2016 may be used in this debate. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: 1st Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: More rebuttals and Closing Arguments. This will be only on policy, nothing on character or anything like that. Good luck!", "qid": 44, "docid": "5205c63b-2019-04-18T12:19:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6593743562698364}, {"content": "Title: The poor (in this case, poor means illiterate) should not vote. Content: They should vote", "qid": 44, "docid": "730064f5-2019-04-18T17:44:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6591857671737671}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: 1. \"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.", "qid": 44, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6590821743011475}, {"content": "Title: Winter break is good for students and schools Content: A response to Pro's assertions:1) It is understandable that students need to stay home to celebrate these important holidays with their families, but we must remember that winter break covers a very large span of time to allow Jewish and Christian students to celebrate, while people who have religious beliefs that are less prominant in our culture (e.g., Islam) typically have no days off for their important holidays. University of Miami students and State University of NY at Binghamton students get over a month off for winter break... [1] [2] By allowing winter break to exist, universities are shortening academic semesters, thereby taking away from the depth and amount of content of students' courses. This, in the end, adversely affects students, whose education is being sacrificed. Also, this especially hurts many nonreligious students who do not celebrate Christmas or Hannukah. The only reason why we have these specific holidays off is because we are in a Judeo-Christian area in the world. Because of this, we completely disregard the religious values of the Islamic community; most institutions of learning in North America do not have school breaks for Ramadan. Also, we completely ignore the religious beliefs of very small minorities; for example, there are no schools in North America for those of the Voodoo faith, who celebrate the Day of the Dead (Nov. 1-2.) [3] The only holiday that there should perhaps be a several day-long break for is New Years, since it is very secular and universal. Classes should continue on religious holidays; teachers/professors on religious leave should not be paid during their absence and should be subsituted by other instructors, and students who are absent should be expected to make up classwork. 2) Mental exhaustion? US students aren't worked even close to as hard as those in many other countries. Through more rigorous and challenging school curricula, other countries are teaching their student more effectively and are thereby defeating the United States in international education rankings. When 34 countries were considered, the US \"ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math.\" [4] Since the instatement of No Child Left Behind, states have been reducing the difficulty of their respective state examinations and emphasizing a curriculum that is arguably more lax than any in the United State's history; states (e.g., Missouri) inflate grades by lowering standards. [5] How do we fix this trend and get our nation back on top? We can get rid of winter break so that school curricula could be extended and more material could be fit into them so that students are able to acquire more knowledge, which would certainly boost our position in the rankings and keep our country ahead when it comes to technology and scientific advancement, as it had been in relatively recent history. 3) Proper funding of schools is a separate issue. Money should not get in the way of providing an adequate education of students, and policies should be revised in order to change that. A lack of money is not an acceptable justification for depriving students of an education Moreover, education spending from the government should increase in order to fund schools, especially during times like these, when our education system is sinking in international rankings, as stated in the prior argument.4) Most students are not autodidacts and need a proper teaching environment in order to efficiently acquire knowledge. Students learn by themselves year-round; they learn how to do the laundry, how to comb their hair, how to read by themselves... But if acquiring academic information were so easy, students would not have to go to school and just stay home all year teaching themselves all of the coursework. Students would benefit far, far more if they were to continue attending school and being properly instructed over winter break than if they stayed home and built clay models of Egypt. Winter break should not exist. It discriminates against less major religions who do not get breaks for their holidays, it robs students of a stronger education, and there were no break, curricula could be extended, thereby improving overall educational performance of students and allowing the US to climb back to the top of internation education rankings, back into its position of power. [1] http://www2.binghamton.edu...[2] http://www6.miami.edu...[3] http://www.wehaitians.com...[4] http://www.usatoday.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 44, "docid": "a0d583a1-2019-04-18T18:34:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6578031778335571}, {"content": "Title: Everyone living in the US should have the right to vote, not just citizens. Content: No because again, if they do not like the current outcome of the election they can go back to their own countries. The outcome of the presidential elections or even small elections like who will be the county sheriff should be left up to those who are the citizens of this country. If you want to vote in this country you should make the commitment of becoming a citizen. Until then you can enjoy the country but not make desicions.Not only that but the susceptibility of fraud and turning the tables could be very present. Those from different countries could come to this country to vote. By the way we need to stop encouraging immigration. This country needs to become an isolationist nation with little immigration because these people, specifically from latin america, are taking our jobs and sucking up on welfare benefits. Having things like the ability to vote whenever they want will increase this problem", "qid": 44, "docid": "aba65d2c-2019-04-18T13:42:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6577736139297485}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. Content: Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.", "qid": 44, "docid": "a52fa32e-2019-04-18T12:01:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6576171517372131}, {"content": "Title: Hot button issue Content: Holy man? Resolution 2 I guess. Here's my argument: It's simple, if you love your country, you'll do what's best for it. If you don't, then you are pretty much worthless as a citizen. Patriotism, defined as \"love for or devotion to one's country\" by the good men at Merriam-Webster is necessary for an effective country. If nobody cares about their country,, we will have mass apathy, and nothing will get done. Aristotle once wrote that in order for one to be a valuable citizen, you must get involved in the political mechanisms of your nation. Now, if no one cares about their country, either they will only be involved for power, which will just hurt everyone, or they won't get involved, and just stay home on Voting Day. An effective nation needs patriotism. We obviously want to be an effective nation, right? Your move, heathen man...", "qid": 44, "docid": "c18c8c60-2019-04-18T19:39:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6574766039848328}, {"content": "Title: The United States should establish a national primary. Content: I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named \"13 states that matter\". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don\"t seem to meet anyone\"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don\"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don\"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.", "qid": 44, "docid": "7782d574-2019-04-18T13:53:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6574123501777649}, {"content": "Title: Embracing cell phones in school Content: time to vote people", "qid": 44, "docid": "626e3202-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6573320627212524}, {"content": "Title: secondary schools should have the same holiday time as primary schools Content: Lots of families have kids in both elementary and secondary school. If they had holidays on the same days, then their families could go on vacation peacefully, without either of their kids missing school. Besides, why not? Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone! ;)", "qid": 44, "docid": "9d661113-2019-04-18T17:44:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6573225259780884}, {"content": "Title: We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians. Content: I believe that as a nation we should have a day devoted to just celebrating the greatness of Australia and we should have a day of mourning on another day. We should not have to do both on the same day. Secondly,the invasion on traditional Aboriginal land devastated many indigenous families and communities. European saw Aboriginals as inferior so they thought a way to \"eliminate\" them was to slowly \"breed\" them out to nothing. A 1997 report launched by the Australian Government found that between the years of 1910 and 1970 an estimated 10 - 30% of Aboriginal children were separated or removed from their families and communities. This loss of a child had great impacts on families - parent of the children who were taken could not cope with the loss of the child so their would turn to alcohol to help cope, this would sometime lead to alcoholism. The separation of people also caused a loss a traditional languages throughout the generations. The Stolen Generations 2012, Australians Together, accessed 18 May 2016, <http://www.australianstogether.org.au...;. How many children were removed? 2000, The Stolen Generation.info, accessed18 May 2016, <http://www.stolengenerations.info...;.", "qid": 44, "docid": "3a611346-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6566649675369263}, {"content": "Title: all d people should vote Content: Choosing \"none\" on the ballot is the same as not voting at all. It's simply implied with the latter. For the more severely disabled and sick, even just waiting in line or taking time out of their stressful day may be a struggle for them, and they may have to hire assistance for the trip. Not to mention, they will also have to keep up with the candidates before the election, and dealing with politics may be low on their priorities when their health is a concern. Many rural places do have transportation available to voting polls, but not all. People shouldn't have to walk long distances to vote for something they're not interested in, some may not even be physically capable of doing so. Finding the right candidate isn't about making everyone vote, it's about ensuring people are voting for the right person for the right reasons. If we forced uninformed or disinterested people to vote, the quality of our candidates would drop, not improve.", "qid": 44, "docid": "80f21523-2019-04-18T15:05:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6565971374511719}, {"content": "Title: Why Australia Day should be changed Content: Although my opponent has mentioned that Australia Day should be a time to celebrate being a multicultural country, Aboriginals should be celebrated as they were the first people here. As I have mentioned before Australia day is a mourning day for aboriginals. With it bring a reminder of all the horrible events the Europeans put them through and the suffering and pain they received. The date of Australia Day should be changed so the Aboriginals get their say and so they receive the recognition and respect they deserve.", "qid": 44, "docid": "98eac3fb-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6565297245979309}, {"content": "Title: Schools Content: Sorry? I think you may have clicked on the wrong debate. This is about school being bad for children, not how its holidays should be ordered...", "qid": 44, "docid": "3391fd1c-2019-04-18T16:39:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6564867496490479}, {"content": "Title: The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas Content: The U.S. government favors Christianity over all other religions by recognizing Christmas, a Christian festival, and by mandating a federal holiday on Christmas Day. It does not recognize any other religious holiday in the same way. By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true. Con said: \u201cThe Federal Government does not force it's [sic] employees to \"celebrate this religious festival\". The paid holiday period can\u2026be ignored. If a federal employee views religious observance as an anathema to their ideology, they may choose to utilize their paid time-off in any non-religious fashion.\u201d Thank goodness! Imagine a state of affairs where citizens were actually driven into churches and forced to pray! You\u2019re right, Heineken. That would be much, much worse. It\u2019s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow. Con said: \u201cnot all Federal Offices close down for the Holidays\u2026 All Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that do not submit an official request for Holiday leave, will be required to report for normal duty.\u201d I\u2019m sure you\u2019re right, Heineken, that they don\u2019t stand down the entire military for Christmas, or indeed for any federal holiday. I suppose they keep the essential services running. I don\u2019t really see how that affects the argument, though. Con said: \u201cPro must show that\u2026mandatory leave is viewed negatively by the employee.\u201d You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen\u2019s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. I disagree entirely, and for many reasons that are well outside the scope of this debate. I will only say here that this debate is not about people\u2019s emotions. It is about whether the US government should stop imposing religious observance onto its citizens in the form of the Christmas Day holiday. And yes, it should stop. ------------------ Con said: \u201cThe average Federal revenue for holiday sales in [sic] 565.5 billion dollars, which is a 565 billion dollar profit margin, after spending .5 billion on federal holiday pay.\u201d This is my favorite of all your arguments, because of the large sums of money involved and because of its ambiguity. What point are you trying to make here? If only there were an extra round, I could ask. As it is, I will take a few guesses at what your argument might be, and rebut them in turn. 1. Christmas day pays for itself. Non-Christians don\u2019t have to subsidize it. Actually, according to your own sources, \u201choliday sales\u201d mean all sales in November and December and \u201cHolidays during this period include Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa.\u201d http://www.nrf.com...... In fact, there is no information here about how much money in taxes Christmas contributes specifically. In any case, the government encourages non-Christians to give gifts, send cards and put up Christmas trees. To contribute taxes, in other words. So whether it\u2019s though sales or income tax, non-Christians are subsidizing this religious festival. 2. We\u2019re so gloriously rich here in America, what difference does half a billion dollars make? Half a billion dollars is still a substantial amount of money. And it\u2019s the principle of the thing. Citizens can\u2019t choose whether or not to subsidize Christmas Day. The government makes them. 3. Christmas Day makes money for the government. Therefore, the government is right to encourage it. As you convincingly argued elsewhere, Christians aren\u2019t alone in having gift-giving festivals. The government doesn\u2019t need to mandate a federal holiday to rake in the benefits of religion. In any case, this is a distressingly cynical line to take. Surely religious freedom and equality are worth more than a seasonal rise in retail sales? ------------------ Con said: \u201cThe Jewish Holiday of Purim\u2026Hanukkah\u2026Eids\u2026Diwali far exceeds Christmas in extravagance and duration. The Chinese New Year celebrates elaborately with gifts and festivities.\u201d So true. So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can\u2019t Christmas be like that too? Con said: \u201cThe Jews do not celebrate Christmas, neither do the Muslims. The Indians also do not observe Christmas and cultural Chinese members of the U.S. also do not observe Christmas. In fact\u2026 80% of Americans observe the Holidays for non-religious reasons. Christmas is not religious, it's a commercial Holiday.\u201d I\u2019m sure you\u2019re right, Heineken. Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. ------------------ Con said: \u201c I challenge my opponent to provide this official federal designation\u2026This is a straw-man argument. No such federal position, law, guideline or clause (no pun intended) exists.\u201d I\u2019m sorry. I did put the US government link in, but you had to find it on the list of links at the bottom, click on it, then scroll down to find the right bit. I should have just put in the quote directly. Here it is. \u201cChristmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.\u201d http://www.usa.gov... What\u2019s a \u201cstraw man argument\u201d? It sounds bad, almost as if you\u2019re accusing me of making things up. But I\u2019ve included sources all along. Con said: \u201cIt should be noted that Christmas is not a national Holiday. Congress does not have the power to declare a national Holiday. It can only pass federal observance.\u201d Ah. So that\u2019s the difference between a \u201cnational holiday\u201d and a \u201cfederal holiday\u201d. Thanks. That\u2019s really interesting. Conclusion There are eleven federal holidays in the US. Only one of these, Christmas Day, is a religious festival. The government has no business showing such respect and preference to Christianity. The US prides itself on being a country of religious freedom. Federal holidays, which are compulsory holidays for all federal employees (in non-essential services), and which are subsidized by US tax-payers, should be secular and inclusive. Christmas Day should be celebrated by Christians in a private manner, just as people of other beliefs celebrate their own festivals.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6563445925712585}, {"content": "Title: State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government Content: How fitting, Pro decided to forfeit on Election Day. And in saying that, I hope all US Debate.org folks go out and vote today. For voting is \"The Great Debate!\"", "qid": 44, "docid": "5a4ae69-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.656335711479187}, {"content": "Title: The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Content: Round 1: Pro R2 : Cross Examination R3: Con R4: Cross Examination R5: Rebuttals/Summary/Final Focuses I am aware the rounds are a bit off from a real debate. That's because debate.org only allows so many rounds. I apologize for that. ---------------------------------------------- Be it resolved that, the United States should convert over to a one day primary campaign when it comes to electing a new president. I firmly stand in affirmation for this claim for the following contentions. *Contention 1* The idea of a one day Primary essentially means there would be one day for campaigning and the next day would be the actual election. There would most definitely be a better change in private policy. Even if the representations were to go up, that doesn't mean everyone will benefit. A one day Primary would easily boost political participation. In 2012's Primary, had a 17% turn out. Why? Well according to the University of Mexico, the voters in the outside states rarely vote because they feel their votes don't matter. This is because they are lead to believe the primary states have already decided the election, when in reality this isn't true. Every vote should count! There is a belief that the most votes from the more wealthy and educated citizens, causing the less wealthy and educated to feel below them. Even some Congressmen state, \"A one day Primary could close the gap in voter turn out and prevent both political parties from becoming victims to polarization. *Contention 2* At the moment, our current state of election is full of media madness. This takes away from the real idea of voting; electing a new leader to guide the nation. We get so caught up in the, \"he said she said\" aspect of it that we seem to forget about how much really is at stake here. The media seems to focus on \"Horse Race\" journalism. This means they only cover, \"Who's winning in the delegates?\" or \"Who's higher in the polls this week? Will it change next week?\" You wouldn't see any of that in a one day Primary! Patrick Whithers explains in 2012, \"Staggered elections reduce turn out by fatiguing the voters' pattern of the constant political he said, she said mess.\" The media crowds the main focus on policy and discussion. Out of 63% percent of journalists, only 16% focus on policy positions and records. *Contention 3* Many voters seem to give up their votes because their candidate drops out. The candidates the usually drop out are the less known and wealthy ones. Why? These candidates believe they don't have a chance half way through because the media makes it much harder for them to become recognized whereas Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were widely recognized because of their status in the media! A one day Primary would easily wipe this out, allowing more candidates to enter the race and more voters participating because they have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. Statistics show that the earlier states were 5x more influential than the outside states causing them to be nearly unrepresentative. This past election, is was very hard to determine the voter turn out and neither state nor candidate could completely balance out their influence to give others a fighting chance. This creates an unbalance of power and harms democracy. This can lead to a division of the democratic ideal of \"One person, one vote.\" Earlier states seem to earn more federal money after the election than outside states, leaving them in the dust. This is why I firmly stand in affirmation for the resolution.", "qid": 44, "docid": "5c5b4bdf-2019-04-18T12:36:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.655860960483551}, {"content": "Title: Choose the Topic debate!!! Content: yes But see, Christmas would not be useless if there was no Easter because we are celebrating the day he was born. So therefore your point is incorrect. No matter what religion people believe in Christmas is still a celebration. And you get gifts from the belief in a man named Santa and he gets you whatever you want. Now it is not quite like a birthday so don't bring up that because I will prove you wrong. I am not going to go there right now. And thanksgiving is yes, a unique holiday but Christmas is more known. Whether you realize it or not its like April fools and the 4th of July. Which is more known? 4th of July. See where I am going with this. Conclusion I have just prove that Christmas is the best holiday and the most celebrated. Thank you for this debate and Vote me.", "qid": 44, "docid": "4045051a-2019-04-18T12:39:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.655852735042572}, {"content": "Title: A shared day when there is no commercial activity encourages family life and recreation Content: Legislation already exists in most countries where this issue is in dispute \u2013 including the UK where the NOP poll was conducted \u2013 have the option to opt out of working on a Sunday[i]. In addition there is an entire body of case law in the USA where various states have upheld the rights of individual workers not to work on a Sunday should they so choose[ii]. The contention that a shared day of rest is beneficial to the community simply ignores the fact that for many those leisure activities require others to be working. For example eating out, going to bars or shopping routinely feature as among peoples\u2019 favourite pastimes[iii]. [i] ACAS Guidance on Sunday Working [ii] Estate of Thornton v. Calder, Inc. (1985) and others [iii] \u201cStatistical Abstract of the United States 2009\u201d. Landmark Research.", "qid": 44, "docid": "6d756994-2019-04-15T20:22:48Z-00008-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6550173759460449}, {"content": "Title: Hot button issue Content: \"There I show that anyone who wants good for our country is a patriot. Thus, a major point, that has been CONCEDED. \" You established ONE part of patriotism. Not both. I got at the other part in my argument. \"Unless my opponent would like to contend that voting is bad, he has CONCEDED another essential point. \" I contend that voting is not necessary. What if you don't like either candidate? Does that make you a bad citizen? \"In CONCEDING the John example, he shows that he views John as good. .. \" Did I say \"concede\"? No. Besides, I can think John is good for a different reason and it would have nothing to do with your argument. (Way to be vague) \"This means voting, and he supports it by saying that if we don't vote, we aren't helpful to our nation. \" So the only helpful thing you can do for your nation is vote? I disagree. This makes Aristotle's quote false. \"Just because I go to cnn. com to find out about the Georgian war does not mean I care at all about Georgia. It only means I am interested in it. \" From MW: \"Main Entry: 2care Function: verb Inflected Form(s): cared; car\u00ef\u00bf\u00bding Date: before 12th century intransitive verb1 a: to feel trouble or anxiety b: to feel interest or concern \" Notice definition b; to feel interest is to care. \"My answer to this is that not teaching patriotism would mean not answering any of the questions that my opponent mentioned, and not teaching children what the US stands for. \" I already answered this: \". .. they will ask their parents. .. \" \"Basically my opponent is saying we shouldn't be doing something because we are already doing it. This is a CONTRADICTION. \" You misinterpreted me. I said that we shouldn't teach patriotism in schools because those children are already exposed to patriotism. For example, if you have passed Algebra 1, why would you bother taking it again? Furthermore, you can't define how patriotic each child will be; that is up to the child and his/her parents to decide.", "qid": 44, "docid": "c18c8c60-2019-04-18T19:39:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6546896696090698}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Content: I'll be at a tournament on friday and saturday, so I will unfortunately almost certainly forfiet round three due to the 24 hour period for making arguments. If my opponent could wait as long as possible to post her round three, I would appreciate that very much. I'll now attack my opponents case. In her framework, my opponent claims that the word should implys that something needs to be morally better. Ok, the problem is that this is not a debate based off of morality, but rather logic. Besides, accepting this framework leads one to a Con ballot, because you can see in my case that we're respecting states rights and minority interests along with keeping a moderate government. Winner takes all A. Votes are ignored First of all, turn the Pekec evidence. Imagine having to recount of such a small margin in a nation-wide election. Where would we even begin? Further, my opponent claims that whoever voted for the losing candidate has had their vote \"wasted\". Umm not exactly. The Heritage foundation pre-empts this argument in the article I've already linked: \u201cSuch arguments, however, are a bit disingenuous. These votes were not wasted. They were simply cast on the losing side of a popular vote within the state. If the 2000 election had been conducted based on nationwide popular vote totals only, would people claim that any vote for George W. Bush was \"wasted\" because Al Gore won the popular vote? Of course not. The votes for Bush were cast in an effort to win. In the event of a loss, they would simply have been votes for the losing candidate -- just as in any other election (such as an election for Governor or Senator).\u201d The system is a winner takes all system because that's how politics works! Unless my opponent is going to argue something ludicrous like giving Al Gore 2 years in office and George Bush 2 years, a winner takes all system is how our government is. Also, no negative impact argued. Sure, Al Gore supporters won't like that GWB won, but so what? B. Close elections more likely under EC. Turn: Let's look at the closest thing the U.S. has ever had to an election by direct popular vote, that of 1824. In the end, the president who won has merely 31% of the vote! The candidiate with the most popular votes had only 41%, still WELL under a majority. So when my opponent argues that we need to abolish the EC because a few times in history a minority president has been elected, we need to consider the implications of DPV. Such a thing is more likely to happen under DPV. Turn: Tilden only had a \"majority\" of popular votes because the democrats in the South were suppressing the black vote[1]. \" Democrats used violence and intimidation to keep blacks from the polls, while Democrats claimed that Republicans weren't simply disallowing votes tainted by violence but also legitimate returns that favored the Democratic party.\" Turn: Hayes was a good president. Hayes eneded reconstruction, ended the spoils system, dealt with corruption in the postal service, and enforced the monroe doctrine, among other things. 2. DPV ensures vote equality A. Close elections make some votes more valuable Kay, just like a vote in the 1984 election was less valuable than one in the 2000 election. Again my opponent criticizes the \"winner takes all\" aspect. Let me make a satirical response: Kerry got 48.3% of the vote in 2004! Its immoral that he doesn't get to be president for 48.3% of the time! Bush got to be president for 4 years, and Kerry didn;t get to be president at all! That made a vote for Bush infinitely more valuable than a Kerry vote, which is immoral. (also, in response to close elections being immoral we need to ask why. My Opponent hasn't even tried to explain this---she's merely asserted.) Does the above argument seem logical? Of course not. Again, the reason that winners take all is because that is how politics works. B. Small states are over-represented. When considering this argument, we need to ask ourselves what kind of impact this has, and what kind of implications acting on this would carry. Surely small states are \"over represented\" in the Senate, right? Should we abolish the senate and make everything based on population? Also turn: My Opponent argues that candidates need to campaign in all parts to morally represent the people. Unfortunately for her, this supports my side. Recall what I've stated earlier, that when candidates campaign in battleground states they are creating a platform to represent all Americans, not just the Americans living in their areas of the country. I see no ballot other than Con for this debate because my opponents arguments are not only refuted, but down-right impactless. Frmwrk: My opponent tries to weigh the framework by essentially saying that we need to consider morality above practicality. Before we can even consider this, let's look to the fact that NOWHERE has my opponent even attempted to argue what is/isnt moral! If we want to go with her framework, she must define, prove and defend a system of objective morality or else we cannot conclude the EC to be immoral. In response to my framework, she as argued \"As long as the state winner-take-all policy still exists, it is inevitable that a large portion of the voters in each state will be ignored, and this number is compounded 51 times, as previously mentioned\" That's a huge burden for my oppontnet to prove. The winner takes all system would still apply under DPV, that was the purpose of my point C, which she never responded to with anything other than \"morality\". In response to my 2nd observation she states: \"the direct popular vote system would use a single, national vote tally to determine the presidency.\" This turns her implied recount argument, such things would be much more likely to happen under a nation-wide scale. She's also stated that if a candidate gets >50% the house will vote. The house is almost ALWAYS dominated by one party, which would keep the voices of people from the other party unheard.1. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 44, "docid": "7e8cbef7-2019-04-18T18:37:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6545305252075195}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: This is also my first debate so this should be interesting. Voting should not be compulsory because it reduces the quality of the election, does not take into account the possibility of a voter not being able to choose between candidates, and actually contrasts the idea that in a democratic nation the voters are free to choose how want to vote, a choice that includes not voting at all.", "qid": 44, "docid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6542415618896484}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Content: Since Con has not provided any rebuttals, I will provide my third argument:Democratic Ideals PromotedTaking on this action of making voting compulsory would be only asking those who take advantage of the democracy to put in their work for the same democracy. We will be asking those citizens who wish not to go to a polling station to complete their duty. Additionally, the fact that the registered voters would have an incentive to go to vote in the election year, they will be forced to keep up with the parties and the leaders. If they have to go to the polling station, they will think, why not just vote for someone. This thought will increase the number of people who would place a legit vote and would be voting for what they believe.I would like to extend this argument, but seeing that Con has yet not provided rebuttals to my last two and has not strengthened Con's own arguments, I will delay the extension of this argument.", "qid": 44, "docid": "84367233-2019-04-18T17:20:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6538437008857727}, {"content": "Title: We Should Celebrate Colombus Day. Content: Hello. I am glad to be debating you on this very controversial issue. I want to start off by saying that Columbus Day means much more than the discovery of America. It is more of a symbolic holiday - one that celebrates what was to come: democracy, freedom, the United States. I can see why you are against Columbus Day, and why we should abolish it. But I believe, firmly, that abolishing it is not only disrespectful but senseless. Let me explain. Although Columbus did not discover America, he did bring it into the limelight, the first to do so. The arrival of Columbus brought forth the beginning of recorded history in the Americas. This is an achievement worth celebrating. The arrival of Columbus also brings to light the achievements reached during the Renaissance. Discovering America allowed new exploration ideas to bloom. Discovering America permitted people to move and ideas to spread beyond the reach of Europe, Asia, and Africa. These ideas include innovations in agriculture, in medicine, in art, in music, in religion. And, most importantly, government. Columbus Day has been an important part of our past, another reason to celebrate it. The tradition of Columbus Day began in 1792 - the 300th anniversary of his first voyage. Many other historic events have occurred because of Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 to honor the 400th anniversary of Columbus. President Harrison declared Columbus Day a legal day that year. The US has also traditionally admired Columbus - the proof is in the facts. Look at all the cities named after him - Columbus, Ohio for example. The US also possess the most statues of Columbus in the world. If we are going to commemorate him with all these statues and cities, it stands to reason that we have a legal holiday to celebrate his major accomplishment. Should we rename Columbus and take down the statues because Columbus did not discover America? Also, Columbus Day is the only holiday the US recognizes the heritage of an estimated 26 million Italian Americans - which accounts for the fifth-largest ethnic group in the nation. All of these reasons were pulled off of http://www.osia.org.... This is a great website and outlines my argument perfectly. Now, I know what opponents of Columbus Day used as their reasoning - that \"Columbus is responsible for the enslaving of millions, and the death of millions due to illness.\"I argue against the reason - it is ridiculous. Let's see - America was responsible for the enslaving of millions of Africans. America was responsible for the death of millions of Native Americans. America was, and is, responsible for tens of hundreds of wars in which we kill millions to gain nothing. But does that mean we ought not to celebrate the Fourth of July? Or Independence Day? No, we ought to - it is a symbol of freedom. A symbol of hard work. A symbol of the great nation that was built from this land. In the same way, Columbus Day celebrates the introduction of new ideas into the Americas. It celebrates new innovations in medicine, in agriculture, in government. And while America wasn't really discovered by Columbus, he did bring it into the limelight. He was the first to do this with his voyage across the Atlantic and should remembered for it.", "qid": 44, "docid": "481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6531330347061157}, {"content": "Title: Superdelegates may discourage future political participation Content: If the perception builds that primary elections are decided in large part in back-room dealings, voters may feel alienated and discouraged from participating in future elections. This would be particularly unfortunate in America, given the recent upsurge in voter participation.", "qid": 44, "docid": "51355556-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00077-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6529802083969116}, {"content": "Title: Should Monday be a school day Content: Yes.How about we say we are both wrong and right about are opinion.I'm right because that would be nice to have a day of school be a day of the weekend but your right because kids would not pay much attention in class and the day ( Monday ) would not work as a weekend.....Do you think this is a deal? That Monday SHOULD be a school day?....", "qid": 44, "docid": "495f145-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6528058052062988}, {"content": "Title: Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary. Content: I live in the most populous state in the union, and my vote is much less important then some small town farm boy in Iowa. Thats not fair. We should have a national primary, to allow my voice to be just as important in picking my nominee as someone in a diner when its 10 degrees outside and snowing.", "qid": 44, "docid": "9fe53ee-2019-04-18T19:57:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6525126695632935}, {"content": "Title: Direct democracy Content: Introduction is not relevant but interesting. Why so negative about a fun fact? Seriously, I am in a good mood and I am not sure why Pro is determined to be aggressive and fun-killing for no reason. R1) 80% of Americans is not enough. To have a fair and open election it needs to be hundert percent or at least something around 95%. Currently my opponent is not only perfectly fine with discrimination, he is also encouraging it. It is wrong to believe that people who can't use a computer are stupid or unable to understand the issue. Physically disabled people (blind, paralysed ) are unable to explore the internet as freely as others and Pro's system is therefore not providing a system that supports peoples interests best; it excludes minorities, poor and disabled people. How can he claim he knows all the reasons for not using a computer? Just imagine the flood of law suits against discrimination and their costs. As a computer science major I know exactly how the limits to a sever can be set and how easy they can be disabled. I provided examples how this is happening every day while Pro himself made the unqualified assumption. R2) It really shows a lack of political knowledge to believe that a country does not need to be guided and \"ruled\". This is not about misusing the power this about being able to do the day-to-day task-load of a government. A government is not an inactive group of people arguing around, these people work hard to get trading contracts done and constantly react to the changes in the country (e.g. lack of teachers in the education system). The information that congressmen would stay in position if they are not voted out is worse than the current system of making a totally new election. Because it assumes that people actually go and change their votes on a recent basis. This means most of the time (and for years over years) basically the same people would rule and in a crisis everyone panics, throws out the government and the country is hamstrung to act. Like people withdrawing all their money from the banks during some of the 20th century economic crisis and making the situation worse. This system has no chance in big countries (other than Switzerland) that face many diverse problems every day. A reason for Switzerland all-time-neutrality is that a decision takes a lot time there, as not only has the decision be to proposed but also has the community to be informed properly to be able to make an informed decision (\"educating the country\"). This is not something bad but it is only possible for small countries who's \"big issues\" are still not closely comparable to the \"big issues\" of countries like the USA; Do I bomb Syria or do we raise the milk tax by three percent? R3) Just because this is about the US (not mentioned in the introduction and I am not a US citizen so it's not obvious) does not mean basic human behaviour don't apply to Americans. Bulling and Blackmail are as real in America as they are everywhere and Pro's system is encouraging it. Voting for friends and family means there are a lot of people who have no idea about politics. You can't make desicions concerning the financial markets if you are 3-months-elected Engineer that struggles to keep his job (as he might not be Congressmen in a few months) while becoming a finance expert. This is another part of \"educating the whole\" country - everyone would need to be prepared and that's not realistic with the current economic system. Not to speak about that the average person has around three close friends [3] and (that's a guess of mine) they are likely to share a profession or education level. What a choice for every individual. Again, only famous and/or rich people would be able to actually be known by enough people to get voting rights. Furthermore: How can Pro expect that people down-vote people they don't know. If they vote for friends and family they know nothing of the other congressmen apart from them voting for what they thought was right in probably one case. This is not telling sufficiently, whether the congressmen makes a good job overall. Good people are as unable to be recognized as the other way round. You would fill a congress with people who have no idea how they got their, what they are supposed to do and probably with people who don't want to be there. There wouldn't be any politicians in politics. I think I have shown why Pro's system sure means well but will fail facing reality. [3] http://curiosity.discovery.com...", "qid": 44, "docid": "2d2c209d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6523955464363098}, {"content": "Title: Should Students vote in local school broad elections. Content: on the kindergarten and younger students, could vote, if the teachers or parents took a day before the election, to explain the issues and what each candidate's agendas in \"laid men terms\". But the issues effective us ( the students) more that most. This could also be useful for practicing for when you turn 18 and vote. (we should actually lower the voting age for all elections-http://www.debate.org... )", "qid": 44, "docid": "10771306-2019-04-18T14:29:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.651990532875061}, {"content": "Title: Only the educated should be allowed to vote. Content: I'm re-doing this debate again because the last person forfeited. Voting shouldn't be a right that everyone has, but a privilege that only people that are educated in poltics, and that have finished their education should be given to. If a system like this existed, we can surely avoid electing demogagues, and only people who will benefit the nation. Good Luck !", "qid": 44, "docid": "5bf8c145-2019-04-18T11:35:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6517547369003296}, {"content": "Title: have no elections rather than sham elections Content: Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election", "qid": 44, "docid": "66a98cd7-2019-04-15T20:24:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6517468690872192}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections Content: I accept, presuming the direct elections will be used as a popular vote. :)", "qid": 44, "docid": "6ec66cd9-2019-04-18T14:50:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6515229344367981}, {"content": "Title: Are Atheists being malicious and unfair with their War on Christmas? Pro=True, Con=False. Content: I would like to redirect to my opponent. The reasoning will be evident in the next round. This is to instruct him to answer these questions, as they are exceedingly relevant the more information he gives. I ask he please answer all entirely truthfully. 1. Does my opponent take issue in any way, shape or form, to celebration of Christmas? 2. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue to the naming of the evergreen in winter as a Christmas Tree? 3. Does my opponent in any way, shape or form, take issue with Nativity scenes? 4. Does my opponent believe recognition of Christmas is an offense if any government figure is the recognizer? 5. Is my opponent biased, or has any form of grievance, against the Republican Party, Conservatives, or Christians?", "qid": 44, "docid": "2423dc1b-2019-04-18T18:00:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6514989137649536}]}
{"query": "Should the penny stay in circulation?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.", "qid": 45, "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8149254322052002}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: This argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.", "qid": 45, "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8111113905906677}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I believe we should keep the penny around.", "qid": 45, "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8042316436767578}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: 1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5\" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5\" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7847654819488525}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7834039926528931}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait\" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny.", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7779332399368286}, {"content": "Title: That Pennies Should Be Abolished Content: The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate \"penny\" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.", "qid": 45, "docid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.777787983417511}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Pro had set path of instruction for how he felt the debate should go. Con did everything within an ability to follow that instruction. Pro made all legitimate claims for reason to stop minting the penny. I agree, I too felt the penny should go at one time. Why attack a legitimate claim that is actually part of the job the penny is used for, something I did not know at the time. Just as the cost of production is a gauge on a much larger machine. Yes it cost more to make then the materials it is made of. There can be a hundred good reasons to hurt someone justification never makes it right just necessary . 1.Pro is incapable of understanding what the actual pennies value is. It is unclear if I can explain it to every-on let alone just one person. I will try any-way. The penny is the same as the small line on a clock that equals seconds. These lines cost more than they are worth to put on the clock, we actually don\"t need them. Why have they? Simple they are part of that measurement device. Do you have to use them? No! Of course not. Do other people need them? 1.(A) The people who use the penny the most do not always touch the penny. So it is understandable how some-one does not know that a penny is actually a negative number outside cost in an economy gauge (measurement). It is not just one number it is two numbers, first number is .01 the second number is .0001. 100 points of measurement make up one dollar multiply that 100 by, 0001 and the answer is .01 one-penny. This argument and number three are connected. 2. The money is being sent inappropriately, not will be. One of the highest cost of the penny is not the production of the penny it is enforcing the law that should have protected the penny. The penny has been used as an inexpensive way to mine metals directly out of an economy. This is where a 2.41 cost ratio of roughly 3 to 1 is minimal as the cost to enforce the law is substantially higher. This cost can be seen as $3.00 dollars or greater to every .01 penny in production. ( 300+ / 1 ) It is this cost which has been squandered on other things. 3.The penny has lost its buying power. It was lost, it had buying power at one time. There had been many things a penny could by with its value. Where did it go? Pro should be telling is why we do not want that buying power back. Not telling us why he or others do not want to do the work to get that power back. It is not better than the National clock it is tide to debt. Amendment to Conclusion of: Federal property does not accept the penny. \"There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents.\" Rebuttal: So you do not see that the United States Armed Forces is one of Congresses biggest money pits as an issue? In a simple common defense to the general welfare, the United States might be in much better shape Dollars and Cents had some people been Forced to count penny instead of spend dollars. By the way admitting publicly that the United Stat", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7758022546768188}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S.", "qid": 45, "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7750933766365051}, {"content": "Title: Gettin rid of pennie's Content: Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We\"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe\"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren\"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That\"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there\"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects.", "qid": 45, "docid": "8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7722238898277283}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: Thank you for the quick response. Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" {1} To my opponent, I did incorporate the parts where you stated \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \"{1} To Voters as well as my opponent, the biggest flaw made by my opponent within this statement is the use of the word \"facilitate\". Facilitate means to \"Make (an action or process) easy or easier. \"{2} With this said, we can clearly see that the penny under my opponents term and use of the word facilitate, achieves its purpose as it allows for us to access every cent of a dollar, which then makes the exchange of goods easier to occur and thus should remain. \"eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. . .. .My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. \"{1} How is this comparison invalid? Yes, I admit the fact that the American Flag achieves its purpose in terms of patriotic symbol of nationhood and identity, but like stated earlier, the penny also achieves its purpose of facilitating the exchange process as well as achieving its sentimental purpose. In conclusion, eliminating the penny, is equivalent to eliminating the American Flag. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"{1} My opponent misunderstand's the reason for making this comparison. In his second rebuttal, my opponent stated that \"Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. \"{1} This comparison was made to attack my opponents argument that since the penny is disproportional to our economic goals, then it should be eliminated. This comparison is simple trying to convey to both my opponent and the public, that just like the statue of liberty that does not comply to our economic goal, we should not eliminate the penny, as it achieves its purpose in both facilitating the economy and sentimental value and commemoration of the past president. \"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \" This statement completely contradicts my opponents stand within this debate. My opponent through out this debate constantly stated that the penny is worthless and thus would be easier to neglect and many places do not accept the penny, now he is saying that people will hesitate to donate a penny. In terms of penny drive and its Success using the nickel, my opponent although asked in my previous argument to show his evidence fails to do so. So his claim that the nickel would be as easily giving up should be seen as simple opinion without evidence. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. \" My opponent has no justification to say that these much people will be willing to donate there nickel so in the same term, how is he to say that over 18,000 people will be able to donate a penny compared to the 100 people who donate the nickel. The point is that since I provided evidence showing that pennies are more likely donated than nickels, my scenario clearly overturns my opponent's scenario. \">($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. \" This makes absolutely no sense. I asked for evidence not personal calculation. As for the 84.5% middle and upper class, who is to say that they wouldn't give the charities pennies because they asked for pennies. The 15.5 lower class evidence was not to show how many people donates, but to show the percent of people who would be greatly affected by the elimination of the penny. \"My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. .. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. \" Following my opponents new calculation, this completely goes against his idea that a coin is in existence to facilitate the economy. If the penny already makes it easier to complete an exchange, then why eliminate it? Also my opponents scenario is highly unlikely as producers are more likely to round up rather than down. so the $7.02 item would be rounded to $7.05 and since the $6.98 item is round up to $7.00, then the overall consumer is now loosing $1,200 following the 3000 costumer scenario. This means that the elimination of the coin will defeat my opponents main purpose of eliminating the penny, as exchange is now harder for the consumer. Voters: I win because I showed how the penny facilitates the process of exchange. I win because I showed that the penny has other value other than its face value. I win in argument as I defended as well as attacked my opponents arhuments My opponent drops some of my arguments such the argument that eliminating the penny hurts the poor, and the argument that eliminating the penny means an increase production of the nickel which cost more to produce than the penny. SOURCES IN COMMENT. (ran out of character space) Thank you!", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.767705500125885}, {"content": "Title: We should get rid of the penny Content: Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. \"These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America.\" said Weller. \"Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned.\" The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. \"Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want,\" said Weller. \"It's just common cents.\" Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;", "qid": 45, "docid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7642332315444946}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect. )The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful. \" Greg Mankiw, EconomistI agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. I thank commentor \"Janus\" for bringing up a relevant question. No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out. Sources used in the previous and current post:(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011<. http://www.redeemingriches.com...;(2)Lewis, Mark. \"Ban the Penny. \" Forbes. com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006<. http://www.forbes.com...;(3)Kahn, Ric. \"Penny Pinchers. \" Globe. com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006<. http://www.boston.com...;(4)Saffire, William. \"Abolish the Penny. \" nytimes. com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006<. http://select.nytimes.com...;(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www. pennies. org>(6)\"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'\" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006<. http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;(7) \"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law. \" Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006<. http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7631475925445557}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S. Content: I think that pennies should stop being produced by the U. S. mint and taken out of circulation, similar to what Canada did. The penny costs more to make then it's worth, it's rarely actually used. It's a detriment to our economy.", "qid": 45, "docid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7626137137413025}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. keep the penny Content: I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me.", "qid": 45, "docid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.760879397392273}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7596699595451355}, {"content": "Title: Gettin rid of pennie's Content: Just because the penny will be soon forgotten and people will not care about it after awhile does not mean that it must go. The penny and other discontinued change have been forgotten these day's because the people hve been forced to forget! It's gone, no more of it and common people have no say to bring it back to life so they forget. The other chnge that hs been discontinued like the half penny, was just a smll part of the money business, except the penny was a big part, it filled in anywhere when you did not have the extra, Exmple would be an item cost's 2.87$ well you could use a toonie, three quarter's, two nickel's, and a penny. The penny was a steping stool for learning how to count money, it was easier to remember the one plus one plus one... And now the little children are expected to count by five's straight off when they learn about money, it will be hard, plus they will have to learn the rounding you'r supposed to do of a price if it's in need of a penny. Don't forget the old foak's either, like they say you can't teach an old dog new trick's.", "qid": 45, "docid": "8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7574609518051147}, {"content": "Title: Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel Content: RULES OF DEBATE The rules are very simple. I expect a pleasant, semi-formal debate. Please consider these rules if you plan to accept this debate: Participants of all ages and experience are welcome to accept this debate. However, I expect my opponent to behave and take this partially serious. I want us to have fun and have a factual debate. No vulgar language and or personal attacks. I don't expect this to be an issue but I feel I should mention this. The first round is to be for acceptance only. These three rules should be followed or defeat will be considered by default. They're not very difficult and I expect you to follow them.BE IT RESOLVED: that the penny and the nickel be eliminated from production in the US Mint. Good luck to my opponent (whomever you may be) and I look forward to this debate!", "qid": 45, "docid": "5dbc32e9-2019-04-18T13:24:41Z-00006-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7563300728797913}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.", "qid": 45, "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7521756291389465}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies\" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, \"$10,000 for maintenance(annually)\"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately \"$15 million dollars\" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . \"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \" This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. \"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. \" My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. \" This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. \" If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} \"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. \" If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. \"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. \" A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7512025237083435}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue.", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.74957275390625}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent. Refutations: 1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1) 2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something. 3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with. Arguments against: 1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one. 2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2) 3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous. I will begin with this. Good luck, con! (1) http://www.factmonster.com... (2) http://www.pennies.org... (3) http://www.businessinsider.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7491947412490845}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims, I would like to point out that he did not attack any of my arguments, merely defended his own. This means the arguments I made still apply, which means that my opponent tacitly agrees to the statements: 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. (On my opponent's case): Their #5 argument is not proven correct. These issues by their own merit ceasing production of the penny, en though I will now move on to attack my opponent's case. This first part isn't an argument, and has no place 1:This argument makes no sense. My opponent claims that the penny is .0001% of a dollar, even though it is exactly 1% of a dollar. This argument also makes no claims as to why .0001% of a dollar is a good system for a coin. 2:My opponent claims that the money would be spent inappropriately elsewhere. First off, he supplies no reason why the money would go towards the wrong spending, so it is safe to assume that the money would be spent in equal percentiles of current tax distribution. Second off, the idea that money spent to produce spending would go to illegitimate spending is exactly wrong, because producing pennies is the exact illegitimate spending that my opponent warns against. This means that my opponent agrees spending money on the wrong things is bad, yet refuses to see he is arguing for one of those systems. 3:Yet again, my opponent claims pennies are better economic indicators than the Debt Clock without providing a source of evidence, merely asserting that this is true. Also, the Debt Clock was not a part of his original argument, which means that this is a new argument and not a defense for his older argument, showing that pennies are not good economic indicators. 4:My opponent claims that the nickel will be next, which is not his original argument here. On the contrary, his original argument was about increased cost in bulk purchases, which is false. Also, my opponent claims that nickels are .05 cents, even though they are 5 cents. My opponent finally claims that eventually the nickel will suffer the same fate, and at that point, it would be justified to remove it for the same reasons proven here today. This last statement is not an argument, and also has no evidence to back his claim. At last, I would like to show why the Pro won the debate 1)The Pro defended and attacked all issues presented, while the Con did not 2) The Pro consistently used evidence to prove their side of the debate, whereas the con did not 3) The Pro has shown a consistent understanding of what each coin is worth in relation to the dollar, whereas the Con and repeatedly shown that they do not know the percentiles and costs of each coin.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7476354241371155}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: Today, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that \"the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History.\" The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, \"the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system.\" He also claimed that the statement that the \"'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, \"two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article \"Penny Pinchers\" for The Globe, \"the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year.\" not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be \"important to our pricing system.\" Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, \" the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle\" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, \"Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59.\" (William Saffire) *shakes head*", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7466524243354797}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: The penny may have sounded like a good idea when It was invented, but except for certain transactions of \"$22.01\" it isn't necessary. The penny costs more than it is worth to make! Sure, it would cause a ripple in the world of money, but we can get over that!", "qid": 45, "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7461080551147461}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of pennies Content: Roadmap- I will go over the benefits of the penny then refute my opponents arguments. C1) While individually pennies are not worth much, over time they add up. A) In 2002, Gallup polling found that 58 percent of Americans stash pennies in piggy banks, jars, drawers and the like, instead of spending them like other coins. Some people eventually redeem them at banks or coin-counting machines! So many Americans actually do use the penny. B) Furthermore, the penny is used to raise money by charity organizations. People who would not be willing to part with a larger bill are often willing to give up Pennies. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has raised 150 million dollars through its \"Pennies for Patients\" program over 15 years. Without the penny, this cancer research would not have been possible. C2) Pennies help fight inflation \"We think the penny is important as a hedge to inflation,\" says director Mark Weller of Americans for Common Cents. \"Any time you have more accurate pricing, consumers benefit.\" Small business owners and small purchases rely on the penny. Loss of the penny will create inflation and price instability. http://www.offthekuff.com... C3) The rise of credit cards defeats the purpose of rounding coins. The common complaint about pennies is that they are inefficient to use. Credit cards however operate by computer. They can handle as many digits as needed. As credit cards become more common, pennies will be used less. So these disadvantages become less noticeable. Onto my opponents case \"But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007.\" First, I would like to point out my opponent provided no sources for this claim(or any claim he makes). The argument should be discredited on that basis alone. Second, the federal government has a budget of three trillion a year. 100 Million dollars would be .0003 percent of the yearly budget. This would have a virtually unnoticeable effect on the budget (It would save everyone money in the pennies, which as my opponent has abolished would result in no benefit for most tax payers). This is significantly outweighed by the extra money a 99 cent purchase would now cost (1 percent). http://www.wallstats.com... \"So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents\" This part of my opponents case would have a significant negative impact on the economy. Suddenly, every penny a person owns would quintuple in value. The amount of money in the US economy would change. Assuming Congress was even considering passing this bill, there would be a mad dash by consumers to acquire as many pennies as they can. This would create much instability in the market place. In summary, I provide 3 reasons we should keep the penny in circulation, disprove the only reason my opponent actually gives to abolish the penny(100 million spent) and prove how his implementation would hurt the economy far more than it would help.", "qid": 45, "docid": "922d439b-2019-04-18T19:30:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7439531087875366}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7438230514526367}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn\"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn\"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800\"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7420347929000854}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: As this is the last round I will keep this as short and to the point as I can.RoundingMy opponent continually states that I am reaching wile clinging to an outdated argument that is not even factual. For the $600 million that my opponent said will be lost will also be gained by both citizens and merchants (Please see my previous statement on complete rounding). Yes I did admit that some would come out on top and some would come out on bottom, but by only a few cents each, nothing that would amount to 600 million in deficit even if people tried to save money this way. (see cbc link)Another issue we have bumped heads on is the use of outdated information. Any high school will tell you a report made by someone can be outdated if it is opinion based and if it is older then 10 years. My source from \"1992\" is not from 1992 as my opponent stated, It is from 2012 based off charity trends that existed since before 1992 till 2013. Their Source is an opinion based report published in 1990.Minting CostMy opponent brought up that the cost of a nickel is also higher then the cost of a penny. He/she assumes that if I say \"we should be getting rid of pennies\" I must make a case to get rid of nickels too. The simple fact is that nickels do not round the same as pennies, and we would have to do something about quarters too. It simply is not feasible to get rid of the nickel (yet). This does not undermine the savings that loosing the penny would would create. America would still be gaining back the cost of creating pennies wile not losing any more then planned on nickels. My opponent did not tackle the subject of a penny will never equal its cost to make, but simply said it decreased from 2011-2013. \"This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make\" The cost to make pennies each year is much, much more then petty change:\"This year, the Mint has spent more than $114 million to make pennies, compared with $83.7 million for nickels, $72.3 million for dimes and $133 million for quarters.\"It is an expensive coin! Overshadowing nickels and dimes all for what? To end up on the street. http://www.wsj.com...My opponents Forbes site does not say \"higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing\" it said it \"used\" to be a good thing. Today the government has standards and laws that prohibit the creation of money for no reason. We also have a harder time counterfeiting currency now then they used to during the original years of the country.Charities\"fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation\". I did explain this one. Once again I said that a nickel will quickly over shadow a penny (5-1). Nickels are worth five times more, therefore the will overshadow a penny five times to one. My opponent then preceded to call me names (hypocrite) by saying my 2012 source was from 1992 and again forces the assumption that people will stop donating if there are no pennies.Canadian: we are in agreement.Waste of TimeCollecting: I am sure the mother and daughter, father and son who collect pennies will be much happier when their collection goes up in value due to the abolished of the penny in stores. Donations: The cancer patient has a good chance of survival due to other non penny donations. Your comparison is not correct, saying pennies are a waste of time is like saying a dog only has so many years, go play with him instead of rolling virtually useless coins. My opponent did not refute the actual dollar amount that every American will lose per year due to time wasted on pennies.Not Accepted for all Purchases. My opponent agrees with me but tries to make my point less valuable then a penny by saying it is a waste of time. I would like to explain with the example:wile you have to fumble in a change purse around 50 pennies (not accepted at a vending machine), you could have had two quarters in change (or ten nickels) and you could have gotten that bag of chips you wanted but now you are hungry and in a rush with pennies weighing you down. Vending machines are only getting better and more convenient, who knows when you will get your next snack craving.Bad for the Environment: \"Pennies are innocent.\" 18,000 metric tons of zinc are used per year to create pennies. Supply and demand dictates how much zinc they will dig up and therefore how much pollutants they will put out. Reducing the demand will reduce this environmental catastrophe that pennies are indeed guilty of helping to create.http://www.forbes.com...Thank you for reading. Thank you for debating. Please consider me for the win!", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7408576607704163}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: For reader/voter convenience I will go in the same order my opponent does Cont. 1- In order for this response to have a chance to hold water, my opponent first must prove that the United States indeed has the resources necessary to grow enough food for the whole nation. Until my opponent gives proof of this, the food portion of the response must be ignored. If we do not have the facilities to do so, then importing food is certainly not a waste of money as it helps ensure the continuation of the nation. As far as the monuments go, the point of having them is to commemorate the various historical heroes of our country. My point is that we are paying extra money to keep the penny when there is no reason to keep it other than your suggestion of the benefit nostalgic value which I have shown not only to be outweighed by the harm of economic down-fall but that it in-fact does not exist. And as I showed in my first contention, the penny is NOT a small waste of money. Cont. 2- My opponent forgets that the other half of products would go down in his hypothetical situation. However, this is not a viable situation unless stores never changed pricing strategies, sales tax would be eliminated, and people never bought more than one item, all of which randomize rounding. In fact, a recent study(http://www.wfu.edu...) confirms that the effect of rounding would be neutral. Cont. 3- Here my opponent drops that we would lessen our dependence and that that would be beneficial, thus those points stand. He goes off into an illogical point that we would become more dependent on countries making the ingredients for other coins. I ask how is it possible that lowering the need of zinc heightens the need for other metals. Cont. 4- I am sorry, there has been some misunderstanding. When I said the penny has no value, I meant nostalgic value. The stat with 58% saving and the germ reference were simply to point out that people think so little of the penny that they not only put them away rather than keep to spend them but germs actually become a bigger part of the decision of whether or not to pick up a penny off the ground than the value of the penny, actual or nostalgic. (Besides that money \"poured back\" into the economy would just raise inflation.) Last paragraph- Please note I never said that the penny would be THE reason for an economic recession, just a contributor. My opponent concludes by saying that the amount of debt grows \"THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.\" Considering that I have proven that the penny costs us BILLIONS of dollars and this has remained uncontested, this only strengthens my argument. Now, I must wait for my opponent's closing statements.", "qid": 45, "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7399385571479797}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Thanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro \"might\" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace \"China\" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS \"Report\" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL \"F\" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said \"paid by each consumer,\" as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that \"the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small.\" Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together\u2014just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7395411729812622}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: I will be debating for stopping the production of the penny. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!", "qid": 45, "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7390305995941162}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Pro lacks actual arguments, he/she simply posted refutations to what I said, which, in my opinion is not enough to win. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Minting Cost My esteemed colleague has stated that, as of 2011, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. However, I'd like to point out that they have cited a source from 2011. As of 2014, pennies only cost 1.7 cents to make, down 2.4 cents from 2011 (. http://blogs.wsj.com...). Therefore, the evidence shows that the amount it costs to make the penny is actually on the decline. Soon, it will not be much of a loss for the US to make it, meaning that there is not an adequate reason to abolish its use. Refutation 2: Debt \"Removing the penny is only good for debt\" is what Pro states. I strongly disagree as we will lose $600 million/year with the rounding system as earlier showed in my first argument. The United States' debt recently hit $18 trillion, and I believe Pro and I have a common interest in lowering that debt. However, the solution is not to take the penny out of service. Also, after this statement, Pro brings up a source and says that the US will save 7.6 trillion dollars/year without the penny, yet he/she fails to provide any reasoning behind this. It's just going to happen. .. somehow. .. I don't think so. Therefore, Pro's case has one more flaw. Refutation 3: Economical Harm Refutation My mistaken opponent stated that the penny will only affect cash transactions in response to my argument about economic harm. However, they have ignored a chunk of the argument in saying this since the source I stated about the $600 million a year being lost is talking about cash purchases. (Here's a link: . http://pennies.org...) Therefore, Pro simply danced around my argument instead of actually attacking it head-on. Refutation 4: Charities Refutation A contradictory statement made by Pro is \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel. \" This is like saying \"People like beef, but they'll like chicken better sooner or later. \" Therefore, It is a contradictory statement that cannot be proved. To expand on my charity point, pennies are better than nickels for donations since pennies are worth less, and, because of that, people donate more, which eventually becomes more money for the charities. If people donated nickels, they would be more stingy with how many they gave. Refutation 5: Canada \"We use\" and \"As a Canadian\" are two prime examples of phrases used by Pro that prove his/her misunderstanding of the topic. If I may reiterate, the topic is \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service,\" not \"The Canadian Penny Should be Taken out of Service. \" Pro fails to use any American examples and is under the delusion that the Canadian economy is exactly the same as the United States economy, proving another point for Con. Refutation 6: Burden I gave Pro a 3-pronged burden of proof and, so far, no prong has been fulfilled. Let's break them down individually. 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. Pro slightly dances around this by saying that it costs a lot to make a penny, but never follows through, and I have already taken this down earlier. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. Pro has not mentioned anything whatsoever about this prong. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. Pro never even brings up a clear-cut plan. Sure, they mention things like \"the penny plan\" and \"the plan,\" but what is this plan? The world may never know, or at least not myself and the voters since Pro has not mentioned this. Here is a statement made by Pro: \"I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport. \" If he/she does not agree with my terms (they actually were originally outlined since the first round was for acceptance), then why didn't Pro attempt at refuting them? As an Instigator, it is assumed that I have the burden of proving my point. I already have proved my point, yet Pro has not proved his/hers since he/she has failed to meet his/her burden. I completely agree that it is up to the voters to decide, this burden is a mere aid for the voters, saying that if Pro does not have these three things, they can't win because their case is not sufficient to prove their assertions. Conclusion: Because of Pro's ignoring of evidence, misunderstanding of the topic, outdated evidence, and inability to fulfill his/her burden, it is clear that Con is currently the front runner in this debate.", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.73806232213974}, {"content": "Title: That Pennies Should Be Abolished Content: The big problemI live in New Zealand. We abolished the one cent coin ages ago. In fact, we've abolished everything beneath the ten cent. That means you can lose up to five cents on each purchase, assuming that shops do round fairly (they never do - it's usually more like 9 cents per purchase) by not using physical money. That might only add up to twenty cents a day (assuming maybe ten purchases), but that's $67 a year. In the US, currency is somewhat more valuable than in New Zealand, but still $67 is quite a considerable sum of money. The international banking system is based around the cent. When you transfer money, whether locally, at POS, or internationally, a fixed number with exactly two decimals is used to describe how much is being transferred. Even if pro abolishes physical pennies, the value of currency that pennies represent will continue to exist. The net effect is that card payers pay the exact price, and penny payers pay two cents too many or too few each time. And here's the problem - remember how we said right at the start that money needs to have an \"agreed upon value\"? And how pro was claiming that anything that prevents money from having an agreed upon value will be failing to fulfil the purpose of currency? Well here his own model clearly gives each good not one \"agreed upon value\", but two - one value for those who pay with one form of cash transfer, and another for those who choose to use a different mode of cash transfer. The harm here is that without an agreed upon value, you can't have a standard of value and thus no stable economy (. http://www.investopedia.com...). Not that the US economy is currently a bastion of stability, but this can only compound that issue. If pennies were really that useless, consumers wouldn't accept themHow many times have you gone to a shop and seen somebody refuse to take their change because they claimed it wasn't worth their while to pick it up? Consumers are not dumb. They support pennies (. http://www.pennies.org...), by and large, because they want to have pennies. They provide some value, otherwise they have no obligation to accept them. But they do. There is demand for the penny. Like pro doesn't see the point in pennies, I don't see the point in bottled water. If you have a safe water source conveniently already in your kitchen, why not use it? But that's no reason to abolish it, because other people clearly do see the value, and it's not doing me any harm for them to drink it. In the same way, it's no reason to abolish pennies, other people clearly like them, and there is no harm to pro if other people accept them. The model is pretty hastily thought throughYou know what will cost more than all the pennies are worth? Collecting them all up. It's a huge deadweight loss since it doesn't actually provide any real economic benefit. And then what? So the treasury has this big pile of coins, are they going to sell them to Walt Disney for a new Scrooge McDuck set? Just dumping that much metal is not exactly a great idea for the environment or anybody. And all the cost that the US has paid in making the coins will have gone to waste forever. They Cost More Than They Are WorthIf you read pro's own source #1, you'll note that Obama changed the Fed's secret recipe for minting coins so that the numbers pro cites are now all wrong. This problem has already been solved and it didn't require the abolition of the penny. The \"Coin Modernization, Oversight & Continuity Act\" provides that the treasury has to keep looking for new ways to drive down this cost still further. On the other hand, changing the factors of production in favor of other coins actually works out to be more expensive for the country as a whole (. http://www.pennies.org...). Sure those coins are worth more, but it also means you have to pay more - and with US money becoming relatively less scarce as more is made, you lose out in the end. Opportunity CostOpportunity costs of earning are not realised in spending. Sure, it might take twice as long to earn a penny at the checkout than at your job, just like you can probably buy a TV much faster than you can earn the money to buy one (unless you work for, say, Panasonic). That's normal, and it's OK, because to be an opportunity cost they would actually need to compete for the same time. News flash, those two seconds are probably not going to get you to work any faster, and if you arrived to your work two seconds early your greedy boss is too lazy to fill out all the accounting to give you two seconds of overtime. The marginal two seconds spent at the checkout are therefore not time lost that you could be earning something at your job. Moreover, it's not the same penny - one is change, the other income. Inefficiency in one aspect of a product, in this case the handling, does not really justify the abolition of this product, but even if it did pro has failed to show any kind of real opportunity cost. UselessThis was my opponent conjecturing that the opportunity cost was so big, nobody could be bothered emptying their piggy banks any more. I'm not sure how wealthy my opponent is, but as I understand it, jobs in the US remain scarce, poverty remains a problem, and piggy banks are so dry of funds that I wouldn't be surprised if the national meteorological service declares a nationwide drought tomorrow. Absolutely people are digging into their piggy banks. That's probably because you guys have just come out of a depression. In time, businesses will naturally begin rounding their prices due to inflationary pressures making pennies less cost-effective for them to calculate. At the point where pennies can no longer be spent, then perhaps there might be a case for them being useless. Since pennies can still be spent, however, they have a use, and are therefore useful. The motion fails.", "qid": 45, "docid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7380075454711914}, {"content": "Title: a penny is worth more then a dime Content: Check and mate, I successfully made you give an actual argument. Thank you for participating in your own debate. If the viewing audience would take a close look at what my opponent has written down, you may notice the same thing I have. She has attached as a true value for coins not what the department of treasury denotes them, but rather their true worth is reflected in the cost it takes to make them. For a penny, normally worth 1.000 cents, she points out it cost 0.0126 cents to make it so making a penny is a net gain of 0.9874 cents. Then she goes on to tell us that it takes even less than that to make the coins that are worth more in the eyes of the department of treasury. Ergo even greater net gain. Perhaps the source she gave actually conveys something different, that the net gain in making a dime is less than the net gain you make in making a penny, but since my opponent clearly failed to articulate that and by some accident articulated the opposite meaning, she should lose this debate. Plus my opponent has completely ignored my case that I have been making every single round that money only has the value it does under certain conditions. When disaster strikes your area candles, flashlights, generators, fresh bottled water and guns become worth there wait in gold. When everything hits the fans and we are forced to find what any worth there is in these two coins you see that because dimes are more sturdy and harder, it takes less to fill a bag full of coins that you can hit people with like a club to defend yourself. My opponent has also never addressed my point that you cant pay the cashier with .0126 cents, they will laugh at you when you try. You have to save all your .0126 cents until you have enough to make a hole cent that you can exchange them for, because a completely made penny is the lowest value that any commercial vendor will accept. Since you cannot lose lower than one cent values they virtually have no value until they become a whole cent, and once a whole coin the dime clearly stands out over the penny. Plus, my opponent did not specify we refer to only dimes made recently with FDR on them. We must be talking about all dimes and pennies. The best penny that is worth the most would be made with real copper, but the best dime would be made with real silver. Melted down the dime is worth more, cause silver is worth more than copper. http://www.bellbookandcandle.biz... So lets refresh my four argument. 1) my opponent conveyed her argument so poorly that if you didn't read her source you would be convinced dimes are worth more. 2) When people stop valuing money dimes serve better as make shift club than pennies 3) People only accept whole cents now a day's, so the denoted value on the coin is all that we care about or believe in. 4) My opponent has obviously been referring to her penny that she pulled out of her pocket, it was minted last year its not worth much, and the dime in question is obviously supposed to be mine and mine is a factory mint condition silver dime that predates the FDR dime. It's worth way more than a 10 cents now. And very much more than her penny. I don't owe my opponent cheetos, but I believe you owe me your 2-cents. I hear there worth more than dimes these day's! ;) Vote for Vader (he was framed)", "qid": 45, "docid": "ab7e692e-2019-04-18T19:08:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.737917423248291}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.", "qid": 45, "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7374851703643799}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of the penny!! Content: My opponent claims that the penny costs more to make than it's worth. However, the government would not lose money overall, since a $20 to $0.04 deficit in the case of a $20 bill would outnumber the extra $0.003 it costs to make a penny. The penny is also very important for the sake of providing change and paying sales tax. For example, say you want to buy a double cheeseburger from McDonalds' dollar menu. In some states, the sales tax is $0.06, bringing the total cost of that burger up to $1.06. You would need to pay with a $1 bill, a nickel, and a penny. Unless you pay with, for instance, a dollar and a dime, in which case the cashier would need to use pennies to pay you back in change.", "qid": 45, "docid": "2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.736983060836792}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Okay, man, it has been a while since I've done this. I thank Kleptin for organizing this tournament, and alto2osu for this debate challenge. Without further ado, let us begin (As a brief roadmap, I will go down my opponent's case before my own). Interpretation- This is a reasonable interpretation, and the one I intended when I originally made the debate. Thus, I agree and there is no clash here. 1a. I cannot deny the cost of zinc in the world. However, alto2osu makes it seem like the discontinuation of pennies is the only action to take, with the net benefit of public confidence in the economy through reform. However, we can see that the elimination of the one-cent piece would actually LOWER consumer confidence, as the German Finance Ministry stated for the introduction of the one-cent euro piece [1, page 8]: \"If a euro one-cent coin were not introduced, public opinion might regard this as a sign of weakness in the euro and confidence in the stability of the common European currency might suffer as a result\" Also, this is not the only option to solve this problem. At the point where the cause of this cost is from the metal it is made from, primarily zinc, we can see that it is much more beneficial to accept the following counter-plan: \"The United States should change the metal that pennies are made out of\". Not only does this solve my opponents first point, but it has the net benefit of avoiding the harms of the negative case that is to come. 1b. Again, while the case my seem to be against the penny, the actual cost of a cash transaction comparatively is not the wasteful picture my opponent paints. When stores calculated the cost of each transaction (in time, armored courier costs, etc.), they found that cash transactions, including those with pennies, were the cheapest by FAR, whether it be per item, or in total transactions [1, page 6] Also, I searched for this report by the NACS that you claimed, but I could not find it. I'm not saying you are lying, but could you please give the source? 2 First, cross-apply the counter-plan. If the penny is not made out of zinc, we don't have this \"problem\". Secondly, we must see that even if this sale happens, we do not become more \"indebted\" to China. This is simply one company selling itself off. Ok, we don't have the world's biggest deposits of zinc. Therefore it makes sense we are not the biggest producers; this is not apocalyptic , just common sense. \"We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy.\" Can you prove this? Where is the bright-line between us being able to operate freely and not operate freely? On human rights, we already have NO influence on China in the issue of human rights, nor do private businesses as shown with the recent tiff between China and Google. In fact, China shot back at the US calling the US hypocrites for criticizing China.[2] Neg case (other than impact turns): 1 Direct Impact. If one were to get rid of the penny, obviously one would have to round prices to the nearest nickel. While seemingly insignificant, this causes a huge price to be paid. Due to the disproportionate amount of items ending with 9 and certain other numbers [1 page 3], a $600 million \"round tax\" as Lambra calls it, would be paid by each consumer yearly simply because of this rounding. If we are going to talk economic impacts, this forced extra spending that does not actually produce benefit is simply going to leave consumers with less disposable income, meaning less spending which means a slower recovery if not another recession. 2 Long-term-Inflation. Long term impacts do not look any better. The rounding that would occur would negatively affect governmental spending. Using data from the congressional budget office, Lambra calculates that government spending would be up by 2 billion JUST by this rounding. Note that this was is 2001, when the economy was actually good and our spending was not that high. With the higher spending we have today, the artificial rise would just be that much greater. 3 Stores- Finally, we can look to the affect on stores. After taking into account the fact that cash transaction is the cheapest transaction to make, we can see that this rounding would run stores out of buisness. At a 1998 convention, the NACS stated that the average profit per transaction is about 6-7 cents [1 page6] Thus, a two-three cent rounding would take about 30% of a store's profit basically kicking someone while they are down. Also we can look to the threat deterrence of pennies. Without pennies, exact change is more likely to be had. At that point, the register does not have to be opened to procure change and the employee can just pocket the money. With pennies, this is MUCH less likely to happen. For all these reasons, I urge a vote in negation. 1: http://college.holycross.edu... 2: http://www.reuters.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7362425327301025}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: \"The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service.\" The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7362409234046936}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:\" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market.\"\" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.\"\"Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\"As of 2011, it costs 2.41\u00a2 US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the \"penny plan\". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people \"have\" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the \"worthless\" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7362237572669983}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.", "qid": 45, "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7357513904571533}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: Pennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.", "qid": 45, "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7351477146148682}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: In this last round, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify some major issues and prove why you should vote for me. Firstly, I will refute, weigh the significance of controversial arguments, address the burden, and, finally, conclude. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Rounding My opponent has brought up in their refutation to my argument about economic harm that she did not feel the need to formally reply to my argument because I \"did not cite where\" my \"facts are where from\" (This grammatically should be \"were from\") . That is a sorry excuse for what is truly a lack of a refutation for my argument. He/she moves on to saying that my source is from 1990, and then because of that completely rejects my argument. There are better ways to refute this than just pointing out an outdated source (which has no relevance whatsoever and doesn't disprove anything). He/she then moves on to give examples of a merchant saving and losing 2 pennies. However, the example that my opponent provides is what I like to call a utopian example. It's perfect, and it just seems to work out. However, not everything will perfectly balance out like this. Here's a counterexample: A merchant owns a store. The price, after tax, comes down to $11.88 and it gets rounded to $11.90 since it is a cash purchase; the merchant gains 2 pennies. However, the next person buys an item that totals to $11.91, and it gets rounded to $11.90; the merchant loses one penny. When simple math is done, it can be shown that, in this example, 1 penny is obviously lost. Not every transactions will perfectly counteract each other as my opponent suggestions, therefore, multiply this imperfect transaction by hundreds of thousands occurrences a day, and you will lose, more or less, $600 million a year, as Raymand Lombra puts it. Refutation 2: Minting Cost In this refutation, my opponent responds my point by stating that my point is invalid because the minting price is worth more than the face value, even though it is lower than what he/she originally said. I have 2 responses for this. 1) I strongly disagree as this does not disprove my point whatsoever since the manufacturing value has declined since 2011. It has been on the decline, and since it is 1.7 cents, it is only a loss of .7 cents per each penny. Why should we get rid of the penny if we lose 3 cents on each nickel as they cost 8 cents to mint (http://blogs.wsj.com...)? My opponent's logic is to get abolish its creation and circulation because it costs more to manufacture than its actual value, so why not get rid of the nickel as well since it is more of a loss than the penny? 2) \"Thus what we have with the penny and the nickel is the last, residual restraint that the government actually faces when it manufactures money. This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make. Which would be precisely why we should insist that the United States keep making it. It can remind the country of how properly to conduct monetary policy. When market signals say you are pushing too hard, stop it. The real economy will respond by getting back to what it does best, which is roaring.\" -http://www.forbes.com... If you don't want to read the article, it basically says that pennies are good for the economy, especially since they are made out of a semi-precious metal, because it will not get overproduced, thereby meaning that having a higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing, turning and capturing my opponent's point. Refutation 3: Charities Pro brings up that I am the actual one dancing on this one, however fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation. He/she also misunderstood my logic. As I said, since pennies are worth less, people will donate more of them, totalling to a greater amount of money for charities. Sure, this is an assumption, but it's a logical one unlike the assumption made by Pro, who becomes a hypocrite by stating that I have no proof, hounding me for a source from 1990, and then using a source from 1992. Therefore, my charities point should get through. Refutation 4: Canadian Pro definitely does have the right to use international experience anywhere he/she pleases, however, as proved and agreed with by him/her, Canada and America definitely do have completely different economies (http://www.thestar.com...). The same goes for Australia. Therefore, Pro has conceded to this point. Refutations to Arguments: Refutation 1: Waste of Time Pennies are not a waste of time. No matter who, they always have a meaning, whether it is an emotional connection between father and son, mother and daughter, the ability to save someone's life from cancer when being donated to charity, or being lucky when picked up from the street. Also, see my refutation 2 above for a further refutation that applies to this as well. Saying that pennies are a waste of time is like saying that an abused dog is not worth saving. Refutation 2: Not Accepted for all Purchases My opponent's second argument is that pennies are not accepted for all purposes. I completely agree, in fact this is common sense. But this argument was just a waste of time in that it is not tied in and plays no role in the scheme of things. Refutation 3: Bad for the Environment Saying that pennies are bad for the environment is a bold, overreaching statement. Sure, pennies are bad for the environment when dropped, but the number of pennies laying around on someone's lawn is so insignificant that this portion of the argument does not help prove anything. I, as well, agree that zinc mines harm the environment, but don't take the penny out of service to fix this. They're still going to make zinc for other purposes, it is not the penny that is causing the harm, it is the zinc mines. Pennies are innocent. Weighing: Economical Harm vs. Waste of Time (Con 1 vs. Pro 1): In this situation, my argument is clearly stronger do to the fallacious logic and overarching bold statements presented by Pro. The impact of losing ~$600 million/year and the other chaos that will potentially break loose is more significant than a few cents being wasted here and there. To put this in simpler terms, $600,000,000 > $3.65. Charities vs. Environment (Con 2 vs. Pro 3): With Pro's argument focusing on such an insignificant scope/area and my argument logically demonstrating harm to charities, it's no wonder my point is stronger in this instance as well. The Burden: Pro had three prongs to prove, yet he/she said that it does not have to be proved as I am the instigator. I strongly disagree as Pro is the side trying to change the status quo, and with that, you need to prove how your plan is going to be effective, which has not been done. These are the three unproved prongs: 1) I have clearly refuted this, disproving what my opponent attempted to say, therefore leaving this prong unproved. 2) Somewhat proved, but not all the way. 3) Once again, there has been no clear explanation as to how Pro's plan will \"transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\" As the burden is left unproved, Pro does not have a case sufficient to win this debate, therefore resulting in a clear reason to vote for me, Con. The decision is up to the voters now. Conclusion: I'd like to thank my opponent for this great debate from which I have learned a lot and all future voters for exercising judgment as to who won. As a 13 year-old, it is hard to debate an economic topic against someone with a business diploma. I wish luck to my opponent as the debate comes to a close. As I like to say, e verbis victoria.", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7337250709533691}, {"content": "Title: Convert the penny!!! Content: The proposal to eliminate the penny has been a major issue ever since its cost of production exceeded its value. You claim that it currently costs 1.3 cents to make a penny. The numbers I've seen were a bit lower, stating that it costs around 1.23 cents. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the penny's cost of production does indeed exceed its value. The negative seignoirage value does cost the government money in terms of producing the penny. However, the economy is not solely, nor even mainly based on the cost of producing legal tender. The economic consequences of eliminating the penny would be disastrous, and in comparison to the possible and probable effects on the economy, the loss of $150 million in production is a minor one. The elimination of the penny would consequently make the lowest possible unit of currency 5 cents. This would lead to an adverse effect on consumers. When a purchase is made and the sales tax added, the final number would not be rounded up to the penny, but rather the nickel. This leads to a negative effect on consumers. This \"rounding tax\" as many economists call it, would lead to a cost of approximately $3 billion over the course of five years according to some numbers. This is much higher than the $750 million lost to producing a coin with a negative seignoirage value for a time span of five years. The penny must be retained for the good of the overall economy. The cost of production is minor compared to the consequences.", "qid": 45, "docid": "f143e2ae-2019-04-18T19:44:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7337009310722351}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Thanks to con for relinquishing the last round, and for joining me in this debate.If we look at con's fifth source, which s/he used to stress his/her belief that the US will lose money, we see in exactness why Rodney Bosco, the author of the article, believes this to be the case. Mr. Bosco states that getting rid of the penny, a coin produced with money lost as a result, would \"...increase demand for the nickel, which is also currently produced at a loss\" (p.2). While this is true, simply keeping the penny and changing the contents of it would not be an adequate measure. Perhaps changing the nickel's contents, a coin that has ten times the buying power of the penny, would be (or we could get rid of it too, but that's for another debate, I suppose). Even using the multi-ply plating technology would not be enough. To stress this point, Bosco said that such technology has \"...been successfully used by the RCM to manage circulating coinage for Canada...\"(p.3) - a country that even with this method got rid of their penny three years ago as of this May. I must stress that the penny's content is something that can be changed, but is not worth changing when considering how low its buying power is.As for the argument \"you don\u2019t see people abolishing the car\u2026. Or milk,\" I don't see this as a perfect comparison. Cars provide fast and effective transportation, and milk has nutritional value. Pennies, on the other hand, don't provide the services that they should. Even the argument pertaining to those who use cash to pay for things doesn't have much basis, and I'll explain why: the part about rounding up goes against what I've already said about the myth of the \"rounding tax\" back in Round 2. Most places that have gotten rid of the penny round both up and down, and it's worth mentioning that no significant effect has been shown to the economy and there has been no significant or noticeable rise in prices nor, for that matter, has there been any decrease in charitable donations [1]. It is also worth mentioning that people who are poorer and would use money more are statistically more likely to donate money to charity.Finally, I would like to say that the amount of money earned back from reforming the penny does not reach how much we have lost, as attested by my argument in Round 2.I thank con again for joining me in this debate. Vote for pro.Sources:[1]:", "qid": 45, "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7328696250915527}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Content: According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!", "qid": 45, "docid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.732063889503479}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: \"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. \"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. \" \"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \" Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. \"[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. \"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \" >\"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase\"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7309259176254272}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: In this speech I will be showing that my opponent's arguments are flawed 1. My opponent relates pennies to time, and shows how it correlates to time. My opponent does however, not show a correlation since their is no explicit or implicit link that they make between time and pennies. In fact, the average person who pays with pennies will spend 2 seconds extra per penny at the register. That means that my opponent is exactly wrong, pennies in fact take our time away. 2. There is no cost for ceasing production of the penny. Although my opponent may have misunderstood the resolution as pennies are now not accepted, the resolution simply asks whether production should be stopped. As I stated in my case, pennies actually cost billions of dollars a year to manufacture, so this argument falls. 3. Yet again, no link is made between the claim and the proof. My opponent states that pennies are economic indicators, but offers no evidence, either objective or analytical. This means that this argument should be ignored due to the lack of support. 4. The resolution clearly states ceasing production of the penny and not removal of it as legal tender, so this argument is also not relevant. 5. I am not sure what my opponent is attempting to claim, but it appears that they are claiming hackers steal pennies by the 5. We can safely assume its irrelevance in the matter.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7306346297264099}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: Oh, so you say getting rid of currency won't go so well? I was going to use this as one of my concluding arguments but I'll use it now. The U.S. has already gotten rid of old currency. A long time ago, there was a coin called the half-cent, worth half a penny. The U.S. got rid of it because it was worth too little. The crazy part is that the half-cent was worth more then than the dime is now. In fact, other countries like Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, and Canada have already gotten rid of their one-cent pieces. They automatically round up to the nearest five cents (except for New Zealand, which rounds up to the nearest ten cents). These countries have not reported any problems with the money change. Not only that, but the U.S. Military has already gotten rid of the penny in some offshore bases, and they are doing just fine. Con says it is disrespectful to \"deface\" the face of a president. deface (verb): to ruin the surface of (something) especially with writing or pictures That was taken from Webster's online dictionary. Clearly, getting rid of the penny will not \"deface\" Abraham Lincoln. Besides, he and his monument are still on the 5-dollar bill. Con says that when money goes completely digital, he wants to see a penny and remember how far we've come. If that ever does happen, the U.S. will undoubtedly save the coins we are using now for us to look at in, say, the Smithsonian. Also, getting rid of a coin is not the same as getting rid of the American flag. That's all for now.", "qid": 45, "docid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7304002046585083}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin.", "qid": 45, "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.728702187538147}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.", "qid": 45, "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7270498275756836}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.", "qid": 45, "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.725752592086792}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: Yea sorry about the mishap. Thanks for being understanding though. That being said, this will be my last round for arguments, so I will respond to the Pro side\u2019s last post and provide more clarity on my position. Section 1: The Penny has an Economic Impact in Industry, and Industry Tries to Help. In my last round, I reported that if the penny suddenly stopped being produced, that there would be a significant impact in the zinc industry that could cause large contracts with the government to be essentially voided. One such contract is with Jarden Zinc Products[1][2], who currently have contracts worth millions with the government to produce such pennies, and such voiding of coins for production would significantly have an impact on this industry. These companies don\u2019t try and stifle the American government either, as such industry uses modern technology to reduce the cost of the manufacturing. Multi-ply plating technology is now used to reduce cost when compared to through alloy coins, and makes these coins possess a unique electro magnetic signature (EMS) which provides for greater coin security.[1] So yes I see the Pro\u2019s side in that robotics can help manufacture durables (or pennies for this debate) cheaper, and that\u2019s great, but against Pro\u2019s argument, you don\u2019t see people abolishing the car\u2026. Or milk. It takes people to come up with such testing and technologies to try and achieve ideas to manufacture better, so yes this is not only jobs being lost, but innovation as well. Section 2: Financial Impact of the Penny\u2019s Absence If the penny were to cease production, there would be many undesired consequences from this action that would be counter-intuitive from the Pro side, but would quickly become devastating realities for the general public. Intrinsically, if the penny were to be removed from production, there could be no way to sustain prices realistically without rounding to the nearest 5 cent piece. Millions of transactions are managed every day in the United States, and with 28% of Americans either not owning a savings/checking account, or trusting on payday lending services[3]. With this data, the amount of cash/coin trades each day is purely not dismissible, not withstanding that cash is used in 46% of all transactions in the U.S[4]. Demographics with comparatively low incomes (predominantly the young, elderly, and minorities) use cash more commonly than people with higher incomes. Because only cash dealings will be subject to rounding, any move to eradicate the penny would be regressive and hurt these demographics of Americans who have no other choice and do not possess the means to make non-cash transactions. According to one report[5], the Treasury would essentially lose money without the penny. First, the Mint's construction and circulation costs include fixed elements that will continue to be incurred whether or not the Mint manufactures the penny. The report approximates this fixed component at $13 million (2011). In addition, there is $17.7 million in operating costs apportioned to the penny that would have to be engrossed by the remaining denominations of circulating coins without the penny. Moreover, under present Mint accounting, the nickel expenses eleven cents to produce (and the nickel isn\u2019t even being targeted in this debate). In a scenario where nickel manufacturing doubled without the penny, the study determines that with current fixed costs, abolishing the penny would prospectively result in increased net costs to the Mint of $10.9 million, compared to the current state of manufacturing. Section 3: Proposed Solutions As I previously stated, there are better ways to resolve this debate, and the best way is to make the penny worth 1 cent again. In 1982, the United States changed the composition of the penny to reduce manufacturing costs, and such similar solutions can be found again in contemporary times, ending an outdated 30-year solution. An option that could sustain such reduction is costs calls for a core of some sort of ceramic material, with similar heft as zinc[6]. Ceramics are metal-based and consequently much denser than plastic, though not as heavy as metal itself. Ceramics could be made from 2 inexpensive compounds: silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3, or possibly with a bit of denser oxide such as titanium oxide added for weight. The ceramic penny core likely could be anodized with a copper skin fairly cheapl, thus no longer requiring the use of zinc to manufacture our pennies. Section 4: Current Trends Over the past couple years, the prices of the metals needed to produce the modern penny have actually decreased. According to a report from the Department of Treasury[a], after attaining a peak cost of 2.41 cents in 2011 due to the substantial growth in global metal prices, the cost of manufacturing has dropped to 1.83 cents for 2013.[4] In the 2014 fiscal year, the cost to yield a penny fell additionally to 1.70 cents.Congressman Steve Stivers (R-OH) has introduced a bi-partisan bill to mandate the use of steel in the manufacturing of pennies, dimes, and nickels. . Research has shown this bill could save the U.S. government up to $2 billion in material costs over a 10 years. References: [1]: http://www.export.gov... [2]: http://legacy.utsandiego.com...; [3]:http://www.forbes.com... [4]: http://www.frbsf.org...; [5]: http://financialservices.house.gov... [6]: http://www.livescience.com... [7]: http://riponadvance.com...;", "qid": 45, "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7253121733665466}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: Arguments 1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion. 2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power. 3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them. Rebuttal 1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage. 2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all. 3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time. If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.724862277507782}, {"content": "Title: The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated. Content: In today's society, a penny has become more than a simple coin used to commemorate the great president Abraham Lincoln, it is now a coin of both sentimental value and economic value. This debate will open your eyes to the new and exciting world of the penny. .. Sentimental Value: When looking into the issue of sentimental value, we find that it is one of major concern to the American citizen. The best way to understand the value of the cent towards the American population, is to look at the penny or rather cent's history. BACKGROUND: \"When the United States Mint was created in 1792, one of the first coins it made the following year was the one-cent coin, and it looked very different from the modern version. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The image on the first cent was of a lady with flowing hair, who symbolized liberty. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The coin was larger and made of pure copper, while today's smaller cent is made of copper and zinc. In 1857, Congress authorized the United States Mint to strike the cent with 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The \"shape and size\" would be determined by the United States Mint Director, with the approval of the Treasury Secretary. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The new cents showed a flying eagle on the front and a wreath on the back. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The act of February 21, 1857, also mandated that people could no longer use coins from other countries, a practice that had been necessary because of a lack of domestic coinage. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd However, people could bring their foreign coins to the United States Mint, where they could be exchanged for U. S. silver coins and the new cents. From 1909 to 1958, the Lincoln obverse was paired with a reverse that featured a wheat design in which two sheaves of wheat flanked the words\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdONE CENT\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdand\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd It is commonly known as the \"wheat penny. \" From 1959 to 2008, the reverse featured an image of the Lincoln Memorial designed by Frank Gasparro. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd It commemorated the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. In 2009, the United States Mint issued four different one-cent coins in recognition of the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the first issuance of the Lincoln cent. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd The themes for the reverse designs represent the four major aspects of President Lincoln's life: birth and early childhood in Kentucky (1809-1816) formative years in Indiana (1816-1830) professional Life in Illinois (1830-1861) presidency in Washington, DC (1861-1865)\" {1} With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. On to statistics: Results of the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), show that: * 69% of Americans favor keeping the penny in circulation, which is virtually identical to what Americans reported (71%) to ORC in 2001; * 64% of respondents oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system; and * 70% expressed concern that if the government implements rounding schemes for cash purchases, merchants might take the opportunity to raise prices rather than lose pennies when rounding down, with minority Americans expressing most concern. {2} A personal survey interviewing 50 of my school mates showed these results: 38--->Wanted to keep the penny 10---> Didn't care 2-----> Wanted the penny gone. We must also take in consideration that many charities use the penny to collect huge amount of donation. Take the JC PENNY Penny drive, the penny to many is far easier to donate than coins with a higher face value. Abolishing the penny will greatly affect these charity organizations as the are now unable to collect as much money as they previously did with the existence of the penny. \"Some charities use penny drives to raise money. Children in New York City collected more than 65 million pennies last year for a total of $655,508.54, according to organizer Common Cents. \"It is a very powerful symbol of the potential we have to turn our wasteful society into a caring and recycling and reciprocal society,\" Common Cents founder Teddy Gross says. \" {3} Both the statistic and the survey above shows that the penny is worth a lot when it comes to the American population. The American citizen not only see the sentimental worth of a penny, they also recognizes its. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Economic worth. My opponent makes a valuable point in stating that the penny is worth far more than its face value, however we must also take in consideration that the penny is also a major part of the economic circle. If the penny was abolished, every American goods as well as imported goods will have to be rinses to the nearest nickel. This might not seen like a lot, but to the lower class which makes up approximately 15.5% of the American population. \"And at least one economist says eliminating the penny would hurt the poor. When prices are rounded, most of the amounts will be rounded up, not down, argues Pennsylvania State University economics professor Ray Lombra, who has testified before Congress in support of the penny. For those who have little money, those pennies will add up. \"Certainly the working poor \u2014 many of them still do not have checking accounts, credit cards \u2014 they are conducting their transactions in cash. So they are the ones who are going to bear most of the burden,\" Lombra says. \" {3} We must also look into the fact that the nickel cost far more than the current penny. The nickel cost $7.55 approximately $2.55 over its face value. If the penny was to be eliminated, there would be an increase in the manufacturing of nickels which in turn would cost the united states more money than both the current penny and nickel production today. Following my opponents core reason to abolish the penny, we should also abolish the nickel as it cost more to produce than it is actually worth. SOURCES: {1}. http://www.usmint.gov... {2}. http://www.pennies.org... {3}. http://www.pennies.org... {4}. http://ohmygov.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7247394919395447}, {"content": "Title: The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins Content: I thank con for his rebuttals. In this round I'm going to defend against his rebuttals to show that we should really get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins.Con said that if we keep the cents you'll eventually end up with a big amount of money. However, you are barely able to spend those cents for two reasons:1. Paying with a big pile of cents isn't very politeLet's imagine you go to a caf\u00e9 and order some drinks. The bill is \u20ac10,-. You decide to pay it all with the 1 and 2 cent coins you have been saving for quite some time. So you will pay with at least 500 and at most 1000 coins. Now imagine the face of the cashier who realizes he (or she) has to count all those coins. After you're done with that, imagine the faces of the people who are standing behind you in line. They will have to wait for quite some time.2. You can get suedIn the UK a man tried to pay \u00a3804 with mostly 1 and 2 cent coins. He got sued and had to pay \u00a3 1,118.62 (1). According to the Coinage Act 1971 you're only allowed to pay with 1 and 2 cent coins if the total bill is 20 cents or less (1). But this debate is about the eurozone and not the UK. In the eurozone there's a similar law. People are only allowed to pay with up to 50 coins in a single payment (2).After that con tries to rebut my third argument by saying that many people aren't exact about time. It's right that some people don't care a lot about time. However, all people have one thing in common: people who spend time waiting in line or accepting change aren't doing something else. That time could be spent on other things. To give some examples, you could spend that time with your children, exercise a little or go on a date. Those are some of the most common regrets (3).Con also said that people will pay cash if the price gets rounded down and electronically if the price would get rounded up. Some people will probably do this, but I doubt this will have a big impact on the national budget. After all you can only save at most 2 cents with a single transaction. Only a small portion of those 2 cents is sales tax. Meanwhile the government also saves \u20ac400 million by not producing the 1 and 2 cent coins (argument 2, round 2). So unless the 338 million people who live in the eurozone (source 5, round 2) manage to bring the sales tax down by more than \u20ac400 million, the savings of governments get are bigger than the drop in sales tax.Con tries to prove this by showing that of 5 of the 6 countries I mentioned the deficit grew. However, correlation isn't causation. The government deficit can be caused by hundreds of reasons. One of many examples is baby boomers retiring, which leads to less income tax and since many governments support the elderly, more expenses.I will now hand the debate back to con, so he can write the last part of this debate.Sources1) http://www.theguardian.com...2) http://eur-lex.europa.eu... article 113) http://uk.businessinsider.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "e52fcb79-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.724162220954895}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41\" to make a 1\" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7229667901992798}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of the penny!! Content: \"Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost.\" Maybe I'm reading this quote wrong (please correct me if I am), but in that quote, you state, \"...nickels would be worth more than cost.\" However, in this next quote, you state: \"Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel.\" Thus contradicting yourself and the idea of profiting from the disposal of the penny. As you say, \"the monetary advantage [is] null.\" Therefore, what good is disposing of the penny? You still haven't showed me an alternative for transactions from change and tax, as demonstrated in my McDonalds example. The only solution I can think of is changing the price of everything to end with a change value of a multiple of 5 (i.e. $1.25, $1.50, etc.). This would not only be costly and tedious, a flat sales tax would have to be adopted by every state ($0.05, $0.10, etc.). The penny should not be abolished, because it is necessary for sales transactions, and would do more harm than good.", "qid": 45, "docid": "2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7228502035140991}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be stopped from circulation Content: Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000\" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...", "qid": 45, "docid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7227003574371338}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny\"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7225600481033325}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should stop the production of pennies. Content: I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply \"stopping the production of pennies,\" I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.", "qid": 45, "docid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7221869230270386}, {"content": "Title: We should get rid of the penny Content: If you check the link you literally just copy and pasted it...and also first round is acceptance. Sorry if this comes off as rude, but in all honesty I doubt you know much about this topic as you just copy and pasted it. Thanks for accepting my debate though! Also welcome to debate.org (oh and just to clarify by we I mean the US)I will state my arguments for keeping the penny.Argument 1- It costs more to make a penny then it is worth [1]It costs 2.41 cents to make one penny, and approx. 7.4 billion pennies are made each year [2], so do the math and we are wasting over 10360000000 pennies a year, or 103600000 (over 100 million), dollars a year on pennies alone. This is money that could be spent much more effectively, like on public schools! (Another source I found said pennies cost 1.7 cents to produce, which would still equal to over 50 million dollars lost)Argument 2- We already went along fine without something worth one cent [3] According to popular youtuber Hank Green \"..in 1972 a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, and yet in 1972 the economy managed to function just fine without a coin that was worth 1/5th of a penny.\" It has worked before, it will work again.Argument 3- They are uselessMoney could easily be rounded to the nearest fifth, and are simply not worth the time and effort to take out and fiddle with exact change[1]http://www.usmint.gov... (at the bottom of the page)[2]http://coins.about.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7220101952552795}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.", "qid": 45, "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7219701409339905}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: I would love to pour out all the reasons why pennies should be abolished, but I need to save some of them for my closing arguments. First, it's not worth your time for pennies. Literally, if you pick up a penny off the street, you could have made more money in that exact frame of time. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage for all occupations is $16.87 per hour. Do the math, and that means a tiny bit more than a cent is earned every 3 seconds, and 5 cents every 11 seconds. This clearly shows how little the value of the penny is. Ignoring that, the U.S. could save money by getting rid of the pennies. According to the U.S. Mint, it costs more than 2 cents to create one penny. This means that the U.S. is losing tons of money by creating pennies. Also, a single penny can't buy you products anymore. The only machine at all that accepts pennies is... ...Coinstar. Coinstar is basically like an ATM, but only for coins. I have at least two more legs my opinions stand on, but I'll save the best for last.", "qid": 45, "docid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7217573523521423}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: You make a good point but why should it be abolished Abe must stay here are some reason's first it would be disrespectful to deface a Hero of this proud country its like getting rid of the flag.... The penny might be the lowest form of currency you can have but its still currency getting rid of currency might not go so well what if you need exact change but that's not the point defacing a President is down right disrespect and a great one at that a true American hero but when it comes to the digital age where there are just credit cards and debit cards and bit coins I don't mean today I mean in 50 years where there is only digital things I still want to dig into my pocket and find a nice shinny Abe and remember how far we have come.", "qid": 45, "docid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.720041036605835}, {"content": "Title: Convert the penny!!! Content: For those interested, Professor Raymond Lombra from Pennsylvania State University published an analysis on the economic effects of eliminating the penny. The article is entitled \"Eliminating the penny from the U.S. coinage system: An economic analysis.\" This article was published in the Eastern Economic Journal, 2001, vol. 27, pages 433-442. Here is a link to the article for those that wish to read it: http://findarticles.com... In this article he shows that the rounding tax is not a myth, contrary to what my opponent has claimed. He furthermore demonstrates that it would be an economic disaster. And unlike the article by Robert Whaples, this one appears in a peer-reviewed journal. In almost any field, a peer-reviewed article is given much more credence than an article that is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, he describes the methods and provides data. This is something that is conspicuously absent from Whaples' article. The penny must be kept!", "qid": 45, "docid": "f143e2ae-2019-04-18T19:44:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7195107936859131}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: Thanks for the great debate, Con! :) Pro Case --------------- Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I wasn't placing a \"definitely will\" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins. Counterplan: 1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination. 2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses. On Abuse: 1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out. 2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now). 3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3] Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper 1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do. 2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum. NACS: 1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, \"Walgreens.\" It's there. I promise. 2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation. Pro Contention 2 Cross-Application of Counterplan: 1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan. 2. I'm a she. 3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it\u2014he should state it up front. Brightline: My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted. Human Rights: 1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, \"Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan.\" South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act. 2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions. ---------------- Neg Case ---------------- Neg Contention 1: All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1. Neg Contention 2: On #1: 1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response. 2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself. On #2 1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his \"$2 billion in spending by 2010\" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items\u2026? Neg Contention 3: On #1: The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest \"5\" or \"0\" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95). On #2: Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD. On #3: My sources are perfectly adequate. On #4 (Theft): 1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position. 2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45. [1]http://www.infomine.com... [2]http://www.aluminum.org... [3]http://www.aluminum.org... [4] http://www.jsnet.org...", "qid": 45, "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7192022800445557}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should eliminate the penny Content: When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold \"penny candy\" in jars \" one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there\"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny \" and you can\"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don\"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won\"t take them \" except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn\"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers \" if the store doesn\"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don\"t even bother \" they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: \"When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.\" There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins \" which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the \"useless\" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that\"s worth less than one-tenth as much.", "qid": 45, "docid": "b59a9ba7-2019-04-18T11:38:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7155970931053162}, {"content": "Title: In the US, pennies should be abolished. Content: As part of its new budget, Canada will get rid of its penny, saving taxpayers more than C$11 million, according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Since production in 1908, the bank has produced more than 35 billion pennies, but circulation will end sometime in 2012. As part of cost cutting measures, Canada will save at least C$150 million in production and handling costs once the penny is completely abolished. It costs the Canadian government C1.6 cents to mint a penny, a coin made from copper-plated zinc and copper-plated steel. However, it won't only be the government that saves money. Banks Pay Saving pennies in a piggy bank may be fun for children, but for banks, the transportation, handling and storage of coins costs about C$20 million each year according to Canadian officials, a cost that has to be passed on to customers in the form of fees. Eliminating the penny saves a portion of the costs associated with processing coins. More Efficient Some argue that cash registers will have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the switch, but since the penny will remain in circulation until most pennies are out of circulation and taxes will continue to be calculated to the penny, cash registers and other business machines will operate as they always have. Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says that businesses welcome the change, since fewer coins will eventually make their business more efficient. Other Countries Have Done It Canada is one of many countries that have ended the minting of their lowest-value coins. In 1992, Australia eliminated their one- and two-cent coins from circulation. In January 2008, Israel eliminated their five agorot coin. These countries join at least 15 other countries including Great Britain, The Philippines, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore and Mexico that have all eliminated at least one of their coins to lower government costs. When Will the United States Do It? The most notable hold out is the United States. In 2006, The Legal Tender Modernization Act was introduced by Representative Jim Kolbe. The bill aimed to require that all transactions be rounded to the nearest 5 cents but this legislation failed to pass Congress leaving the U.S. with the same problem as Canada. Producing the penny in the U.S. costs a lot more than in Canada, according to CNN. To produce a U.S. penny, the U.S. Mint pays 2.4 cents per penny, and that's up from 1.5 cents in 2006. That, along with the production of the nickel, costs the U.S. government more than $100 billion each year, and if it can't be retired, President Obama wants the cost reduced. That, according to officials, is difficult, because the administrative costs of producing a penny account for nearly half a cent, leaving very little room to cover the cost of raw materials.[1] [1]http://www.investopedia.com... My old arguments. Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.", "qid": 45, "docid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7149855494499207}, {"content": "Title: Should Bit Coins be a way to pay! Content: Bitcoin should not be a way to pay, the price is always fluctuating so it would not be a stable currency. But technically speaking you can exchange bitcoin for money so it is already a way to pay. Currency is supposed to be stable if one day the penny became worth a hundred dollars that would destroy the economy.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35eeec39-2019-04-18T11:42:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7149159908294678}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Should Die. Content: Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let\"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they\"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: \"Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That\"s so much.\" Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That\"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around\" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But\" It\"s never been done before! We\"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!\" Well, that\"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we\"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.", "qid": 45, "docid": "21311659-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7144851684570312}, {"content": "Title: Stop the Minting of the American Penny Content: I would like to say in passing that when I said defined penny, the part about it being the \"coin currently used\" was meant to suggest that it was the coin made in the way that we make it now, with the huge amount of zinc with a copper coating. I'm sorry this wasn't very clear, and as such I will not address the definition in that context again and will refrain from using that part of it in the debate. Section 1: Content of the USD PennyThe argument about the zinc industry as a whole is not a fair argument, particularly when considering my opponent's suggestion for reforming the penny. If one was to agree with my argument, that would mean no further production of the penny. However, if someone was to side with my opponent, it would mean reforming the penny's composition to reduce the cost. .. which would mean using significantly less zinc. This essentially renders my opponent's argument null and void. \"These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. \" \"It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. \"I would also like to see a source that shows that cutting the penny would cost this much for copper and zinc producers. If this is true, perhaps it would make it easier for producers to focus on more useful zinc and copper products than the penny, such as galvanization for the former and wiring for the latter, as well as various other practical uses [1][2]. If this cannot happen, then this is simply an unfortunate side effect of a capitalist society moving forward in time. This sounds harsh, but let me ask: why don't we see people building cars in assembly lines as much as we see robots doing it? Why are deliveries from milkmen so rare nowadays? And why did Kodak tear down numerous buildings and fire thousands of people when they didn't get enough sales in the paper and film industry (and wrongfully believed there was still a big business in it)? It's because we no longer see a use for these things or have a use for them. The penny will similarly have to go. Section 2: Use (Or Lack Thereof)Of course, this is not just an issue of what we make the penny out of, but it is also an issue of the penny's low buying power. The penny costs more to make than it's worth, which, as one of my commenters has pointed out, is not a valid argument in and of itself, considering currency is frequently used and is thus ultimately worth more than its face value. That being said, we've been using the penny so infrequently that it's costing the US around $900 million each year [3]. They're very unworthy of our time. In fact, in the time it takes for people to take out pennies or even pick them up, the average American earns more than one cent [3][4]. These same issues of low buying power do not apply to the $1-$100 bills, and as such it would be wise to keep them and find a new way to make them. The fact that the penny costs so much to make would just be an added bonus for getting rid of it, but it's not the main one. We got rid of the half penny back when it had buying power that would take eleven cents today [4] because it wasn't realistic to keep it with such a low buying power. It only seems logical, then, for the penny to follow suit. Sources:[1]: . http://geology.com...[2]: . http://geology.com...[3]: . http://www.wfu.edu...[4]: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.713919997215271}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: No need to apologize, I have many things to juggle as well. First, I will go down the Pro, then the Con 1A Consumer Confidence 1. From Pro case- \"It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U.S.\" I interpreted this as \"We have reform-boost consumer confidence and thus encourages growth\". Regardless, the Neg Ground from Germany Card still stands, as I will show. 2. Yes, when talking about future events, especially future economic events one usually does not use a \"definitely will\" or something to that affect; the future is just too unpredictable (see random giant drop in stocks just yesterday that no one can figure out what caused.) If the German Finance minister was not sure of his proposal, it would have never been brought up. Unless you can give evidence to the contrary, the German evidence wins. Which brings me to the 2nd part of this rebuttal. First, just as there may be a group to get rid of the penny, there are also groups to KEEP the penny. [1] In fact, 2/3 of Americans want to keep the penny.[2] So, statistics only point toward a con vote on this point. 1A Counter-plan 1. No, the counter-plan solves for your harm. The higher cost is caused by the raised price of zinc. At the point where the metal that pennies are made out of is changed, your harm disappears. 2. I will cover how your supposed cost A has no proof of existence, and B even still is nothing compared what would be spent if your plan passes 3. I figured it would be easier and less abusive for the aff to just debate replacement, rather than me find a random metal and PIC out of the Aff. However, if my opponent wishes, I choose aluminum A. We have ample supply. In fact, 1500 aluminum cans are thrown away per second just by the US [3] B. Its cheaper than zinc and copper, cutting off the Aff's harms[4] 1B 1. Cheaper than all other forms of transaction. Meaning if a cash transaction with or without pennies goes from .07 to 10 Billion dollar cost, then debit card would bring in a cost of over 40 billion (over 4 times as costly as cash) assuming your cost analysis is your correct. Basically, your first contention is nothing compared to potential costs even if it is correct 2. I will address the \"cost\" a bit later and the whole point is that even if it is correct, its non-unique. NACS 1. Yes and the search results for penny on the sight bring up nothing like your claim[5] 2. Even if it is not an official report, if you are correct, it must make an assertion similar to yours SOMEWHERE on the site. However, I fail to see where the assertion is 3. WHAT! OMG!? A society that wants pennies gone says source x agrees with them but doesn't provide a link? How completely reliable and having no chance of bias! The only thing more convincing would be if Marlboro claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!! All jesting aside, I'm calling a proverbial BS on the cost unless you can provide a link from the NACS on this. Until this is done, this argument cannot be accepted on any grounds. 2 CP Cross apply I thought not specific would be better for the aff and I had clarified. Also, if he claims it is abusive to clarify in the 2nd round, he had ample time to ask me to clarify in the comments section BEFORE he posted his round, thus abuse is checked 2 Bright-line I'm sorry, perhaps there was a misinterpretation, or I just was not clear (unfortunately probably the latter). What I meant was: How much debt do we have to lose to \"act freely\" and can you prove that the aff plan would put us on the other side of the bright line and thus allow us to act freely? 2 Human rights 1. Cross Apply Google; they have NO trade or debt obligations and yet there is still conflict between them and China over the great Firewall that is helping China commit abuses 2. Interdependency and free trade with China is key to ending human rights abuses [6] Neg Case C 1 1. Again, cross-apply no proof of cost and the fact that transactions without pennies would COST MORE MONEY thus negating my opponent's contention 1. C2 1. This is in page 4 of my 1st source in round 1. Using the rounding tax accrued, prices would be raised, on average 1/100 of a percent Lombra then just uses analysis from the Congressional Budget Office about a rise in one percent and cross-applies it. It should be noted that the affect would actually be higher, since the study was done in a time of economic prosperity, rather than the shaky times now. Also, extend that this tax would leave consumers with less disposable income and thus lower spending, turning us back from whence we just came out of. 2. Yes, on ONE item the affect would be small. However, over the whole economy the affect is huge, which Lombra goes on to say after the part of the quote you cut out. And again, that's my point. The affect would be LARGER because of the recession we have had and are still recovering from C3 1. Not if you consider the 600 million rounding tax that would have to be paid per year because of it small 2. Again CA all other arguments vs this contention, plus its 2 SECONDS according to your opening case, not cents. 3. Cross-Apply arguments agianst Contention 1 here as this is all he is using to negate this contention 4. Whenever we go completely electronic, this argument will be valid. However, right now, all my opponent has done is said \"yeah that's true, but it does not matter\" However, with these economic times, the amount of cash transactions are RISING as people try to control their spending[7] Thus the harm is there and is growing. [1] http://www.pennies.org... [2] http://www.coinstar.com... [3] http://www.thegoodhuman.com... [4] http://www.metalprices.com... [5] http://www.nacsonline.com... [6] http://www.cato.org... [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": 45, "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7138960361480713}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: The removal of the penny will cause an economic breakdown, sure. But so have many other things- and we got over it. The penny is soon going to be obselete, along with most other coins and even bills. Technology is growing by the minute. Credit cards are a more efficient way of payment, as compared to it.", "qid": 45, "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7127648591995239}, {"content": "Title: Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel Content: I ask that you keep this debate partially serious. I don\u2019t mind having some fun but we should be a bit more serious. I also must apologize for forfeiting round two. I had meant to post my argument but time hadn\u2019t allowed. However, I digress\u2026 As for the penny and nickel: be it resolved that both the penny and the nickel be eliminated from the production of coins by the US Mint. To begin, let\u2019s make sure we understand some background information. The penny has been fluctuating in price for the past several years. Pennies are made of both copper and zinc, and these metals have both become rather pricey in the past several years. Currently, the price to produce one penny is roughly 1.7\u00a2 [1]. This alone should cause you to vote in the affirmation of this resolution. The penny is literally worth less than we pay for. Also, over 13,000,000,000 pennies each year [2]. Let\u2019s do some math now. To find the total amount of dollars spent on producing pennies we will take the cost of producing a penny and multiply it by the amount of pennies produced in a year. When we do this, we discern a monetary total of $221,000,000. Now if we subtract the spending value of all these pennies from our production cost, we lose a total of $91,000,000. This wouldn\u2019t be a problem if less money was spent producing the penny than it is worth. Lastly, the US Mint is a government run organization. All of the funding it receives to produce these coins comes directly from taxpayer pockets. We cannot allow any more tax dollars to be needlessly wasted like this, especially if it is such a large number as $91,000,000. The second half of the proposed resolution is to discontinue the nickel. Allow me to explain why we need to do this. As you should remember, there is a massive inequality between the production cost and face value of the penny. Guess what! The nickel is the exact same way. The production cost for a single nickel is 11.2\u00a2 [3]. This is an even greater inequality that the penny, seeing as it is more than twice as expensive to produce than it is a face value. There are roughly 4,300,000,000 nickels produced in a year [3]. Doing the same math as before, we find that we are losing a total of $266,600,000. Combining this with the deficit created by the penny inequality, we find that we are losing $357,600,000 annually. We cannot allow this. Any product that wastes any amount of tax dollars should be cut out of production. It\u2019s very simple. It should seem obvious that there is only one logical choice in this debate; to discontinue the penny and the nickel from the US Mint\u2019s production of coins. We would save millions of dollars by deciding on this resolution. Considering all these things, I must urge a vote to Pro. Works Cited 1) \"Cost to Make the Penny: Chart/Graph. \" Copper Pennies. N. p. , n. d. Web. 04 May 2016. <. http://coincollectingenterprises.com...;. 2) Zielinski, Michael. \"Cost to Make Penny and Nickel Declines But Still Double Face Value. \" Coin Update. N. p. , 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 May 2016. <. http://news.coinupdate.com...;. 3) Isidor, Chris. \"Obama Wants Cheaper Pennies and Nickels. \" CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 03 May 2016. <. http://money.cnn.com...;.", "qid": 45, "docid": "5dbc32e9-2019-04-18T13:24:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7122578620910645}, {"content": "Title: The eurozone should get rid of the 1 and 2 cent coins Content: This sure has been an exciting debate. I shall now proceed with my rebuttals. A1, A2, A3: I am going to rebut this case with another argument Pro has put: A2: the cost of producing coins. Sure, if you don't keep them, pennies are useless. However, if we are going to be super miserly, saving up pennies for years will eventually get to some big amount of money. You can choose one of these arguments. Also, the third argument would be good if people were incredibly exact about time. The thing here is that some people aren't. There are misers and there are people who don't care. This would argument only appeals to some. The new system: Well, it comes down to this: Some people would see this as a great opportunity to save money. If the price would be rounded up, you'd pay online. If it's going to be rounded down, pay in cash. I'm not so sure how many people would do this, but with 742 million people in Europe [1], there's bound to be a significant amount of people who do this, leading to a lower national budget (or one of the other cases I mentioned in the previous round). Evidence: I thank Pro for making this round easier for me by choosing examples of countries that are on a decline in national budget [2][3][4][5][6], furthering my proof that getting rid of the one and two cent coins lowers the budget. The only country that isn't on the decline is Denmark [7]. So, is it doable? Yes. Will it lower the budget? Yes. I now pass the debate mike to Pro. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 4. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 5. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 6. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 7. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "e52fcb79-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7106829285621643}, {"content": "Title: The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service Content: Another reason I didn't feel the need to formally reply is you did not cite where your facts where from (in round two), or in this case when! You scrutinize me for using estimates from 2011, but your source here was from 1990. . http://www.pennies.org...This is why consumers and merchants, one average, wouldn't lose money let alone $600 million:A merchant owns a store, A person wants to buy a few items where the total comes to $11.05 the sales tax is 7.5%. After sales tax The amount due is $11.88, making the cash due $11.90. With this scenario the merchant gains 2 pennies wow! The same merchant owns the same store. a person buys a few items totalling $11.93 the sales tax is 7.5%. This makes the total $12.82, or cash due $12.80. Oh no, the merchant lost 2 pennies, glad he gained two before so it equals out! Minting CostSorry about the outdated info, that was my bad. I will point out that it is still costing more to make a penny then it is worth, my point is still valid. No it is not on the decline as you have assumed your own source you deemed viable said:\"A new report shows the cost to produce a penny was 1.7 cents in the 2014 fiscal year. That\u2019s down from 2.4 cents in 2011 but still more than face value. And that won\u2019t change\" . http://blogs.wsj.com... The stock on zinc (not copper as pennies are primarily zinc) has risen in the last five years and is currently rising. . https://www.google.com... How do you think that the pennies usefulness outweighs its cost? Charities It looks like you are the one dancing to this one. First my statement can be proved and is not contradictory. The quote was: \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel (5-1)\" The meaning was clear, a nickel is worth five pennies, a donation of one nickel will always beat a donation of four pennies. (proof) You on the other hand have no proof, You again assume that people will not donate nickel's or will be stingy. As I outlined in round two assumptions like this make charitable people look bad. Australia is another country who abolished the penny way back in 1992. The charitable donations still rose even though they has no pennies to give. . http://www.jbwere.com.au... I am Canadian I believe that I have the right to use the international experiences of the loss of the penny in a debate. Using countries comparable to the USA is is a great way to estimate what will happen to the economy after the abolishing. I do know that the Canadian economy is not the exact same. I also know my fair share about the American economy. The reason I do not compare America to America is because no matter which America you compare it to they still have their penny. Furthermore I have only given examples of my own experiences with the penny being abolished effect on commerce (I can use other Canadian or Australian examples if you wish) and gave an idea for charities. I did use other arguments outside of Canada. Burden As stated I believe this burden is the instigators. You have only given ONE clear argument which was refuted twice. In reply to your points they can be tackled quite easy to what I have said earlier and what is assumed when starting a debate: 1) Removing the penny is justified: It costs too much to make and is not worth it. What other follow through do you need? 2) Will not harm the economy: I have stated that it will help the economy by decreasing debt and will not do any harm with a complete rounding system. 3) The plan to phase out pennies: oh I assumed you knew, it is your argument. Getting rid of pennies will be done the only way that makes sense, phasing them out from circulation. Here is the normal process used by Australia and Canada (Yes, most likely USA): Stop minting the penny (the process of making the penny), merchants will stop giving out pennies as change but will accept them for a period of time, (if you have exact change as a customer you don't round up or down), the banks end up with the pennies and then they are re-purposed by the government. The only other way to take pennies out of the system is to make pennies worthless, not legal tender. This wont happen for obvious reasons. Other arguments to refute: Pennies are a waste of time and time is money. Many people don't bother to take their pennies as change let alone spend them in stores. The people that do spend pennies end up wasting everyone time. \"National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreen's drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, and so wastes (to be conservative) 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so futzing with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. \" . http://www.washingtonpost.com... This estimate does not include the time wasted from picking up found pennies, the cashier or business time wasted by customers counting pennies, the cashiers time wasted by counting pennies at end of shift, rolling your pennies because you have so many, and taking pennies to the bank to be changed. Pennies are not accepted for all purchases. Electronic transactions are becoming more and more common and the penny is becoming less useful in that respect. Vending machines, phone booths, toll booths, and parking meters are some examples of electronic merchants that do not accept pennies. Pennies are bad for the environment. It is no secret that many pennies end up just dropped, you can find them on the streets and in the sewers. Unlike that banana peel rotting on someone's lawn pennies do not biodegrade efficiently. What is worse for the environment are the mines, Specifically zinc mines (Pennies are made of very little copper) \"Red Dog Mine, which is the largest zinc mine in the U. S. is by far the #1 polluter on the EPA's list, because of large quantities of heavy-metal and lead rich mining tailing's. The process of refining both metals can release sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead and zinc into the environment. \" . http://www.treehugger.com... In conclusion, It is obvious that taking out the penny will result in a better future for the USA, financial and otherwise. Because of Con's constant assumptions, a single outdated, uneducated argument, and inability to create a rebuttal it is clear that Pro is the front runner in this debate. Thank you for reading this and Con, Good Luck.", "qid": 45, "docid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7096659541130066}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of pennies Content: Resolved: The US government should stop minting the Jefferson nickel and assign the Lincoln penny a five cent value in its place. Due to the rising, and risen, costs of metal, minting change is more expensive than ever. A Jefferson nickel costs almost 8 cents to mint and the Lincoln penny about 1.25 cents. Normally, the government makes profit by minting money (seigniorage), paying production cost and recieving face value. But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007. So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents. This not only saves the 3 cent and .25 cent loss for every nickel and penny minted, but creates a profit gap where the new Lincoln nickel makes the government 3.75 cents per coin. This begs the question, how would we handle cash transactions without a cent piece for precise change? Following other countries like Australia, we would instiute a rounding system, where cash transactions are rounded to the nearest 5 cents. (1, 2, 6, & 7 round down; 3, 4, 8 & 9 up). So, not only would the American taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars, we wouldn't have to deal with those one cent nuisances anymore.", "qid": 45, "docid": "922d439b-2019-04-18T19:30:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7090581655502319}, {"content": "Title: a penny is worth more then a dime Content: -As I have been ever so diligently been trying to prove, a penny is indeed worth more then a dime.- -It costs .0126 cents US to create a penny [1]- -If this is true then this would mean that in order to make a penny.. it would cost more then the value of a penny to create.- -Moving onward to the dime within the same source.- \"Other currency, such as dimes and quarters, costs much less to make. \"[1] -Ah, the smell of a rushed debate.- -Anyway I believe that con now owes me 7 internetz and a lifetime supply of cheetos. VOTE for PedRO- [1] http://www.wisegeek.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "ab7e692e-2019-04-18T19:08:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7076058983802795}, {"content": "Title: The Penny Content: The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.", "qid": 45, "docid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7071885466575623}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney) Content: This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: . http://www.debate.org.... Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :) I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued. No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of \"discontinued\"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament. Onto case: 1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources. a. For all its use within the American economy (i. e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U. S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U. S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U. S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U. S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending. In times like these, with a global recession, a U. S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U. S. b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U. S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions. If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U. S. (i. e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U. S. \"pays\" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value. Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, \"perfect-storm-esque\" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year. 2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U. S. As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world. But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U. S. The other major bidders are all out of the country. We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U. S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses? In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny. [1] . http://www.retirethepenny.org... [2] . http://abcnews.go.com... [3] . http://www.mapsofworld.com... [4] . http://www.reuters.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7061861753463745}, {"content": "Title: The United States should cease production of the penny Content: 1.To understand the penny's value you must look at time, as the penny equals the second, and how it relates to trade within it, to know the penny is not just the .01 cent you are giving up in an economy, it is the seven numbers .02, .03, .04, .06, .07, .08, .09 in a clock. The time increase can be seen in seven new numbers. That increased will run .05, .10, .15, .20, .25, .30, .35 .Who among us really needs less time? 2.The cost of discontinuing the penny will instantly mean a direct sale tax increase across the boards. As these determinations may be based on the dollar but paid by the penny. 3.The cost of a penny is an economic indicator. What indications will be lost or hidden when it is removed from production. 4.When the penny is taken from an economy there is no longer the lowest proportion savings relevant to time set in production cost within manufacturing goods. This means instant higher cost in bulk purchased materials. 5.Nobody by the hacker ever thought to ever steal a penny. They do add up quickly and you want to it x5 . The pennies cost was never recoverable it serves a different purpose in the axiom. It has a logical reason of value no self-evident.", "qid": 45, "docid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.705880880355835}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished Content: Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.", "qid": 45, "docid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7045249938964844}, {"content": "Title: if america switched to a 1$ coin we would save money Content: defense of my long term arguments: I never said we had to debate the 1 month and you only had the power to provide definitions, not make rules. There was no rules on time in the title or in my arguments. So you do not have this power I have basically proved my point. Also my opponents other options: I said if America switched. Also how much would we save? Also that is against the parameters of the debate. You are to argue current US currency, paper bills, and I argue coins. So the transition cost is the same, how about the overall saving. Once again you argued against the title so I will not even care. The title is if america switched to 1$ cons we would save money, not we should switch to other bills. You had to argue con to the title. Also his green argument. Recycling uses 3 times more energy then to throw away and make new ones, also it is bad because it releases toxins into to the air. Source: Penn and teller BS recycling His rebuttal to the coin last longer once again you made a red herring. Stick to the coins won't save money as implied in the title. Now rebuttals to my opponents arguments: 'The terms of this debate were that save money, meant less costs within the first month, which Pro did not contest to.\" LOL In the long term it saves a lot of money within 2 months. And will out do the initial costs. Switching from one-dollar bills to one-dollar coins could also have secondary effects that could produce additional budgetary savings. Those effects consist of reductions in the interest costs on the government's debt and are not scorable under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). They would result only if the public was willing to hold a higher value of coins than notes; for example, if the public was willing to hold two one-dollar coins for each one-dollar note formerly held. [1] The higher initial cost of the coin is more than offset, however, by its significantly longer useful life (30 years versus 1.5 years). In addition, the costs to the government of maintaining the quality and integrity of coins are lower than they are for notes, which must be inspected individually for fitness and counterfeits. [1] So initially it costs more but over a period of time it pays for itself and gives a savings. 'By that basis, Pro has already lost this debate, as it must be proven that money is saved within the first month, and Pro agrees that it would cost more in the short term. \" 1. THAT WAS NEVER DECIDED 2. as the contender i gave you powers of definitons, not rules. 3. stop with the red herring. 'loonie costs 30 cents to produce. \" THIS debate is about america. Also it does cost more to make a coin but it lasts longer, paying for itself according to my AMERICAN GOVERMENT source. a dollar coin costs 8 cents to make [1] 'Also, \"Of all the notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the $1 note makes up about 45% of currency production.\" Thanks for helping my case, that means we could save a lot of money when it comes to MAKING money. He he that sounded funny. \"dollar notes: 0.096 * 6.4 billion = $614.4 million dollars dollar coins: 0.3 * 6.5 billion = $1.95 billion dollars difference in cost: 1.95 billion - 614.4 million = $1.3356 billion\" COINS LAST 30 YEARS BILLS 1.5 difference 28.5 years. (coins win) when a bill dies you have to make a new one, and since coins last longer you have to make less therefore saving money. \"Therefore, as you can see, switching to the dollar coin would cost a bit over 1 billion dollars, which is must more than sticking with the dollar notes.\" you forgot long term savings. :) \"Switching to dollar coins requires much more money in the beginning than sticking with dollar notes. Pro has not addressed this vital point in the debate.\" stop repeating I have proven it saves money over time with multiple sources. I have done this and proved my point, no need to refute as my opponent just repeats. He will still claim the month thing but that is not in his power to decide as I made no official rules (instigator makes rules) and the only power I granted you was definitions. He is in a red herring. dang i have to refute his economic argument :) in the short term it it bad but in the long term it will HELP the economy. Also we are arguing cost not economics. another red herring. I have fufilled the BOP there was no month restriction. conlusion to the rebutals: My opps. arguments are all red herrings. Also he decided to give himself the power of rule making, which he does not have, I deserve conduct for his remarks that he deserves rule pawers when he is the contender and the only thing granted to him was definitions. I also deserve conduct for the red herring. Also he used an example from canada. My arguments. I will prove my point again. Also when he turns around and says a dollar coin costs more according to this .org site remember, my goverment source would know more about that. goverment math on the subject: One way of expressing the savings is to compare the average yearly cost to the government of meeting the public's need for a dollar of coin or currency over the expected 30-year life of a coin. If the government meets that need by furnishing a note, it will have to produce 20 one-dollar notes over the 30-year period to replace continuously those that wear out hi order to keep a single one-dollar note in circulation. Thus, the average annual production cost for notes is about 2.5 cents (3.8 cents divided by 1.5 years) per dollar in circulation. By contrast, if the government meets the public's need for one-dollar currency through coins, the average annual production cost is only 0.27 cents (8 cents divided by 30 years) for each dollar in circulation. In addition, the more frequent and higher processing cost of notes adds to the cost of keeping a dollar note in circulation. Therefore, the government saves between 2 cents and 3 cents per year for each dollar coin that replaces a dollar note. That would add up to a savings of $120 million to $180 million a year if $6 billion in notes were replaced by an equal amount in coins. [1] yep just read it again if you need clarification. other sources: He said that dollar coins have an average shelf life of 30 years and are recyclable; therefore, once they are in circulation, new ones will need to be produced less often. [2] thats was from a congressman. That's why it is cheaper because you have to make them less often, saving money. The initial cost of producing the coins would cause the government to lose money during the first four years of circulation, but the switch would save an estimated $5.5 billion over 30 years, according to the General Accountability Office. [2] With that said, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said the country could save $5.5 billion over the next three decades if they eliminated the dollar bill, replacing it with the dollar coin, permanently. [3] conclusion: I do not have to prove it saves in a month as my opp. doesn't have the power to choose that as I am the one with the rule making power and his only power is to debate and define. That is his red herring. Also I have proven my case with credible sources and a govermental one. I also argued what the title defined and used american examples, not a canadian one. I have fufilled the BOP, refuted my opps. arguments, used viable sources, and avoided red herrings to the best of my ability. (I do not think I can say as much for my opp.) SO vote pro, as I have won. sources: http://www.cbo.gov... [1] http://www.seminolenewspaper.com... [2] http://www.newsherald.com... [3]", "qid": 45, "docid": "ca843402-2019-04-18T18:33:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7043835520744324}, {"content": "Title: Bitcoin Should Stay Legal in the United States Content: This debate is over whether Bitcoin should stay a legal currency in the U.S.. There will be 4 rounds: 1. Acceptance speech 2. Argument 3. Counter-argument 4. Ending notes Be prepared for your argument with evidence and reasoning. Have three claims and evidence backing all the claims. Try to be grammatically correct and do not use profane language. Good luck!", "qid": 45, "docid": "de555639-2019-04-18T11:54:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7040383219718933}, {"content": "Title: The US should abolish the penny Content: I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people\"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people\"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don\"t accept them, vending machines don\"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren\"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 45, "docid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7030062079429626}, {"content": "Title: In the US, pennies should be abolished. Content: I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions", "qid": 45, "docid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7019861936569214}, {"content": "Title: Convert the penny!!! Content: So, we agree making the penny costs the government money. Your only objection is the rounding tax argument. But, the rounding tax is a myth. Robert Whalpes, an economist at Wake Forest, studied almost a half a million transactions and found that the number of times consumers would lose change, is equal to the amount of times they would gain change. We can see this logically as well. When I buy something, there is an equal chance that it comes out to any random amount of change. So, over the course of multiple transactions, the gains and losses even out. So, without the rounding tax, there are no plausible issues with converting the penny. We don't have the $3 billion cost to consumers, but we do lose the $150 million per year cost of manufacturing our nuisance coins.", "qid": 45, "docid": "f143e2ae-2019-04-18T19:44:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7006113529205322}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should be abolished Content: Pennies are a waste of time and money. For instance, according http://www.usmint.gov...;, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny, along with the nickel should be abolished in production.", "qid": 45, "docid": "2e7d8f78-2019-04-18T16:06:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6995383501052856}, {"content": "Title: Bit coin is a scam Content: 1. Anything non physical is untrustworthy. 2. My second argument is than anyone could make more. 3. The dollar looses its value, it doesn't rapidly go up and down. 4. Yes but you could get a replacement, and the bank has records, bit coin is decentralised. 5. Except that it's a law. 6. Bit coin is completely untraceable unlike the dollar. 7. If it was a good thing hed reveal his identity.", "qid": 45, "docid": "492eab8f-2019-04-18T14:25:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6982409358024597}, {"content": "Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: I accept. Noting the comments others left, I will take this debate on in what I believe to be the spirit you intended, and will not resort to cheap tricks like only considering a one-penny increase. Proceed, honored opponent.", "qid": 45, "docid": "32f15628-2019-04-18T17:22:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6979867219924927}, {"content": "Title: Convert the penny!!! Content: This is actually the response I expected. I am familiar with Robert Whaples' point of view, and I even read his article entitled \"Why keeping the penny no longer makes sense.\" But despite the viewpoints of Robert Whaples, Greg Mankiw, and a few others, the economy truly would suffer due to the elimination of the penny. In Whaples' article, he claims to have obtained data on \"nearly 200,000 transactions\" and states \"the number of times consumers' bills would be rounded upward is almost exactly equal to the number of times that they would be rounded downward.\" These words of \"nearly\" and \"almost\" accompanied by a complete lack of data make his view flaky at best. In reality, the rounding tax is not a myth. On the surface Whaples' claim may seem to hold water. But upon a deeper analysis we can find out why it is untrue. Currently we still have the penny, but even now due to the sales tax percentages, costs are being rounded up or down to the penny. Here's the problem: whenever a customer purchases an item that would end in a half a penny after tax, that item gets rounded up to the penny. One half lies exactly between being rounded up or down. Yet it gets rounded up every time. This may seem trivial, but such trivial percentages have allowed businesses like casinos to rake in a large portion of money. The mention of casinos may seem out of place, but the same principle with rounding pennies in convenience stores applies. The house (or the store in this case) has a small advantage since there are slightly more totals that will be rounded up rather than down. This effect insures that the stores come out on top. The effect is cumulative, just as most of the economists have claimed. Furthermore, when looking at the sales tax percentages we can see that this number of one half comes out even more often than expected from a random set of numbers. The tax percentages tend to end in eighths, quarters, or halves. This gives an even larger advantage, and studies done with common cash purchases has shown that somewhere between 60% and 93% of transactions would be rounded up. While the rounding tax and the devastation of the economy should be enough to dissuade others from eliminating the penny, it is not the only reason to save the penny. The people that have proposed this notion claim that prices would still be the same when it comes to payments by check, credit card, or debit card. Only cash paying customers would apparently suffer since there would be no more pennies. This means that the one cent unit of currency would still exist on paper. There would just be no tangible one cent pieces. Our current system uses the same units of currency on paper or in the form of tangible cash. So eliminating the penny would move one step closer to eliminating tangible currency. This may seem like nothing, but it can open up a huge can of worms. Once people become used to the idea of currency that only exists electronically, further steps in the same direction can be made. When every purchase by every person is made electronically, the items that each individual buys will be able to be tracked. This is not a good thing. The current president has already violated privacy rights by viewing all of the books that people read and check out of a library. Further rights can be violated when the government can track every purchase by every person. I saw that you are in favor of George W. Bush, but you should still acknowledge that privacy would be violated if every individual's transactions can be traced. Since you stated that you are also in favor of flag burning, I think you may understand the philosophical necessity of freedom and rights. On your profile it also states that you are against a flat tax. I am as well, because it would damage the lower class. Similarly, the rounding tax (which is NOT a myth, despite Robert Whaples' claim) would also adversely affect the lower class since they are the ones more likely to make purchases with cash rather than credit cards or checks. So the two reasons to save the penny are that the economy would suffer overall, and the movement towards an elimination of tangible currency is a step in the wrong direction.", "qid": 45, "docid": "f143e2ae-2019-04-18T19:44:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.697970986366272}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy. Content: Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.", "qid": 45, "docid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6977139711380005}, {"content": "Title: Andrew Jackson should remain on the $20 bill. Content: Many people say that Andrew Jackson, the seventh POTUS, should not have the honor of being on American currency. He currently holds position on the twenty dollar bill. I believe it should stay that way. My opponent shall argue otherwise.", "qid": 45, "docid": "ea76cbbd-2019-04-18T16:40:35Z-00008-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6971923112869263}, {"content": "Title: Should the penny be kept in US currency Content: If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!", "qid": 45, "docid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6970424652099609}, {"content": "Title: if america switched to a 1$ coin we would save money Content: Thanks for accepting. MY case refutes your arguments. News sources: The Government Accountability Office, which issued a report on the cost-savings of a currency switch earlier this year, said that because coins outlast paper currency (which survive about 42 months), the switch would save about $5.6 billion over 30 years. [1] So at first it may spike spending but over a period of time it saves money. There actually is a good reason why the Mint is trying to get us to use dollar coins instead of bills. The Government Accountability Office says Uncle Sam could save $522 million a year in production expenses if we did. That's because the coins last 30 years, while the bills don't even last 30 months. [2] The main reason to make the switch is that it will save money. Paper dollars wear out in about three years and then are typically shredded and put in landfills. Coins cost more to make, but they last 30 years or more, and they're recyclable when they become too worn to circulate. The government also makes money on the difference between what money costs to make and what it's worth. [3] Over time, all this adds up. The Government Accountability Office estimates that switching to dollar coins would incur costs at first, but save the government $5.5 billion over 30 years. The study is thorough and credible, despite attempts to knock it down. This is the fourth time the non-partisan GAO has worked through the analysis and concluded that the government would gain from a switch. [3] Other sources: The move to a coin would cost money in the short term, but eventually save money because paper currency lasts about 42 months -- while coins theoretically last forever. Moving to a coin could save $5.6 billion over 30 years, according to the Government Accountability Office. [4] some of my sources have other arguments but we are focused on cost. So you cannot use those. The current $1 coin program actually reduces the federal deficit by nearly $300 million each year. [5] The news release cited the U.S. Mint's 2010 Annual Report, which states the $1 coin program made a net profit of $283 million, all of which was transferred to the Treasury General Fund to reduce government debt. [5] So it gave us profit According to a report released in March by the GAO, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year by the continued use of the dollar note. The report, Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the Government, found that transitioning fully to a dollar coin would save the government an average of $184 million per year and approximately $5.5 billion over a 30-year period. Using more traditional assumptions in the GAO analysis, savings could be as high as $11.1 billion. [5] So different numbers but same trend. According to the Dollar Coin Alliance, without a dollar coin program, and given losses of more than $40 million for cents and 5-cent coins, the Mint would be in danger of operating the circulating coin program at a net loss. [5] So according to this since we haven't enacted this plan we are losing money. According to the Dollar Coin Alliance, this response is consistent with findings from the GAO's own polling in 2002 and an ABCNews.com online survey in October 2011 that found that 76 percent of respondents favored eliminating the note given the savings opportunity. [5] SO most Americans are for the bill. SO don't say Americans won't use it and then there is no benefit. We are in 15 trillion dollars in debt any savings helps. 15 trillion dollars im debt [6] The reason for the indifference? The federal government never bothered to discontinue the use of a paper dollar. The government has about $1 billion worth of unused dollar coins sitting in a vault, the Government Accountability Office claims. The GAO also claims if America finally phased out a paper dollar in favor of a coin, it would save the federal budget $5.6 billion over 30 years. [7] this is getting annoying I have proved my point here. I believe I have proved and fulfilled the BOP http://abcnews.go.com... [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.azcentral.com... [4] http://www.coinworld.com... [5] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [6] http://hypervocal.com... [7]", "qid": 45, "docid": "ca843402-2019-04-18T18:33:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6967569589614868}, {"content": "Title: Pennies should be abolished Content: Pro has the BOP.If we used nickels, Americans would pay a \"rounding tax\" of about $2 billion to $4 billion per year [1]. But Pro wants to abolish nickels, so that tax would surely be much higher. This neutralizes any benefit that comes with the cost of making pennies. Poor people who make small purchases are hurt, as are charities that use penny drivesNext, pennies are sentimental. About two-thirds of Americans want to keep the penny [1]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 45, "docid": "2e7d8f78-2019-04-18T16:06:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.696693480014801}, {"content": "Title: The penny should be immediately discontinued. Content: I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.", "qid": 45, "docid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6964960098266602}, {"content": "Title: Get rid of the penny!! Content: The quote you mention \"Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost.\" refers to the new Lincoln nickels, not the current Jefferson nickels. Notice it says \"adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable.\" So, I don't contradict myself and you reinforce the point that the new nickels/old pennies would cost less than current nickels and save the government a boatload of money. When I say the monetary advantage is null, I am refering to the advantage between buyers and sellers during a transaction. You're woorrying about the change situation during transactions, so I am simply explaining that when you do go to McDonald's, they will round the price, either down or up, and in the long run, prices won't be effected because over the course of several transactions, the rounding will cancel itself out (lose 1 cent, gain 2 cents, lose 2 cents, gain 1 cent, etc, etc.). The price of everything wouldn't change. It would simply be rounded to the nearest nickel. So, say your Mcnuggets cost $1.22. You pay with $1.25 and the price is rounded down to $1.20 (the nearest nickel) and you get a nickel back. This means there is no reason, whatsoever, for a new flat tax. So, not only would abolishing the penny get rid of all those pesky coins, it would save the government, and therefore taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars without effecting monetary transactions.", "qid": 45, "docid": "2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6949400305747986}, {"content": "Title: Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision. Content: I think that the production shouldn't be stopped because for one, in a way, it kinda makes things easier. And taking away the penny would make things more expensive change wise also. and EVERY store EVERYWHERE would have to change the price tag on everything so that the lowest change number was 5 cents", "qid": 45, "docid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6943643093109131}]}
{"query": "Should net neutrality be restored?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7891600131988525}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7791831493377686}, {"content": "Title: allow internet service providers to block access to extremist websites Content: ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality", "qid": 46, "docid": "e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7757672071456909}, {"content": "Title: block access to websites that deny the Holocaust Content: The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality", "qid": 46, "docid": "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7702282667160034}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: I pick resolution 2, \"Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced\". You are PRO, I am CON. If you would like to go first, go ahead; if not, I will next round.", "qid": 46, "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7627646923065186}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: \"the sky isn\"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive.\" >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O\"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can\"t see on the internet -the problem of, \"blocking and slowing down certain info is bad,\" is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, \"making the Internet better.\" Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn\"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, \"dire problems?\" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don\"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response", "qid": 46, "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7618880271911621}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00025-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7612512111663818}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: (Note that I have neglected to mention a variety of arguments that have little or no bearing on the debate, 10000 characters are often not enough when debating a topic like this) IntroductionPro claims that he should be the winner of this debate because \u201cthe Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win.\u201d But it was stated very explicitly in my 2nd Round that my strategy in this debate is not to provide positive arguments for net neutrality; instead I was to undermine Pro\u2019s arguments, by refuting all of his contentions, and thus show that there are exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. If I do this successfully, then Pro has not met his BOP. But in doing so, I inadvertently affirm a case for net neutrality because in his 1st round, Pro has essentially set out the case for net neutrality, as he has already specified arguments in favour of net neutrality, such as:\u2022 A rejection of net neutrality enables \u201cbroadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content.\u201d\u2022 Net neutrality enables \u201cequal treatment\u201d and \u201cends [ending] discrimination in transmitting content\u201d, which is desirable. Pro then seeks out to refute them. But, if I successfully refute his criticisms, then these arguments for net neutrality are affirmed by default. So I personally do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, because Pro already has done so for me.In addition, in other areas of the debate, I have also implicitly made arguments for net neutrality such as:\u2022 \u201cISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet.\u201dFreedom of Speech1. FCCa) Pro accepts that net neutrality as considered in this debate will be focussing on the principle or concept of net neutrality \u2013 in effect, all forms of net neutrality legislation. Pro takes issue with the \u201chighly transparent and democratic manner\u201d bit. He claims that the FCC already is highly transparent and democratic. This contradicts his later statement; that \u201cnet neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members.\u201d [the FCC] I don\u2019t see how that is transparent and democratic (especially) at all. b) Pro also argues that my solution is \u201chypothetic\u201d and that I would need to present \u201cexamples of specific legislation spelling out how exactly transparency is achieved and grants solvency.\u201d I don\u2019t. No matter how hypothetical the scenario presented is, it still should be treated because we are dealing with net neutrality as a principle. c) Pro also argues that \u201cregardless of how transparent they are, their idea of \u2018fair\u2019 still does not line up with ours.\u201d But I am not advocating for the FCC to merely act \u201ctransparently\u201d, but also \u201chighly democratically\u201d. 2. Chinaa) Pro\u2019s argument is irrelevant. Even if we adopt the view that net neutrality would lead to infringements of freedom of speech with parallels to censorship in China, it still is a slippery slope.Consider the format of a slippery slope fallacy: \u201cIf we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually too, therefore A should not happen.\u201dWe can see that Pro\u2019s argument doesn\u2019t overcome the problem of a slippery slope, because Z is simply changed from \u201ccensorship that mirrors China\u201d to \u201ccensorship that has many parallels to censorship as seen in China.\u201d b) Pro misuses MacKinnon\u2019s article. Never in the article did MacKinnon talk about net neutrality, as a Control+F search of \u201cneutrality.\u201d would reveal. Instead, MacKinnon was talking about the Stop Online Piracy Act, a separate issue. Pro attempts to treat the issue lightly, making an argument based on history to suggest that \u201cit is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a possibility we should at the very least be wary of.\u201dc) Pro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those. d) It is merely established that FCC\u2019s supposed infringement upon freedom of speech is a \u201cpossibility\u201d. But that alone is not enough to provide a reason why we should reject net neutrality. We could still have a rationale for implementing net neutrality, but merely be wary over the FCC ie. make their actions \u201chighly transparent and democratic\u201d. ISPs1. Blocking ContentPro claims that it is entirely reasonable that ISPs are able to block out legitimate content because they are the providers of a service, and thus it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to do what they want with such a service. Note that Pro has conceded the BitTorrent point, and shifts his attention to the rights of ISPs as a whole. a) This argument is that it entails a closed Internet, because ISPs \u201cfavour certain uses\u201d and \u201cexplicitly filter out content\u201d, even though it is presumed within the framework of this debate that a closed internet is not desirable. Thus, we should not grant them this right. b) Pro does attempt to address this argument, though. He argues that \u201cwith numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options for consumers, the internet remains open.\u201d This is true, when considering the internet from a wide scope. It should be noted that my argument looks at the openness of the Internet from the perspective of a subscriber of an ISP company choosing to filter out content. Thus, it is claimed that on balance, the Internet still remains more open if net neutrality were rejected, than if it were not, because the introduction of \u201cthe FCC as a presider over the internet\u201d is \u201ca clear introduction to a closed internet\u201d. d) Pro assumes that the FCC will abuse their power and promote actions that lead to a closed Internet. This is essentially his \u201cfreedom of speech\u201d argument repackaged. It should be discounted due to the fact that compelling replies have already been given to such an argument, as seen above. e) His argument \u2013 that net neutrality places the decision of what is available on the Internet into the hands of five commission members \u2013 fails due to the same issue. We are dealing with net neutrality as a principle rather than specific forms of its legislation. Pro\u2019s argument does not address net neutrality as a principle \u2013 net neutrality does not require 5 commission members to be in control \u2013 rather, it addresses specific forms of net neutrality.2. Innovationa) Pro has not addressed the descriptive-normative gap argument satisfactorily. Critics of his position do not deny that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. The problem is how to link the descriptive statement (what is) to a normative statement (what ought). b) Merely restating the descriptive statement does not get anyone anywhere in bridging this gap. In order to get from an is to an ought, Pro must \u201ccombine the [is] with an ethical principle or assumption.\u201d (1) c) Pro\u2019s analogy of a store fails. Pro notes that different types of date have a different cost to be supplied. But this doesn\u2019t mean that different pricing schemes for different types of data should be adopted, because this is not necessarily in virtue of the type of data transmitted, but rather the ISPs\u2019 method of data transmission. Tom MacKay explains:\u201cISPs\u2026need to deal with connections between content providers and their own networks. When Game of Thrones freezes up, the problem could be saturation at the select locations where data leaves HBO and intersects with an ISP\u2026the ISP must upgrade their network to accommodate traffic that might be generated by a few high-data companies.\u201d (2)3. Europe a) The net neutrality regulations in Europe are recent \u2013 only established this year - so we can\u2019t make any judgements empirically.b) Pro needs to show that the reason that because Internet is lacking in Europe is a consequence of the establishment of broadband as a public utility. He, and the article he refers to, only cites a correlation between the two, not a causal relationship. There are other factors that should be taken into account eg. regarding broadband coverage, the discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the U.S is much richer than many European countries such as Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria.c) Cheng et.al in their paper The Debate on Net Neutrality: A Policy Perspective show that the opposite is the case. They use a \u201cgame theoretic model\u201d to evaluate the impact of net neutrality, and conclude that \u201cthe incentive to expand infrastructure capacity for the broadband service provider and its optimal capacity choice under net neutrality are higher than those under the no net neutrality regime except in some specific cases. Under net neutrality, the broadband service provider always invests in broadband infrastructure at the socially optimal level, but either under- or over-invests in infrastructure capacity in the absence of net neutrality.\u201d (3) Householda) I don\u2019t see how I have been selective with Pro\u2019s arguments, and Pro doesn\u2019t specify how so. Pro doesn\u2019t specify which source provides justifications for his claims, so I can\u2019t possibly evaluate his argument, considering that several of the sources are extremely long and for the most part, seemingly irrelevant. His quotation from \u201cthe Comcast article\u201d fails to justify both claims that I called out upon. b) I have addressed Pro\u2019s argument. I argued that rejection of net neutrality doesn\u2019t result in an immediate solution of network congestion, as with the case with an affirmation of net neutrality, so neither offers an advantage. ConclusionBy refuting Pro\u2019s arguments, I am in effect, making a case for net neutrality. Pro\u2019s major arguments have been refuted. Thus, I have implicitly made a case for net neutrality, as well as refuted Pro\u2019s arguments against it. The resolution is negated. (1) http://v.gd...(2) http://mic.com...(3) http://papers.ssrn.com...", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7517225742340088}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7464655041694641}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7385799884796143}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a \"new technology or business model\" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to \"partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies\" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this \"monopoly\" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a \"regulatory regime\". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs \"pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others\" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: \"Among our nation\"s 12 largest internet service providers,\" he told the audience, \"domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.\" I ask him to elaborate. \"As I\"ve seen it and heard it,\" he says, \"Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that \"even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.\" \" By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren\"t sticking it to the man. We aren\"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from \"Banksy\" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search \"If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality\". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn\"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: \"The European Union\"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.\" In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will \"throttle\" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don\"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to \"throttle\" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were \"pilloried in the court of public opinion\" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...", "qid": 46, "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.738260805606842}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality means greater regulation of the Internet", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7375904321670532}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: I accept the Con side of the debate that the U.S. shouldn't require net neutrality. I am looking forward to Pro posting their first arguments.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7371259927749634}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall.", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00015-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7367793917655945}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Greetings! I am quite interested in the concept of net neutrality, hence our topic: The United States Federal Government should reject Net Neutrality. I will be assuming the Pro/For side in this debate; thus, my opponent will be arguing in favor of net neutrality.The burden of proof will be net benefits.My thanks to whomever accepts this debate; you may use your first round either to accept and present your arguments, or simply to accept the debate-your choice.I hope to have a lively debate!", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00009-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7362724542617798}, {"content": "Title: net neutrality Content: I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.", "qid": 46, "docid": "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.735010027885437}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: Nope. You don't get to play the victim. I'm a moderate, so I think both sides are crazy and ostracize each other. Everyone benefits from net neutrality.", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7348135709762573}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: -My great thanks to an excellent opponent for providing excellent opposition in this debate; I legitimately enjoyed it! -In this final round, I will seek to address all of the main points and summarize arguments to as to be as clear as possible on the rational for why I have succeeded in fulfilling the resolution that the USFG should reject Network Neutrality. Freedom of Speech -I agreed that we are considering the concept of net neutrality as \u201ca general principle/concept; we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.\u201d Inherent to this, while certainly debating the merits of the possible, we are focusing on the current net neutrality legislation as proposed by the USFG; debating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. Thus, my previous arguments against net neutrality via the FCC stand, as ALL current forms of proposed net neutrality legislation specifically utilize the FCC as the primary actor, an argument which Opposition ceded and attempts to circumvent by arguing that we are only addressing net neutrality as a concept in an effort to eliminate all historical applications of net neutrality legislation, including through the FCC, thus hoping to eliminate all arguments against freedom of speech; this clearly fails. -Opposition protests that my arguments are very narrow in that \u201cit only deals with the FCC as the enforcer,\u201d an argument addressed above; however, note that Opposition\u2019s only suggested alternative to current net neutrality legislation is one which \u201crequires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner,\u201d with the suggestion that this would prevent such control of the internet by the FCC suggested previously. The first problem is that this still involves the FCC as the enforcer, negating Oppositions solution. -Opposition further misunderstands my arguments regarding the \u201chighly transparent and democratic manner\u201d bit. I never argue that the FCC is highly transparent and democratic, but rather that they are tasked with being highly transparent and democratic. Opposition\u2019s solution for corruption and the FCC\u2019s blatant censorship is to make them \u201chighly transparent and democratic,\u201d yet doesn\u2019t have any suggestions on how. The problem with this approach is that they are already thus tasked; in fact, our entire form of government is built around the concept of being transparent and democratic, yet clearly there have been failings therein. Tacking a \u201chighly democratic\u201d onto a \u2018highly transparent\u2019 does not change the course of the government. The reason that I reject such a hypothetical as Opposition\u2019s arguments have become invested in is because it has been an unachieved goal for decades. It is one thing to suggest a hypothetical on merit of its benefits; it is another entirely to argue solvency from a hypothetical without solvency for the hypothetical, the difference being: Opposition has suggested how we would benefit from a highly transparent and democratic FCC/government, yet fails to suggest the method of obtaining said transparency. Further, Opposition\u2019s solvency is entirely speculation; Opposition has presented absolutely no proof that this theoretical transparency could result in the circumvention of the threats of concentrating power over ISPs into government hands, and therefore this argument is non-topical. China -It is neither inappropriate nor fallacial to note similarities between proposed US legislation and acts of censorship in foreign nations, nor is it fallacial to note the outcomes of such in foreign nations. I never argued that the outcome of net neutrality legislation will be China; I simply note the similarities and suggest that comparatively speaking, such actions of giving government control over the internet has led to government abusing this power-I am arguing for the similarity between the two. If such a comparison is fallacial, then every time we look to another nation, corporation, form of legislation, etc. to try and gauge the reaction/outcome of our pending actions based off of the outcome of theirs so as to improve upon it, we commit a fallacy, meaning one of two things: either our everyday actions are fallacial, yet work and have proven beneficial in reforming the path of our nation to avoid the mistakes of others; or Opposition\u2019s interpretation here is mistaken. Either way this is a legitimate comparison that is used every day in our government to improve our policies and avoid the mistakes of others. For this reason the argument stands. c) Opposition notes that \u201cPro has not responded to my argument in the previous round that FCC actions regarding televisions and radios should not be compared with the Internet, because of the different ways information is transmitted between those.\u201d Opposition appears to be forgetting that under current legislation via Section 706 and Title II, internet services would be regrouped from information services to the same regulations governing common carriers (radio, TV). Thus, as the FCC will have the exact same level of control and oversight of the internet as it did over radio and TV, these two are absolutely comparable despite all informational transmission differences because the law would treat them absolutely the same. I am not ignoring the structural differences between TV/radio and the internet; rather, net neutrality legislation is. Your argument serves to undermine your own case. ISPs 1. Blocking Content a + b) On the contrary; I recognize the perspective you are coming from. I simply argue that on balance, the allowance of the market to introduce new ISPs without the restrictions of ones such as Comcast (the sole example of content exclusions cited in this debate) will allow for a net benefit. The FCC (or any other governmental entity) would impose strict regulations of what is/is not acceptable on the internet, and this content would simply be gone; nobody has access. Under ISPs, there could be limited content disallowed, but on the whole no content is strictly forbidden, and the market allows for the emergence of new ISPs supplying the content blocked by others; it is in their best interest economically in such a market (without net neutrality regulations) to supply as much content as possible. d) I disagree; I feel compelling responses have been given as to why we should consider solely the FCC as actor under net neutrality legislation. e) My argument here succeeds for the same reason cited above. Further, my arguments move past the specific legislation being considered in the US to other forms of net neutrality; I have asserted on several occasions that the fact that one commission (the FCC) has existed and been able to garner so much control over methods of communication shows the capacity for such organizations to exist. The mere fact that net neutrality legislation would entail giving a governmental body authority over the internet is sufficient argument against the institution of net neutrality legislation. 2. Innovation a + b) Opposition appears to be looking for a debate on economics; the recognition that \u201cthere are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content\u201d directly leads to the conclusion, by businesses in general, that the pricing should vary accordingly to make a profit. This is common business practice, and Opposition\u2019s attempt to philosophically analyze this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is that content is priced differently as a result of the production cost differential (which Opposition concedes to be true). c) This doesn\u2019t change the fact that it can cost more to transmit certain types of data, thus costing more, regardless of where precisely the cost originates. Household b) The probability of network congestion being resolved is stronger without net neutrality. With net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems, resulting in no solution from net neutrality legislation. With ISPs being able to price their own internet packages, congestion is reduced due to users paying for their usage, but there is also a greater level of income with which to reform the system. The odds of network congestion solvency due to incentive by ISPs is much greater without net neutrality, granting Government net benefits in this instance. Conclusion -Opposition\u2019s case relies heavily on very technical arguments, the foremost being that we should only analyze net neutrality as a concept, excluding the aspect of existing legislature. However, it is crucial for this debate to analyze not only net neutrality as a concept, but to also include the existing set of reforms which would enact net neutrality in the US. Hypothetical forms of legislation only become relevant once proposed, because here were are trying to argue the merits of that net neutrality legislation with which we have the potential to be governed by in the future. The only reason for Opposition\u2019s exclusion of current legislation is the FCC\u2019s history and the weight this lends to the Government in this debate. -Further, Opposition\u2019s only proposed argument against the right of ISP\u2019s to price their services freely is that \u201cthey can\u2019t be trusted to govern the internet\u201d and \u201cit would hurt the consumer.\u201d As I have argued, an increased cost to the consumer has no bearing on the right of ISPs to self-determine pricing. Additionally, in arguing that ISPs cannot be trusted with the internet, Opposition is essentially arguing that the government (via the FCC) can. I have continually shown this assertion to be false throughout this debate; Opposition\u2019s attempts to exclude the FCC from this debate following Round 2 only serves to support this point. I feel I have very thoroughly shown that the Government has earned net benefits in support of the resolution, The USFG Should Reject Network Neutrality, and that the Opposition has not upheld its burden of proof in this resolution. -The Resolution is Upheld.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.733261227607727}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.732745885848999}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: No, you have shared your opinion. Net neutrality means a neutral internet.", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7312778234481812}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: But with that said, let\u2019s get down to business. In this Final Round, I will provide a final criticism of Pro\u2019s arguments, helping to tie up some loose ends along the way, and also clarify a variety of points that I have made. In addition, I will also use this round to attempt to convince readers that they should vote for Con, rather than Pro. The FCCPro focusses a significant amount of his final round to focus on the FCC, and makes a variety of criticisms, many surrounding on the on the concepts of \u201cprinciple\u201d and \u201cconcept. \u201d Thus, it is important to clarify what exactly is a principle, or a concept. The Oxford English Dictionary (Kindle Edition) defines principle as:\u201cA general idea of plan, although the details are not yet established. \u201dAlso by the OED, concept is defined as: \u201cAn abstract idea\u201dHowever, Pro argues that we should focus on current net neutrality proposals because \u201cdebating any other form of legislation is not of immediate relevance, as it is not being considered for institution. \u201d But, given the definitions of \u201cprinciple\u201d and \u201cconcept\u201d this is clearly absurd. As per the definition of principle, we are considering net neutrality in general, and considering it as if \u201cthe details are not established. \u201d As per the definition of concept, we are to focus on net neutrality as \u201can abstract idea\u201d. Therefore, Pro\u2019s rebuttal bears little relevance; by attempting to focus this debate on current net neutrality legislation, regardless of its immediate relevance, he is destroying the whole purpose of debating a principle, or concept. Previously, I gave an example of a scenario where Pro\u2019s arguments that the FCC has no interest in representing freedom of speech are nullified \u2013 where the FCC regulates ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. Pro critiques this by questioning the possibility of the FCC acting in a \u201chighly transparent and democratic manner\u201d and argues that this is an \u201cunachieved goal for decades\u201d and that the whole point of government is \u201cbuilt around the concept of being transparent and democratic. \u201d This rebuttal misses the point of my hypothetical scenario. The feasibility of this scenario bears little relevance because the whole point of this hypothetical scenario is to be far-fetched, because in doing so, it shows that Pro\u2019s freedom of speech argument does not apply in all scenarios, and thus, we can\u2019t reject net neutrality as a principle, or concept \u2013 merely recent forms of its legislation. One final argument relevant to the FCC that Pro makes against my argument that TVs and radios can\u2019t be compared with the Internet, because of the way information is transferred in each medium. Pro responds by citing Section 706 and Title II. But this completely misses the point of my argument. My argument was not to do with how the FCC oversees the various mediums, but how they act in regulating information. In addition, Pro has not elaborated at all on how net neutrality fails to take into consideration differences between such mediums, and how I have undermined my own case. ChinaBy the end of the debate, Pro concedes that he was only making a comparison. In contrast, at the beginning of the debate, he was adamant about the possibility of the US\u2019s internet being similar to China\u2019s, even invoking Negri\u2019s statement that \u201cAmericans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day. \u201d Pro is correct in saying that we should note similarities between the two, and the outcomes of various policies in other countries. But it we only do this, then that leaves Pro with no real argument to enforce, and he does not sufficiently clarify his position on this issue, especially considering his change of view since Round 2. If he is still arguing that net neutrality would lead to Internet with similarities to that seen in China, then it still is a slippery slope. If he is arguing that we merely should be cautious, and take this into consideration, then there is no rationale for rejecting net neutrality; we could still accept it, but just be cautious. ISPsIt is important to note that a essentially of this section (as left by Pro in his final round) is based on the assumption that the FCC is against freedom of speech, and would set limits on what one would do on the Internet. This is an assumption that has been debated throughout this debate, but falls short of establishing that a net benefit would be reached without net neutrality. This is because \u2013 as I have argued for many times in this debate - it takes a narrow scope, rather than a broad scope regarding net neutrality \u2013 it is focussing on specific forms of net neutrality legislation, rather than net neutrality as a principle, or a concept. Once again, Pro has failed to show how the descriptive statement to the normative statement. He merely complains that my attempts to \u201cphilosophically analyse this practice is simply an attempt to distract from the real issue. \u201d However, firstly, as Pro himself notes, I have conceded that there are differences between the bandwidth needs of various content. However, it is completely false to say that I am \u201clooking for a debate on economics\u201d as Pro claims. It is also untrue that the real issue is \u201cthat content is priced differently as a result of product cost differential\u201d. As a matter of fact, I argue that the real issue is to do with moral philosophy. This is because Pro is arguing that ISPs ought to be charging differently based on the type of content. Naturally, this leads into the realm of moral philosophy, because such a realm deals with what is right and what is wrong, what ought to be done, what ought not to be done; the normative aspects. Of course, positive economics is relevant to some extent. However, in this case, it is concerning the descriptive aspect of content, but not what ought to happen; the normative aspect. Pro hasn\u2019t really addressed this problem; instead, he keeps trying to push us back to a debate on the descriptive statement. Pro appeals to the fact that prices should be varying because to make a profit because \u201cit is common business practice\u201d. However, this doesn\u2019t lead logically to the conclusion that the prices should be varying. Simply because something is common business practice does not mean that this is right, or should be allowed in policy. Consequently, we have seen no compelling reason that ISPs should be pricing content differently, as per their bandwidth needs. We have merely seen that different content have different bandwidth needs. InnovationOne thing to note is that Pro has completely dropped his argument that there is empirical evidence showing that regulation of telecommunications companies in Europe leads to less innovation, and has negative effects, such as limiting consumer access to the Internet. Previously, I argued that this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence he has provided, because it does not show a causal relationship between the two. Furthermore, I provided a study by Chang et. al which shows that net neutrality has the opposite effect on innovation as Pro claims; it is actually beneficial in regard to innovation (especially infrastructure), rather than detrimental. Pro has not attempted to refute this evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no good reasons to believe that innovation will be negatively affected by net neutrality, only positively affected. HouseholdPro appears to concede that an ISP\u2019s pricing plan as advocated by him is also dependant on the ISP\u2019s actions. However, he still argues that network congestion is more likely to be solved without net neutrality than with net neutrality. His argument relies on the premise that \u201cwith net neutrality, ISPs are not required to upgrade their systems. \u201d Firstly, this is completely unjustified. It is also clearly false. In the previous round, I brought up McKay\u2019s observation that network congestion is also due to the ISP\u2019s method of data transmission between different servers. We can extend this to show that with net neutrality, ISPs have an incentive to upgrade this servers. This stems from the fact that because ISPs are not able to introduce their pricing schemes, they must find different ways to deal with net congestion, such as upgrading their systems. Conversely, if net neutrality was not introduced, and ISPs were to introduce a pricing scheme as advocated by Pro, they would have no incentive in upgrading their systems, because the problem is already solved. Thus, Pro\u2019s logic falls back on him. ConclusionThis debate took an interesting direction (largely because I misread Pro\u2019s Round 1 and thought that he had the sole BOP for a while), but nevertheless, as we are at the end of the debate, I contend that there are good reasons why the audience should vote Con. (1) Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof, because all of his arguments fail in one way or another. There are no successful arguments against net neutrality offered by Pro. (2) I have shown that by refuting Pro\u2019s arguments against net neutrality, I am implicitly making a case for net neutrality, due to the way Pro presents his case. This remained undisputed by Pro by the end of the debate. (3) Pro has dropped many of his core arguments. For instance, his argument about Europe\u2019s internet, and his argument that a rejection of net neutrality fuels competition (note that he never addressed this, after I called out his bare assertion in Round 2. ) (4) I have made positive arguments that have been unrefuted and untouched by Pro. For instance, net neutrality is beneficial towards innovation (from Cheng et. al) and that net neutrality helps dissipate monopolies and duopolies (Round 2). The resolution has been negated.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7307818531990051}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet. Content: This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00018-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7293779850006104}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Many thanks to my opponent for a great debate and prompt replies!-To confirm Opposition\u2019s note that we are either accepting or rejecting net neutrality as a general principle/concept, this is correct-we are considering all forms of network neutrality legislation.-That said, Opposition argues that the logical connective cannot be made between the FCC infringing upon freedom of speech and the USFG rejecting net neutrality legislation because my arguments only address the FCC as the agency of said legislation. There are several flaws with Opposition\u2019s argumentation here. First, Opposition overlooks the fact that ALL current network neutrality legislation would employ the FCC as the enforcer. Opposition\u2019s sole example of legislation which does not require the FCC as enforcer is \u201cfor instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner.\u201d This, again, uses the FCC as enforcer; unless Opposition can produce an example to the contrary, this argument is irrelevant. My primary issue with this statement is that Opposition suggests that the FCC is not currently tasked with operating in a \u201chighly transparent and democratic manner.\u201d They absolutely are! Yet we constantly see with government a gap between what they are obligated to do, and what they do in reality. Unless Opposition presents examples of specific legislation spelling out exactly how such transparency is achieved and grants solvency, this is simply a hypothetical solution. Further, Opposition\u2019s argument that a strong incentive to reinstate the fairness doctrine would be irrelevant in a \u2018highly transparent\u2019 organization is also making broad assumptions about the commission. Regardless of how transparent they are, their idea of \u2018fair\u2019 still does not line up with ours, and their ideology will continue to influence their decisions regardless of whether we achieve the \u2018transparency\u2019 Opposition argues for.-I believe Opposition\u2019s objections to the use of China as an example are unfounded for several reasons. First, Opposition argues that this is a slippery slope, that the US could never mirror China for internet censorship. Note that this was not the intent of my point; the use of China as an example is to show the similarities between censorship in China and what would be achieved by net neutrality in the US. Journalist Rebecca MacKinnon states \u201cThe intention is not the same as China\u2019s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar\u201d in reference to SOPA and net neutrality [1]. Judging by the historical implications of the FCC I introduced in my last round, it is not unreasonable to suggest this as a possibility we should at the very least be wary of; as such, I reject Opposition\u2019s argument of \u2018slippery slope,\u2019 for the reason that there is a very clear. Opposition then states \u201cinfringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries.\u201d It is this type of unguarded stance that allows our rights to become infringed upon. Regardless of socio-political differences between America and China, the characteristics inherent to human nature which cause the desire to influence the opinions of others in favor of self are clearly existent in both nations. Then of course there\u2019s the fact that the FCC has already infringed upon our freedom of speech, something Opposition has yet to attempt to contradict.-A crux issue in this debate is the question of whether or not ISPs have the right to block out specific content, ie. decide what they make available to clients. I have already made it clear that I support this right for ISPs. Opposition has argued that this result in legitimate content being blocked from users; so what? ISPs as providers of a service should be able to decide exactly what their service entails. This does not mean I support spontaneous blocking of sites; I do agree that ISPs should be open with consumers about what they have access to-I simply believe they are within their rights to block sites if they wish. Secondly, even should each point in support of ISPs having this right be rejected, Opposition is still required to suggest reasons they should not have this right in order to receive a vote under net benefits, a burden Opposition has not upheld. I strongly urge Opposition to present reasons why this is outside the right of ISPs, as the only argument presented thus far is that it isn\u2019t best for the consumer-this is why consumers change ISPs. This is where the free market comes in; if one company doesn\u2019t satisfy the consumer, the market provides a new option to make a profit through satisfying this new market of consumers. -I apologize for omitting this from my first response, but I concede Opposition\u2019s point that I never explicitly stated that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet. To clarify, my stance is that an open internet is more desirable, and further hold to my contention that net neutrality legislation will result in a net decrease in the openness of the internet. Opposition argues that allowing ISPs to restrict content access would result in a closed internet; I assert that this regardless is a net increase in the internet\u2019s openness. First, with numerous ISPs and the free market allowing for other options to emerge for consumers, the internet remains open, in contrast to net neutrality which introduces the FCC as presider over the internet, a clear introduction to a closed internet. Thus, net neutrality will result in a net reduction of internet openness, regardless of slight restriction by ISPs. We are, essentially, choosing the greater evil, which is government censorship/control of the internet. -I would also like to point out that net neutrality concentrates the decision of what is available into the hands of five commission members, as opposed to numerous ISPs and their corporation structures. I personally would choose option B any day. At a certain point, there is always someone choosing what is available to us for viewing; opting against net neutrality dilutes this into many, many more hands than the government, which is certainly preferable for the pursuit of freedom of speech and internet content availability.-For innovation: let me rephrase. These are different and are considered different by ISPs because they use differing amounts of bandwidth. Stipulating disconnects between descriptive and normative statements will not eliminate the technological differences between each of these; Opposition is essentially avoiding the recognition that there is a reason for ISPs to regard each uniquely. Just as we place prices on items in stores based off of the cost of production, ISPs place costs on types of data because of cost to supply it.-With regards to regulations in Europe: There most certainly are net neutrality regulations in place in Europe [3,4,5]. Further, by regulations in Europe, I am referring additionally to the European regulation framework that establishes public broadband as a public utility; the service-based competition system established by law has resulted in a system where no new investment or infrastructure is introduced into the system, causing a net loss in innovation. Broadband investment per household in the US is twice that in Europe; coverage is better; and basic broadband is cheaper in the US than in Europe [8,9]. The discrepancy between your statistics and mine can be found in the fact that the cost comparison of broadband in Europe is strictly for broadband, not a bundle of broadband, TV, and phone, which appears to be the focus of your cited statistics. France is the sole exception here; France actually has exceptional broadband services nd prices relative to the rest of Europe.Householda) ISPs may adopt any model of pricing they decide upon; they are independent businesses supplying a service to a consumer. I would contend that net benefits would be achieved in rejecting net neutrality, which I feel I have made sufficiently clear.b) My claims have been justified; the sources included in my last argument confirm this. Further, Opposition is being selective in quoting my arguments. I concede that both allow for lessening of congestion; I also state \u201cA rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on action by ISPs independent of legislation, and thus cannot be said to have solvency. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality holds sway here as solvency for network congestion falls in favor of a rejection of net neutrality in this debate.\u201d Thus I hold net benefits here stronger than Opposition\u2019s case does.-I feel I have sufficiently responded to each argument presented by the Opposition. However, I also feel the Opposition has not presented a case worthy of a win. Based off of the resolution, Opposition is tasked with arguing in favor of net neutrality; Opposition has failed to present any substantial arguments in favor of network neutrality, including why ISPs should not be able to engage in independent business models. Net benefits requires Opposition to create a clear image of how net neutrality is beneficial, not simply to attack the status quo. Should we not see this stance develop, it is impossible to assign net benefits to Opposition.Sources:[1] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] https://gigaom.com...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] http://www.bbc.com... [8] http://www.nationalreview.com...[9] http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7273463606834412}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: Thanks, Pro, for your quick yet substantive rebuttals. Freedom of SpeechFirst, I would like to provide a general criticism of Pro\u2019s argument that the FCC would through net neutrality, infringe upon freedom of speech. Note that the resolution of the debate concerns whether \u201cthe USFG should reject net neutrality.\u201d But he has not specified exactly which form of net neutrality legislation the USFG ought the reject. Thus, we are left to concluding that he is arguing that the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; a concept - in effect, all forms of net neutrality. Pro too notes that he was quite interested in \u201cthe concept of net neutrality\u201d. As a result, this debate should focus on net neutrality as a principle of a concept. However, his argument - the FCC would likely infringe upon freedom of speech through net neutrality \u2013 is not sufficient to reach the conclusion \u2013 the USFG ought to reject net neutrality as a general principle; in effect, all forms of net neutrality. This is because Pro\u2019s argument has a very narrow scope; it only deals with the FCC as the enforcer, rather than net neutrality itself. In effect, his argument does not take into consideration potential net neutrality legislation; for instance, ones that in order to be enforced, requires the FCC to regulate ISPs in a highly transparent and democratic manner. In this scenario, it may be that the FCC has a strong incentive in reinvoking the Fairness Doctrine, but this is ultimately irrelevant. Pro argues that because previously, the FCC has regulated content on TV and radio and was allowed to decide what was content-neutral, the FCC is likely to infringe upon freedom of speech on the Internet. But the problem is that the FCC was allowed to decide on their interpretation on what was content-neutral. As noted, the resolution is dealing with net neutrality as a principle. In legislation of net neutrality where the FCC was not allowed to define \u201ccontent neutral\u201d, this argument would no longer apply. In addition, Pro neglected to mention that structural differences between the operation of TV + Radio and the Internet. Leonhardt notes that:\u201cthe Internet \u201cdecouples\u201d the strong link between transmission and content; therefore, there is nothing on the Internet that is directly analogous to a television or radio broadcaster. Television broadcasters both transmit data and control its content, so that when a person watches NBC, they are only seeing NBC\u2019s programming. Conversely, on the Internet, the signal comes to a home from an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as AT&T, Comcast, Road Runner, or Verizon.57 However, once a consumer has a signal, they can view any content at all\u2014even content created by a competing ISP.\u201d (1) Consequently, we also should by default reject Pro\u2019s slippery slope argument regarding the possibility of net neutrality leading to censorship as seen in China, because it falls to the same \u201cgeneral criticism\u201d I already made above. But even if we do not reject such an argument by default we could make a variety of criticisms. Firstly, I noted in the 2nd round that Pro\u2019s argument is logically fallacious because it commits the slippery slope fallacy. Pro never responded to this, although he did indicate that he would eventually respond to all arguments, so I\u2019ll wait for him to do so. I also argued that because of the socio-political differences between in America and China, it is unlikely that net neutrality would lead to censorship like seen in China. Pro does not dispute this point; he merely argues that government officials still have the intention of keeping in power. However, this is irrelevant, because I am arguing that regardless of the government\u2019s will to stay in power, infringement upon freedom of speech would probably never happen due to the differences between the two countries. CompetitionPreviously, I argued that because there are legitimate uses of BitTorrent, Comcast should not have blocked BitTorrent traffic. Pro\u2019s reply misses the mark. Firstly, he argues that the \u201csite should solely be halted because it traffics pirated content, regardless of legal activities\u201d. However, Comcast was not solely blocking sites that hold pirated content available through BitTorrent, they were blocking BitTorrent traffic in general. In addition, there many examples of sites that use BitTorrent for solely legal purposes and have no pirated content. I provided the example of the Internet Archive in my previous round. To elaborate upon my last round, I also suggested that in order to download and update specific games, one would use a client that is dependent on BitTorrent technology. Furthermore, Pro shifts burden-of-proof. His argument is dependent on the assumption (aka. Hidden premise) that ISPs have the right to block out specific content ie. BitTorrent traffic, thus he is expected to defend the premise, just like any other premise. I don\u2019t have to provide an argument against this assumption, I merely have to ensure that his hidden premise is not affirmed, and I can do this by providing arguments of my own, criticising his arguments for the hidden premise, or both. In the 2nd Round, Pro also notes that he is arguing that net neutrality would take steps towards a closed Internet, rather than an open Internet, and thus it should be rejected. I showed that in order for this to lead logically to the USFG rejecting net neutrality, Pro would have to assume that an open Internet is desirable, and that a closed Internet is undesirable. I noted that I too support an open internet. Thus, this debate is run on the parameters that an open Internet is desirable, whilst a closed Internet is undesirable. Recall that the definition of closed Internet that is applied to this debate is: \u201cwhere established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.\u201dIf Pro is willing to defend Comcast\u2019s blocking of BitTorrent traffic/websites - which is a textbook example of \u201cexplicitly filter[ing] content\u201d - he is in effect defending actions leading to a closed Internet. However, this makes his case inconsistent, because he is arguing that net neutrality leads to a closed Internet, and thus should be rejected while at the same time supporting other actions which lead to a closed Internet. Innovationa) Pro misread me; I was not affirming that the value of the examples to be intrinsic, I was saying that those were relative. For instance, I would place the highest value on the e-Book, then the online calculator, and next-to-no value on the funny home video. In contrast, somebody may else may have the exact opposite. If ISPs were to regulate content as Pro proposes, then the problem of how the ISP should discern the value of each of these examples is raised. b) I argued that Pro needs to show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. This is because descriptive statements only deal with how the world works, in effect, what is. However, a normative statement deals with how the world ought to be, in other worlds, what should be the case, and thus lack logical connection. (2) Pro has not shown how they logically do connect; he is merely restating the descriptive statement. To show how the descriptive statement leads to the normative statement, at the very least, Pro must assume that different entities ought to be treated differently because of their differences. Householda) The winner of this debate is determined on the basis of what would be \u201cnet beneficial\u201d. Thus, I am essentially arguing that in the case of ISPs having to price content at different prices in the case of net neutrality being rejected, negative consequences will follow. So my question is relevant towards the debate, and thus must be answered. b) It was conceded last round that rejection of net neutrality nevertheless allows for solving the problem of network congestion. This is an important concession on behalf of Pro. Nevertheless, he makes the argument that \u201cISPs have not addressed internet congestion because they feel a better solution is to have clients paying for the level of data they want to use\u201d and \u201cdue to the enormous cost of doing so\u201d. But Pro has not justified neither claims, so at this point, we can only conclude that both are conjectures. Pro also argues that \u201ca rejection of net neutrality would result in an immediate solution; the institution of net neutrality legislation allows for solution, but depends on actions by ISPs independent of legislation\u201d, and thus we should favour the rejection of net neutrality. But a rejection of net neutrality does not result in an immediate solution. ISPs would still have to deal with a variety of questions such as how they ought to discern the importance of different content; which ones to put in the \u201cfast lane\u201d and how what form of pricing they should offer customers. In addition, a rejection of net neutrality legislation only entails that data should not be treated equally, it doesn\u2019t immediately lead to the ISP enforcing the particular pricing scheme that Pro advocates; they merely have the freedom to do so. Thus, a rejection of net neutrality offers no particular advantage to an affirmation of net neutrality in managing web congestion. ConclusionPro still needs to address several criticisms that I had made in the previous round. Many of the criticisms that he has supposedly addressed \u2013 as seen in this round \u2013 still ultimately triumph. Furthermore, a number of original objections were raised in this round, also rendering Pro\u2019s counterarguments to be unviable. Thus, Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated. Sources(1) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7263748645782471}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7259830236434937}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: Where is your rebuttal in that? We cannot have a debate when someone just throws an opinion out without any evidence, I just showed you how it is not fair and all you have is \"I am a moderate therefore net neutrality is fair.\" I do not know if you took the time to do some research but I am a moderate as well but I still believe it harms small business and conservatives, so please give me something to work off of next time.", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7235070466995239}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality Content: \"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment.\" Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: \"Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00063-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7231080532073975}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality has historical precedent", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.723086953163147}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: My opponent will be going first, so just for this argument, I will outline the basics of what net neutrality is for my opponent and the audience: \"Net Neutrality\": A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams (wikipedia/google) Basically, with net neutrality, a company cannot charge extra for access to certain parts parts of the internet, and they can't intentionally slow down the access to the net, only to charge more for the freer speed. However, this net neutrality only causes more government restrictions on the system, and may lower competition and capitalism, the basis for our national economy. My opponent will be going first, good luck.", "qid": 46, "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.721139669418335}, {"content": "Title: Should The US Keep Net Neutrality Content: Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. \"Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!\" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.", "qid": 46, "docid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7196030616760254}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: To conclude, I'll do a short rebuttal, and then I'll do a recap of the whole debate. == Rebuttal == (1) Pro says that net neutrality was a \"founding principle\" of the Internet. First, Pro's simply wrong: \"net neutrality\" is a recent phrase, coined by Tim Wu in 2003. [1] Second, Pro offers no source for his claim, so it's unreliable (and again, wrong). Third, even if Pro's right that net neutrality is a \"founding principle,\" that's irrelevant to this debate. The issue we're debating is whether to require net neutrality, or whether to allow entrepreneurs to experiment (e.g. Lariat Wireless, discussed in Round 2 and dropped by Pro). (2) Pro says antitrust laws \"don't work because regulation of ISPs are horrible.\" But that makes no sense. Regulations aren't relevant to how the antitrust laws work. Antitrust laws apply in the absence of regulations. Antitrust laws prevent Amazon from blocking other online sites because the antitrust laws explicitly prohibit the \"attempt to monopolize\" and the \"abuse of monopoly power.\" There's no other way to characterize \"paying to block your competitors\" than an \"abuse of monopoly power\" or an \"attempt to monopolize.\" Both are illegal under our antitrust laws. (3) Pro continues to assert that the \"FCC guy\" was \"funded by version,\" but he provides no source for that claim. There's no reason to think FCC commissioners are funded by ISPs. (4) Pro says the FCC passed net neutrality rules. Yes, that's true. But that's also completely irrelevant to the debate, which is about whether there should be net neutrality laws, not whether there exist any net neutrality laws. And if the debate's about whether there exists net neutrality laws, then Pro still loses because the FCC rules haven't gone into effect yet, they're being challenged in the courts (and the last couple net neutrality rules the FCC approved were struck down by courts), and a change in administration could reverse the FCC's rule. (5) I agree with Pro that government should regulate some things, including some aspects of telecommunications. But there's no need to regulate net neutrality. == Recap == The argument against net neutrality is simple: net neutrality doesn't distinguish procompetitive discrimination from anticompetitive discrimination. Pro never challenged that argument. Instead, he claims that net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent anticompetitive discrimination. But as I explained throughout the debate, that's simply untrue. Our antitrust laws -- which have developed over the past 100 years -- are enough to protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination. The antitrust laws also allow entrepreneurs like Lariat Wireless (see Round 2) to experiment with procompetitive forms of data discrimination. The idea is to cater to the consumer, and in doing so, lower prices. The net result is that more people can get online than if we had a rigid net neutrality law, because prices are lower. It also leads to creative business models, which spurts growth and innovation. Pro never contests the substance of my argument. His only points throughout the debate focus on showing that ISPs can harm consumers and competition in the absence of net neutrality. But Pro offered no sourcing for any of his claims, even though I asked multiple times. The reason is because most of his claims aren't true. Moreover, I showed throughout the debate that Pro's wrong, because the antitrust laws already -- and the keyword there is \"already\" -- stop ISPs from harming consumers and competition. Pro never argues otherwise. Thus, there's simply no reason to displace our antitrust laws, which are flexible and fact-based, with a rigid net neutrality law that doesn't distinguish the procompetitive from the anticompetitive.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7192553877830505}, {"content": "Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: Mr Believer (Pro), thank you for proposing this interesting topic. Pro is in favor of internet neutrality, or transparency, or equality, or freedom - as opposed to the controls proposed by Virgin Media to limit access to certain sites based on bandwidth or advertising arrangements. Well, while I agree that a China-esque approach to Internet control sounds dreadful, this scheme is not being proposed by a government but by a corporation, which is also one of the last vestiges of real freedom. Corporations can do whatever they like in the free market. If they want to sell pickled rabbit turds, they can. They are free to try...and fail. As such, Virgin Media is free to try this bandwidth throttling scheme. If their customers like it, they will prosper. If their customers hate it, they will fail and the customers will switch to other vendors. If no other vendors currently exist, I promise you they soon will. In the United States, telephony was once controlled by a very small cabal of large corporations. However, people didn't like the policies of those corporations, and now we have dozens of contract-free, internet-based and cell-based telephone company options. While Virgin's scheme sounds dastardly, it is merely an expression of the free market. They are free to try. If you, the consumer, don't like their service, don't pay for it. Net Neutrality is not in danger.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f4864a7e-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7171610593795776}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality laws. Content: I'll keep this short. If we don't have net neutrality companies can block or slow down websites if they don't pay a bribe. It would kill start up companies and not make the internet the fair platform it is. Companies could kill there competitors and kill competition. Also you fail at making debates impossible to accept.", "qid": 46, "docid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7165042161941528}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00023-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.714815616607666}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: Straight into contentions: 1) Net neutrality would go against the idea of a free market. Obviously in our capitalist society, we are free to form whatever companies we wish and attempt to market our idea to the general public. The same would go for ISP's; why limit the serviceability of a company? Net neutrality essentially neutralizes every ISP, making all companies provide the same network, and eliminating competition and the idea of capitalism. 2) No ISP can force everyone to have a slow network, so \"net 'inequality'\" is not a problem. Because we are a capitalist economy, a company is allowed to try whatever marketing ideas they wish. Since there is more than one ISP, the consumers are free to choose the one that pleases them. If an ISP slows down that consumer's internet to make them pay for speed, then that person will simply switch providers. That's all for now: I negate that \"Net neutrality should be made into law and enforced\", because it goes against the idea of capitalism and is unnecessary.", "qid": 46, "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7136991620063782}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: First you again say Net neutrality is new and the internet is awesome and don't change it. Again Net neutrality has always existed. Google it. It hasn't been a law it has been a founding principle of the internet. If you would do research for 5 minutes and stopped listening to Alex Jones you would know that. Then You say it's true in many places you only have one ISP but that's not there fault. You just proved my point it doesn't matter who's fault it is it still happens and kills you're free market answer. Then you say I want government regulation. To a very limited extent yes. I want them to say you can't discriminate data because you don't like it , or they aren't paying you a bribe, or because it competes with them. Next you say me claiming they buy people off and that there are loopholes are unfounded. Well they can buy off politicians to not pass laws that limit them like oil companies do. As for loopholes You do a deal. For example pretend in the state of Texas there are two companies. A and B you're argument is they will compete with each other for the consumers. In reality they make a deal to be the only ISP in a city so people have to buy from them. Next you say it's bad for the economy. No it's good for the economy in fact it's good for free market capitalism which you are in favor of. Because people can start businesses and offer goods for a lower price without being blocked unfairly or having to pay a huge bribe which hurts there business. Without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition. Then you say it prevents internet experimentation no it doesn't as it helps the free market as I just explained. Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it. Lastly you mention all these things that where invented and that's why Net neutrality is bad. But that couldn't have happened without net neutrality because it could have been blocked from being advertised. Just remember this all came around with Net neutrality in place. In the end though this debate doesn't matter. The FCC passed net neutrality. The consumers won and the internet is better off for it.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7131962180137634}, {"content": "Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: NOTE: DO NOT TAKE THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAT THE INTERNET IS OUR LAST VESTAGE OF FREE SPEECH. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS DEBATE. NET NEUTRALITY IS. I believe that Net Neutrality should be spared, and should be kept away from Virgin Media's grubby, greedy hands. For those who don't know, I'll summarize net neutrality in a simple way. Net neutrality is what lets you sit at your computer, hop on the internet, and visit every site on the internet at the same speed. Now, granted it will not always be the same each visit. There is sure to be differing ammounts of content on each site your computer has to process. What Virgin Media plans to do, is 'throttle' your internet. Which means, they can tell your computer to fo fast to one site, but slow to another. And they do this because, most people would pay to be in the fast lane. They can also block access entirely to sites you normally go to, and redirect you to sites their sponsors create. Which means, if Google doesn't pay Virgin Media, typing google.com in the address bar will take you to a site like fetchfido.com, who has paid Virgin Media. The only way to get to Google, is to pay. Now, I believe the internet is the last vessel of our free speech. TV isn't. It's controlled by a group of people who care more about displaying an interesting story than the truth they promise. Same goes for newspapers/magazines. On the internet, everybody's oppinion is virtually the same. Nobody has a higher authority than another on the internet, except in a controlled situation. If Virgin Media takes that away, they're taking away one of our most primary rights.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f4864a7e-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7129102945327759}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall. Content: It is not essential that network neutrality be good for Internet Service Providers, so long as it is judged good for the public and websites overall, and sufficiently tolerable for ISPs. A good analogy is any piece of consumer protection regulation, such as seat belts or food-packing industry regulations, which certainly cost the businesses under consideration a little bit of money, but do so in the interest of the general public. Therefore, any conclusion that net neutrality is somewhat harmful to network owners does not mean that the idea of network neutrality is, overall, a bad idea.", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00058-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7124885320663452}, {"content": "Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Framework I believe my opponent is confused. We are not debating net neutrality. Now I've already spent a bit of time defining the other major terms to give us a better ideal of what we're debating. According to Wikipedia; \"Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.m.wikipedia.org... While a public utility is; \"Typically a public utility has a Monopoly on the service it provides. It is more economically efficient to have only one business provide the service because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain. A consequence of this monopoly is that federal, state, and local governments regulate public utilities to ensure that they provide a reasonable level of service at a fair price.\" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... This debate isn't about whether net neutrality is a good thing. The purpose of the debate is to determine whether or not provisions of Internet services (service providers), should be considered a public utility. As I've pointed out, they should be considered a utility, based on the fact that they meet the definition of utility, via the barrier to entry as well as the benefit to society for them to be regulated in that way. My opponent despite being off topic, has raised a few arguments which are vaguely relevant to the topic we are debating, and will be addressed accordingly. Now I urge my opponent to figure out a way to make some relevant arguments as well as rebuttals in the next round, if he doesn't he risks not being able to make any at all. The rules of the debate make it clear there are to be no new arguments in the final round. Contention 1: Unregulated Market is better than a Regulated market for the internet. My opponent makes kind of a false dichotomy, between a regulated and unregulated market. Before getting into specifics of what's wrong with his Arguments, let's examine more than just this dichotomy. There are many different types of regulated and unregulated markets. Some forms of regulated market work better than unregulated markets and visa versa. The real options we have when looking at these ISP/utilities is this: Unregulated Monopolized Markets- These markets are bad for consumers, but good for the companies. They get to dictate the prices, and the quality of service. This is the situation we have in America and as you can see it results in higher prices for consumers and bad service. I showed the lower broadband speeds as well as higher prices that these companies charge compared to overseas markets with either good regulation or a good amount of competition. (See round 2). http://www.theverge.com... 2. Unregulated Free Market Lots of Competition- This is an ideal scenario. Unfortunately as I've shown in the previous round. The market had been pretty deeply penetrated,the startup costs are immense and it takes a ton of time to see a profit. This is one of those businesses that are high risk, with low chance of reward. As somebody who is in love with free markets, I'd love to see perfect competition, but as I've shown in the previous round, that's not what is occurring, nor is it even possible to make it occur with a deregulation of the market, because of the costs associated with doing business and the deeply imbedded companies that are already there. 3. A Well Regulated Industry- there is no perfect solution to problems, but treating ISPs as the utilities they are, deals with the reality that a free market won't work in this specific scenario. It follows the example of other countries and utilities of times past, which have been shown to provide more reliable service at a cheaper price. Having some checks and balances to insure quality of service as well as value of service will help consumers immensely. Finally consumers will be on equal ground with ISPs. Finally America can have Internet service and strength that rivals that of third world countries. \"We can see that Entrapenuers have been free to do as they please and they have set reasonable prises and entry fees for the consumer.\" This is simply untrue and merely rhetoric from my opponent, taken from the word of some industry insider, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I said it in the last round and I'll say it again. Out of 40 countries, the United States has been shown to have the slowest internet speeds and often for double the price. http://www.theverge.com... What the free market has gotten us is spit on by these companies. Comcast is the most hated company in the United States and yet people are still forced to pay for an inferior service at double the rate of their brethren in the UK. When my opponent puts a positive spin on Internet service by saying that it's improved a lot in the last ten years, he is merely putting on rose colored goggles. Who cares how much it improved? It's not keeping up with it's rivals in more regulated markets overseas and it's merely because they don't have to care. \"it\"s for this reason alone that the US has the fastest internet in the world, but Net Neutrality is threatening to change all of that.\" This is clearly false. I've cited sources that show the United States has slower internet speeds than the much of the rest of the world, and at more of a cost to boot. This debate isn't about net neutrality, but I can tell you we've seen the bill passed in the United States and I've yet to see my service change at all. \"FiberBroadband Community, an internet provided in the Great Lakes region reported that under net neutrality that they would be forced to move ALL of their customers to a more expensive plan and this would hurt the business as it would cost them more\" My only response to this is \"yeah duh\". The company is looking out for it's best interest. They make out better when they're unregulated. The consumers aren't necessarily better off not the industry, but they are. A company merely stating it will cost extra without showing why is just throwing hail Marie's to stop a bill they no will cut into their pocket books, but ultimately be better for the people. The company's claim should be ignored, unless they find some way to substantiate it. Status Quo Antitrust Lawsuit The antitrust laws simply aren't working. Comcast in particular has no real competition. The FCC is powerless. I've already shown several stats that prove that a monopoly exists in terms of ISPs in several locations effecting over 70% of the United States, but it's worse than that and I'll let the FCC chairman tell you in his own words. \"competition for high-speed wired broadband is lacking and Americans need more competitive choices for faster and better Internet connections, both to take advantage of today's new services, and to incentivize the development of tomorrow's innovations.\".....\"At 25 Mbps, there is simply no competitive choice for most Americans,\"....\"Stop and let that sink in. Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice for the essential infrastructure for 21st century economics and democracy. Included in that is almost 20 percent who have no service at all.\" http://www.nationaljournal.com...", "qid": 46, "docid": "32192392-2019-04-18T14:44:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7120884656906128}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00020-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7117040157318115}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"Small chunks of arguments were taken.\" No. My quotation only serves to orient the reader to the relevant paragraph. If a reader wants to read the whole paragraph they can in your round. It doesn't serve my needs to undercut my character count by spamming your statements. \"This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart.\" No. It's how I debate. Fallacies are called out for the fallacies they are. \"had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument\" You defined it round R1. Your definition was not 'all concerns I have about the Internet ever' - Your definition dealt with data transfer, \"send and receive\". I expounded the relevance of that, you never challenged that at all. The resolution includes USG, that means the FCC and what the FCC talks about in regards to net neutrality. I provided numerous sources that detailed what net neutrality actually is, especially as it relates to the FCC, and constitutional law. It is not my problem that you are apparently largely unaware of what net neutrality advocates actually propose. You are the one that went tangential to the definition into a number of irrelevancies relating to net neutrality such as data mining profiles. The definition didn't allow it. The FCC proposals have nothing to do with the tangential arguments you made, nor do net neutrality advocates when they talk of net neutrality. It is an issue of preferencing data transmission over other data. I suggest you read the FCC report itself aka \"the solution in search of the problem\". Turning net neutrality amorphously into 'all concerns' as you appear want, simply destroys any definition being valid at all. The definition you gave was fully compliant with the arguments I made, and what the FCC proposal was and is. The issue is you attempting to extend it beyond the scope of net neutrality. It is, in the FCC's own words, that \"discrimination\" should be barred. That means, the inability of ISPs to freely offer preferential services, to be freely paid for by consumers. hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf \"send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets.\" Despite denying what I claim, and despite attempting to utilise that definition otherwise, it's quite clear that what it *does* detail is prohibition of preferential treatment. As explained numerous times already, preferential treatment relates the content access of the data being transmitted, or in the FCC's words \"To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice ... to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network\". It is exactly the proposal, as argued, that net neutrality seeks to deny the ability of ISPs to tailor bandwidth priority. Corollary to that (that's why it doesn't need to be spelt out), is the prohibition for an ISP to offer services that lead to differential treatment of data (see your definition again) in relation to bandwidth speed and services. It absurdly clear what the intent is, because the FCC attempted to prosecute Comcast for exactly doing that. To state that that is not net neutrality requires a gross equivocation. \"In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument.\" False dichotomy. The issue you consistently ignored is that it is *private property* which means any technical formulations must *first* be reconciled within that framework. It does not make your argument valid simply because I didn't argue 'technology will X' - if you read R1 & R2 I addressed the tech arguments separately anyway, namely, the concerns of protocols and data transfer issues is one in which an unregulated Internet has dealt with since its inception. Nothing about a regulated Internet will change that, other than the availability of the FCC to invalidate new protocols as it would by necessity related back to differential data transfer. Unregulated, the Internet is free to have developers change, advance, advocate and try to implement whatever new protocol procedures they please. Under net neutrality, it's questionable. All it does is bring us back to the infamous quip \"a solution in search of a problem\". \"The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved\" Contradicts your prior assertions they are free to develop then doesn't it? Again nothing about an ISP or developers is enhanced by reducing the availability of data access. Again, consistently ignored. \"ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises\" No they don't. They can afford to do both. Charge for both. Companies require servers, no matter the size, which means ISPs charging differentiated rates. Under net neutrality proposals, servers can't be charged differential rates i.e., property violation. \"will be in the hands of a handful of large companies\" Equivocation. Data is transferred across property, that is what the Internet is. Nothing about net neutrality changes that unless you wish to argue full nationalisation, which you didn't. \"The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information.\" False. It is a system of interconnected private property developed by largely open source procedures. Try using the Internet without any recourse to private property. \"when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on\" Contractual issues are contractual issues. Net neutrality doesn't change the nature of what a contract is. What it does is deny an ISP to tailor them in certain ways. Again, the data was being transmitted across their property. The bandwidth hog meant that prioritisation needed to occur no matter, it's not an infinite resource, so of course they chose the small % who were the ones using >50% of availability. \"I point to the definition of net neutrality\" Which is irrelevant to whether net neutrality will stifle the ability of profit motives. Which it will. I'm not sure what about preferential data transfer, which you refer to numerous times in regards to bittorrent, being disallowed, doesn't relate to net neutrality being about preferential data transfer. \"is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs.\" Irrelevant. A user being able to preference one service over the other is no where near analogous to an ISP offering premium bandwidth services to that user. Just like deciding whether to post a letter today or tomorrow isn't analogous to having an express mail service available or not. \"This is the motivation of companies.\" If this was the case we would see see a vastly different Internet experience than the one we do. Asserting your position with no real relation to how the Internet is run at all doesn't help. Hence \"the solution in search of a problem\". \"You ignored the giant pipeline\" What about \"infrastructure\" evaded you? \"more profit\" Profit from denying profit making exercises? \"we must protect the Internet from being exploited.\" The Internet is not a \"thing\" in this sense. Violation of contract is related to contract law. \"buying that package from the ISP\" You pay for access to their lines to transmit/receive - not a portion of their lines in the form of property. Government violating property for another citizen's 'good' is arbitrary. The grounds to do so are not valid just by crying 'exploitation' - there is nothing exploitative about valid contracts between user and provider. All it is is an attempt to ignore that an ISP is private property, validly so, and that right to use private property, including mutual agreement to mutual benefit, exists.", "qid": 46, "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.711293637752533}, {"content": "Title: net neutrality Content: Net neutrality is very important for the nation, as it does not allow bigger companies like Google or ebay to make their network faster and slow down other smaller networks", "qid": 46, "docid": "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7112482190132141}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Ok For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7107362747192383}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem Content: Arpan Sura. \"The Problem With Network Neutrality.\" FreedomWorks. May 2, 2006: \"Solution in Search of a Problem. Currently there are no principles of network neutrality encoded into law. So ISPs are already free to block or favor content as they please. It is telling that none of them has. In fact, no proponent of network neutrality can cite an existing problem to which network neutrality is a solution.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00048-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7106201648712158}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Tim Wu, the guy who coined the term \"net neutrality,\" notes the importance of \"differentiat[ing] sharply between the principle of network neutrality and a network neutrality law.\" This debate isn't about the principle of net neutrality. This debate is about whether the US should adopt a net neutrality law. I'm not arguing against net neutrality as a principle. I'm arguing that the US shouldn't adopt a net neutrality law. Con's arguments are aimed against banning net neutrality. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for competition and small businesses. There is no debate there. The debate here is whether net neutrality should be required, not whether it should be banned. 1. Con says \"net neutrality stimulates competition\" because, \"if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs ... would be able to block competitor's websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing.\" First, as discussed above, this debate isn't about banning net neutrality. Con's argument doesn't support adoption of a net neutrality law. Con's argument only supports the status quo -- allowing net neutrality but not requiring it. I agree with Con that banning net neutrality would be bad for the economy. What I argue for is less regulation, not more regulation. A ban on net neutrality, like a net neutrality requirement, is more regulation. Either way, that's bad for the economy. What we need is less government intrusion on the Internet, as I explained in the previous round. Second, the idea that ISPs can block competitor's websites without a net neutrality law is incorrect. As I explained in the last round, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive business practices, including such discriminatory behavior that harms competition and consumers. Take a look at the Wikipedia for a brief summary of the antitrust laws: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Section 2 of the Sherman Act doesn't allow companies to harm consumers or competition by using their monopoly power to raise prices or exclude competition. Third, Con's claim that \"big companies would be unable to compete with each other\" is false, even if we did ban net neutrality, as there would still be many ways for companies to compete with each other. Pricing, Internet speed, Internet reliability, types of discrimination, geography -- all these would still be open to competition. To be clear, I'm not saying we should ban net neutrality. I'm just saying Con is wrong that banning net neutrality would make it impossible for companies to compete. 2. Con says \"if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don't want their customers to see.\" As a result, Con argues, \"small businesses will not be top priority on these providers' lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground.\" First, again this debate is not about banning net neutrality. Con argues against banning net neutrality, and I agree with Con that banning net neutrality is bad for small businesses. Con's arguments actually support my point, which is that more regulation harms the economy and small businesses. I argue for less regulation -- no net neutrality law, either requiring net neutrality or banning net neutrality. Second, in the absence of a net neutrality requirement, ISPs can offer customers faster or slower lanes of traffic. As I explained last round, this is good for competition, as it gives incentive to create faster lanes for which ISPs can charge higher prices. Prohibiting ISPs from discriminating in procompetitive ways (a patient's heart monitor versus a music download, for example) disincentivizes the creation of faster, more reliable Internet service. Third, Con's claim that small businesses will be \"banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off the ground\" is false. Again, such exclusionary practices are covered by the antitrust laws. There is no need to create rigid net neutrality laws to cover a perceived risk which is already dealt with under antitrust in a more nuanced, flexible, fact-based way. 3. Con says \"if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds.\" Again, those \"fast speeds\" might not be developed in the absence of incentives to develop them. The ability to charge premium prices for faster speeds is what gives ISPs incentive to create faster, better, more reliable Internet services. The US Postal Service example is directly on point: no one has any problem with Express Mail (which costs more). Why should there by any problem with faster Internet lanes, for which companies can charge more. Always keep in mind that business practices which are legitimately anticompetitive -- practices that harm consumers or competition -- are already covered under the antitrust laws, so there's no need to create another layer of regulation, especially a rule so rigid and categorical as requiring net neutrality across-the-board, regardless of the circumstances and potential pro-competitive benefits. 4. Con says a net neutrality law is necessary to protect our privacy. But that's simply not true. What we need are stronger privacy laws, not a rigid net neutrality law. Con says that in the absence of net neutrality laws, ISPs have the \"power to decode any decryptions placed by their customers.\" But even if net neutrality laws exist, ISPs can still decode decryptions placed by their customers. Net neutrality proponents -- not Con since he didn't argue this point specifically -- argue that without net neutrality protections, ISPs will block privacy services. But like I've argued elsewhere, that sort of misconduct is covered by the antitrust laws. We don't need net neutrality laws to protect us from exclusionary, anticompetitive business practices. The only purpose of net neutrality laws is to avoid a perceived risk -- but that perceived risk is already covered by current laws. I direct attention again to FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell's comment that \"in the almost nine years since [net neutrality] fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct, out of an infinite number of Internet communications. All those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law.\" [6] All net neutrality cases thus far have been resolved in favor of consumers under current law. We don't need more regulation to protect consumers, competition, or the Internet.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7101469039916992}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: Before I move onto refutations, I'd like to draw attention to the style the negations last argument adopted. Small chunks of arguments were taken, out of context of the larger argument. Those arguments were then either weakly refuted, called irrelevant despite it being brought up by the negation and being quite central to the resolution, or had the definition of net neutrality shifted to try to invalidate the argument. And don't forget the latin and logical fallacies. This was in an attempt to create the illusion of this case being completely torn apart. So first, let me restate the definition of net neutrality, as given three lines into the debate. Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. Net neutrality is not access rates, it is not an \"explicit price control mechanism\", it is about how packets are treated and delivered. The neg decided to refute almost all of my points with a variation of the same argument, that being that traffic is sent over private property and thus should be allowed to be manipulated and used however the ISP wants. In doing so, my opponent has granted the arguments on a technical basis, opposing them only morally on the basis of the private property argument. To list those arguments opposed morally, thus granted technically. -The end-to-end design of the Internet needs to be preserved -ISPs have motivation to grant multi-billion dollar companies favored treatment over smaller enterprises -Control of the Internet will be in the hands of a handful of large companies that control the Backbone Network. \"It ignores the nature of what the Internet is\" The Internet is a egalitarian, decentralized system for the free exchange of information. To grant control of that system to those few companies, you must ignore the nature of what the Internet is. \"It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base\" *This* is a contractual issue, when a company sells plans that they cannot deliver on, that being the access rate these torrenters use, the fault does not lie with those who use their package, it lies with Comcast. \"Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality.\" Again, I point to the definition of net neutrality, and this arguments nature as a contractual issue. Net neutrality is about how packets are treated and sent. If ISPs oversell their product, it is their responsibility to either handle the packages they sold, or re design those packages. \"dumb internet\" This is refuted by the private property argument, addressed lower down. \"Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user.\" The ability for customization by the end user is in response to his argument of the inability to tailor access to consumer needs. This is part of the end-to-end design, and is used to show that traffic shaping isn't needed. \"\"entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, \" This is the motivation of companies to side with multi-billion dollar companies over garage companies yet again. It is in the ISPs obvious benefit to side with google over that kid with an old lunix computer running a search engine to get some ad revenue. \"I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source.\" You ignored the giant pipeline that most internet traffic will eventually flow through (see http://en.wikipedia.org...) \"Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates?\" Multi-billion dollar company = more profit The private property, and reduced income argument. Our governments responsibility is to protect its citizens. Part of this is to ensure that they are not exploited at the expense of profit. Take Goldman Sachs for example, we defiantly reduced their ability to profit by adding regulation, and preventing more of the trading that cause the economic downfall, but we did this because they were taking advantage of the consumer to make that profit. In the same vein we must protect the Internet from being exploited at the cost of the consumer in the name of profit. We are still buying that package from the ISP, and to say that ISPs are allowed to invade upon the property we have purchased in the form of data transmission, much less in the name of private property, is ridiculous. especially when this access rate argument can be negated by buying high access rate packages. Gah procrastination, 20 seconds remaining!", "qid": 46, "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.709099531173706}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00022-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7090232968330383}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"This debate is about what the Internet will become in the years to come\" No it's a debate about FCC regulating ISPs in regards to access rates with users and what business plans they can entail. I've already pointed out the falsity of such statements in the prior round. It remains an ipse dixit claim bordering on fear mongering. It ignores the nature of what the Internet is, what property is and seeks to void the proper use of an ISPs property. \"Let's look at the Verizon example given\" Strawman. The argument detailing the expenditure of Verizon dealt with that the ISP themselves provide the infrastructure, including the upgraded technology. Nor did I argue that net neutrality makes such ventures unprofitable. What net neutrality does is explicitly reduce the available income of an ISP by denying it the ability to tailor access rates to customer supply. The corollary of that is that under net neutrality, fees of *all* users must then account for the discrepancy in profit margin in relation to infrastructure growth. It makes all the payers for the benefit that only some want. That's the issue there. Even so such arguments from profit amount to little more than red herrings. What one may do rightfully with ones property is unrelated to any profit they garner from such as an arbiter. \"Making your network faster, advancing your network, will be met enthusiastically by consumers, and is not undermined by net neutrality.\" Absolutely it is. The available income diminishes exponentially once you implement net neutrality as a *price control mechanism* for ISPs which is an *explicit* goal of net neutrality. To state this will have zero effect on an ISPs ability to expand current infrastructure and invest in new technology that will grant greater access speed is simply ignorant. Net neutrality denies tailoring plans, i.e., variance in priced plans that relate to access rates. It demands that access rates are indeterminate by use. That means heavy use cannot be charged accordingly for those wishing to pay, it means those wishing to pay for stable high access speeds cannot. It means the cost of users who do use high amounts of data transfer must be costed by all. If, as was the case with Comcast, an ISP is forced to devote a large portion of its bandwidth to a minority of its customer base, it is overall not being used profitably. The fallout of making an ISP's property less profitable, under government force, is the reduction of incentive to increase its bandwidth capacities by investing in more property and likewise innovative technology or services. \"dumb internet\" Net neutrality advocates a 'dumb' or stupid Internet - one unregulated by an intelligence that might favor the transmission of some content over other content. It's simply another way of saying no priority can be given to data over any other. However to advocate such a thing one must ignore what the Internet is, namely, transmission of data across private property. Data is transmitted through the infrastructure of ISPs (explicitly their private property) all the cables, computers, maintenance and infrastructure that make the Internet **possible at all.** The \"stupid\" Internet of net neutrality advocates is explicitly one in which ISPs must, under threat of government force, remain passive to how data flows through their infrastructure. \"consumers would be unable tailer their internet for their use .\" Irrelevant. The call for net neutrality is the ability to administer controls *to the ISP* not the end user. Customisation of user preferences only relates to how ISPs have the ability to manage their data transfer. The ability for an ISP to offer a premium rate of access to customers willing to pay is not analogous to the end user changing their router settings. Just like the ability to have express mail delivery services is unrelated to when you decide to post a package. \"My opponent seems to leave out the fact that for those servers to be accessed, people need to go through ISPs.\" I think you'll find I mentioned such fact several times. Such as net neutrality neutralising an ISPs ability to charge differentiated prices to servers of varying size requirements. \"consumer traffic for the benefit of their bank accounts is directly related to the entrepreneurial nature of the internet\" Again, unrelated to how business interests work, the history of the Internet itself showing explicitly contrary. The fear mongering is still ipse dixit. \"allowing competing services primarily operating out of a garage , or teaming multi billion dollar companies to crush their competition?\" I'm saying irrelevant. That's the point. Servers require ISPs. End users require servers and ISPs. ISPs require end users and servers. ISPs aren't blocking servers apart from ones related to illegal activity and have no business interest in doing so. Again, still irrelevant to private property violation and net neutrality itself. \"ISPs are profit motivated.\" Of course. They are a business. None of this has to do with validating net neutrality - freezing the ability of ISPs to tailor data priority if they so choose, across property they own. \"who owns the Internet.\" I covered this already in R1. Source code and protocols are for the majority, open source. ISP infrastructure - private, servers - private, end user hardware - private. \"Should we allow the Internet to be controlled by companies\" Equivocation. Data is transmitted through private property. \"the 5 or so network service providers that control the Backbone of the Internet, would control access to the entire network.\" If by access you mean ISPs are ISPs, then yes they are. That ISPs may discriminate data content and charge premium rates for it is their right as a business. Again no different from say, cable TV services. Net neutrality however denies customers willing to have premium access at their choosing and ISPs from offering it. \"we inhibit future improvements and adaptations.\" Under FCC regulations, such innovation would be likely barred, seeing as it amounts to *variance in data* which is what net neutrality explicitly denies. Unregulated, people are free to innovate and support what they deem fit. As has been the cases up to now. An ISP that doesn't provide access is not a successful ISP. Largely irrelevant though. \"ISPs thus have every reason to censor and favor certain information, competitors, and sites.\" Why censor when you can charge differentiating rates? Again, an ISP that does not provide services to end users isn't a successful one. There is no valid reason to assume an ISP will run as an authoritarian regime that denies access to content. A point which again is irrelevant to net neutrality which deals with data prioritisation and not, content availability. Nothing about the FCC's net neutrality regards base censorship. Net neutrality is about *how* data is transmitted. Not what. http://www.fee.org... http://www.naviganteconomics.com... \"This is completely false and baseless claim.\" They are already doing it with radio and TV 'balanced view' proposed regulation. There's nothing to suggest they consider the Internet any differently in terms of media. \"ISPs being peering into your packets, building online profiles of you, and selling it to the highest bidder, is in no way being indifferent to the contents of those packets.\" Again, irrelevant to net neutrality. It's purely a contractual issue between end user and provider.", "qid": 46, "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7089595794677734}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: What Pro is failing to understand is that you can either have or not have net neutrality. There is no 'in between'. So therefore by not requiring net neutrality, it is the same as banning it, for you will still have less competition, small businesses, innovation, and privacy without REQUIRING net neutrality. REFUTES 1) An unregulated Internet is better than a regulated Internet. My opponent was stating that a good internet is \"shaped by intense competition and rampant growth\". But judge, as I mentioned, net neutrality will HELP! It will lead to more competition, innovation, and small businesses. This will help our economy and the growth of the Internet, which therefore turns this point invalid. 2) Net Neutrality doesn't distinguish between pro competitive and anticompetitive practices. Judge, this point is basically that it will be harming all discriminatory practices. But here is why this is not a concern - we have been working with net neutrality for years, and it has increased the global market and been beneficial for our economy and businesses . So whether or not there is no difference between the quoted 'discriminatory practices' there will be a benefit for the people, and therefore it is worth it. 3) Current antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers and competition. They are NOT! Not having net neutrality would actually harm competition, because by giving big ISPs the power to block their competitors' websites, people would not have access to more than one big service without paying more r,many therefore there would be no need for competing. According to Forbes, if there was no net neutrality, many businesses would not exist die to the lack of competition. And it would hurt the consumers to not have this as well. Without net neutrality, your internet providers will be able to charge you EXTREMELY high prices for a free and open Internet, which is one of the greatest privileges of our time. So by having much higher prices, and lower quality service, not having net neutrality will hurt us, the consumers. Therefore, this point is false and invalid. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) http://www.latimes.com... CONCLUSION Seeing as I have refuted all of the Proposition's points, I will now weigh this debate. Here is why I should win: Who I agreed with before: This is up to you, so I cannot influence that decision. Who I agreed with after: I hope this is me, because my arguments were the most understandable and impacting to the average American. Spelling and Grammar: Tie Conduct: Tie Best Arguments: I believe that this should be me as well because unless you are an extreme techie, you probably could not understand Pro's arguments. However, I did my best to put my information into short, easy to understand arguments that should be easily comprehended, also, I gave impact analysis for every one of my points, showing you as a judge why my points should effect you, therefore leaving my points more convincing than Pro's. Sources: Finally, most of Pro's sources were simply without a link, leaving them valid. Also, she used Wikipedia, which is invalid and unreliable, seeing as anybody can edit it with false information, showing that my sources are more reliable. NYT, Forbes, The Guardian, are all reliable and highly acclaimed sources, unlike Wikipedia. Thanks to Pro for a very interesting and informative debate, and I strongly urge a Con vote for this motion.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7086013555526733}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: \"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible.\" Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. \"a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web.\" Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is \"fairer\", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7084065675735474}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Why should a few big corporations get control over the Internet? I have a example of why Net Neutrality is good. Say a ISP like Comcast has a new streaming service called Watchcast, should they have the right to block Netflix? With a majority of Americans living in an area with access to only one ISP, If they can only have Comcast that means they could not watch Netflix. Is that a good thing?", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7081435918807983}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00008-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7076672315597534}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00036-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7075802087783813}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet Content: \"Net Neutrality is Simple, Conservative Consumer Protection.\" Public Knowledge on Opposing Views.com: Net Neutrality \"is not regulating the Internet. It is regulating the companies which provide access to the Internet \u2013 a traditional function that the FCC has largely abandoned to the detriment of the country.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00064-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7062539458274841}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. \"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing (\"throttling\") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting \"network testing\" and that net neutrality rules permit \"reasonable network management practices\"\" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for \"quick awnsers\" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. \"Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less\" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7055751085281372}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should reject Net Neutrality. Content: I shall do this by refuting all his contentions, and in doing so, show that there are no exclusive benefits in rejecting net neutrality. Pro essentially argues that the USFG should reject net neutrality because \u201cnet neutrality does not, [in fact], result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. \u201d Note that in order for him to use this kind of reasoning and reach the position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, he needs to make the assumption that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, which he has not done. Personally, I do believe that an open internet is more desirable than a closed internet, so I\u2019m on his side on this, but I reject all contentions that he makes in attempting to show that net neutrality takes steps towards a closed internet. Let\u2019s see his contentions. Freedom of Speech Pro argues that enforcement of net neutrality would stifle freedom of speech. According to him, \u201canyone claiming that new network neutrality regulations through the FCC will result in \u2018greater freedom of speech\u2019 is frankly either lying, or deluded. \u201d Given that he has made a very strong claim, one would expect him to give solid reasons, or evidence, in support of his claim. Unfortunately, he has not done so. Essentially, his argument amounts to that the FCC doesn\u2019t support freedom of speech - as a matter of fact, it is against freedom of speech - and consequently, enforcement of net neutrality laws would, by giving the government more control of the Internet, thus stifling freedom of speech. Such an argument is problematic in several ways:(a) Regarding his claim that the FCC is not supportive, and never will be supportive of freedom of speech, he gives no reasoning or evidence whatsoever. Essentially, his argument amounts to a bare-assertion fallacy. (b) Enforcement of net neutrality laws do not give the government more power to control what is available to us on the Internet. This is because the FCC does not seek to regulate the Internet, instead, it is regulating the way that telecommunication industries operate their Internet services. Perhaps in anticipation of (b), Pro creates a slippery slope argument. He observes that the Chinese government strongly regulates telecommunication industries in China, thus promoting censorship and the rejection of freedom of speech. Thus, Pro argues, net neutrality regulation may be the first step further governmental control and restriction over the Internet. There are multiple things wrong with this argument:(a) Slippery slope arguments \u201c[avoid] engaging with the issue and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. \u201d Thus, they are fallacious (1)(b)There is a big difference between the way regulation of telecommunication industries as advocated by the supporter of net neutrality in the US and the way telecommunication industries are regulated in China. In China, actual website content is blocked, while enforcement of net neutrality laws only lead to the regulation of how the telecommunication industry can transfer information on the Internet. Thus, Pro needs to give reasons to how net neutrality regulation would lead to the type of censorship observed in China. (c) China and the U. S cannot be compared, because of the different socio-political situations between the two countries. For one, the Chinese government has a strong incentive/motive in committing acts of internet censorship and restricting freedom of speech - eg. to silence dissent and preserve the political system present in China by restricting knowledge of other political systems - while the U. S government does not. Second, the U. S is far more democratic than China - it\u2019s citizens have a greater influence on governmental policy, for an example of Internet policy, look at SOPA. Thus, we should be skeptical over his claims that net neutrality would eventually lead to a closed internet in this sense. Net Neutrality and Competition Pro argues that Comcast\u2019s blocking of torrent sites housing pirated content was justified, and that \u201carguing this [Comcast\u2019s actions] as a supporting factor of net neutrality is ludicrous. \u201d(a) Adherents of net neutrality do not use Comcast\u2019s actions as a reason for promoting net neutrality. Rather, they use this as an example to illustrate the fact that ISPs are not to be trusted with regulating and controlling the Internet, thus acting as a reason against Pro\u2019s position that the USFG should reject net neutrality, rather than a positive reason for net neutrality. (b) Pro cherry-picks information by only mentioning that Comcast was blocking torrent sites housing pirated content. Rather, Comcast was blocking BitTorrent traffic in general, as his source indicates. (2) It is important to note that BitTorrent is not solely used for pirating content - there plenty of legitimate uses such as legally downloading game updates, and the Internet Archive - because BitTorrent is merely a means to spread information. (3) Thus, blocking BitTorrent traffic would also infringe upon legal uses of the technology. (c) Pro has not shown that it is the \u201cprerogative\u201d of ISPs to block illegal and pirated content. Indeed, it could be argued that the sole purpose of ISPs is to provide Internet access, and thus they should not be controlling what their clients are doing on the Internet, because it is out of their bounds. Pro also provides several reasons why rejecting net-neutrality laws do not promote monopolies. For instance, he argues that net neutrality will not end monopolies, instead it makes it harder to end monopolies. (a) Advocates of net neutrality do not argue that net neutrality regulation will end monopolies; instead they are arguing that rejection of net neutrality will promote the development of monopolies/duopolies etc, or that net neutrality regulation will make it easier to end monopolies/duopolies etc. Thus, Pro\u2019s statement is non-topical. (b) Essentially all of this segment regarding competition is pure assertion. Pro has not justified any of the claims he makes here, and thus on this basis alone, all of his claims should be discounted until he provides justification. Innovation (a) Pro claims that Internet content such as \u201can online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book\u201d should not be treated equally, because they are not equal in importance. But the importance of such content is not intrinsic, but relative to different people. Thus, the question of whose perspective discerns the importance of online content is raised. (b) Pro argues that because the various content on the Internet are different, they ought to be treated differently. However, he makes the jump from a descriptive statement (various content on the Internet are different) to a normative statement (they ought to be treated differently) arbitrarily, and does not show how the descriptive statement logically leads to the normative statement. Pro uses an analogy of a household in order to illustrate why rejecting net neutrality would be beneficial, and extends this logic towards an entire community. Fundamentally, this is a question of how to deal with network congestion, and Pro argues that rejecting net neutrality would help solve this problem. However: (a) In the case that net neutrality is rejected, and ISPs are able to deal with network congestion through allowing in variation of pricing Internet access according to how one uses the Internet, Pro does not elaborate on which method ISPs are to do this. Do customers sign up to an Internet package which is optimised for what they are to do with the Internet (eg. a package optimised for watching Netflix)? Do customers sign up to a rather blank Internet package, and the pricing is determined later on how customers use their Internet? Both are in my view, problematic, and I would like Pro to elaborate on the specific details of his view. (b) The fact that the two people in the household are unable to complete simple activities on the Internet such as Google searches (this also applies when Pro\u2019s argument is extended to the community) does not mean that net neutrality should be rejected. S. Derek Turner notes that net neutrality regulation as pushed for still \u201cleave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management methods. \u201d (4) Thus, the benefit of being able to address network congestion effectively as argued by proponents of net neutrality rejection is not exclusive to their position, and net neutrality still allows room to fix these problems. Pro claims that \u201csimilar regulations are place in Europe\u201d. However, what regulations are he talking about? Net neutrality regulations? His Source 4 states that there are no established net neutrality regulations in the European Union. So where in Europe is he talking about? Regardless of this, it is a factual mistake to claim that \u201cbroadband services are significantly cheaper in the US\u201d, when in reality, broadband service is actually much more expensive in the U. S when compared to many areas in Europe (3 times more expensive than in the U. K and France) (5) Conclusion In this round, I have refuted the core of Pro\u2019s arguments, showing that none of his 3 main contentions stand up to scrutiny, and as a result, show that there are no benefits (exclusive) in rejecting net neutrality. Thus, Pro has not affirmed his burden of proof, and the resolution is negated. Sources (1) . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2) . https://torrentfreak.com...(3) . http://www.makeuseof.com...(4) . http://www.freepress.net...(5) . http://www.bbc.com...", "qid": 46, "docid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.704743504524231}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech Content: With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal \"War and Peace Report,\" and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is \"the first amendment issue of our time.\" With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. \"With great power,\" says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, \"comes great responsibility.\" That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00011-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7045288681983948}, {"content": "Title: Risk of a two-tier Internet Content: This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship \u2013 not having net neutrality will not stop users accessing certain sites, just make it slower. Data from some points of origin, especially games and file-sharing programmes slow down the entire network. It\u2019s unfair to other users.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1fe78336-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00008-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7034205198287964}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as \"packets,\" comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like \"15Mbps plan\", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.", "qid": 46, "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7033404111862183}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7031938433647156}, {"content": "Title: The Internet: The Last True Example of Free Speech (Net Neutrality) Content: Here is a bit from the main net neutrality supporting site, savetheinternet. com, under the FAQ section. Who wants to get rid of net neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Which means it isn't just Virgin Media that's heading into this. They're followed by many other companies as well. Now, I know you might think, \"Well, people can just switch to Embarq or one of the 'safe' IPs\" But that wouldn't work exactly as planned. Why wouldn't Embarq take that opportunity to raise their prices? No matter how you look at it, we have to pay more. I know that sounds a bit greedy, but in times like this, with our economy as unstable as it is, this simply cannot turn out well. Otherwise, my arguments on the unethical nature of net neutrality still stand. I can understand if you don't intend to disagree with them, as well. As the consumer, I can't begin to think of a scenario where getting rid of net neutrality would be beneficial. Either way, I had fun. And it looks net neutrality is winning. I hear action was recently taken against Comcast.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f4864a7e-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7021257281303406}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00035-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7018715143203735}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed Content: I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting \"network testing\" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit \"reasonable network management practices\" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7013870477676392}, {"content": "Title: Insert topic here. Content: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in America: Pro John McCain made a very poor choice in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate: Pro (For this one, I will pick another suitable candidate who he could have chosen) Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced: Pro Your choice. Whatever the topic is, this should be a good debate. Good luck.", "qid": 46, "docid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7009187936782837}, {"content": "Title: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business. Content: Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. \u201cTelecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.\u201d [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00021-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6993885040283203}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content.", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00027-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6992806196212769}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs.", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00014-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6992011070251465}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Pro seems to think we've had net neutrality for years. But that is simply untrue. The entire controversy surrounding net neutrality concerns proposed laws, not laws that already exist. [4] Unless Pro can cite a single net neutrality law that's existed for years, his entire argument falls apart. The reality is that we've never had net neutrality and the Internet has not only been fun but grown at an incredible pace. As PayPal founder Peter Thiel notes, \"[n]et neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don\"t see any reason why it\"s suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past.\" [5] -- Pro says \"in many places you only have one [ISP] option.\" That's true, but the big companies aren't to blame. Local governments are the problem. \"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned 'rights of way' so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need 'pole attachment' contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.\" [6] The result: \"Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost.\" [6] ISPs try to enter new areas all the time. The problem is that entry costs -- not the laying wires part but the costs of negotiating with local governments -- are extremely high. That's something neither net neutrality nor antitrust laws will change. The irony of Pro's position is that it asks for MORE government regulation when government is ALREADY the biggest obstacle preventing competition among ISPs. The solution is getting local governments to allow the free market to do its thing. That's how you get more competition among ISPs, which in turn lowers prices. -- Pro claims that \"people do nothing because they are bought off\" and \"there are many loopholes.\" But that's also not true. Pro gives no source for his claims because the claims are bunk. ISPs aren't bribing anyone. I'm not even sure who they'd bribe, but note that the only way bribes work is under a regulatory scheme, which is what Pro supports. I'm the one arguing that we let the free market do its thing, which means bribes wouldn't help anyone. As for loopholes, again I have no idea what Pro's talking about. If by loopholes, Pro's referring to the antitrust laws, there aren't really any loopholes in the law. You either show harm to consumers or competition, or you don't show harm to consumers or competition. It's economics all the way down. If you show harm, it's illegal. That's how the laws work. So if an ISP has a monopoly on providing broadband, and it charges monopoly prices for \"fast-lanes,\" they'd be found liable and/or guilty under current antitrust laws. There's no need to build a rigid regulatory scheme on top of that. -- No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a \"fast lane\" mail service is \"unfair,\" \"undemocratic,\" or \"bad for the economy.\" Yet that's exactly what net neutrality would do for Internet services. In a free and open market, incentives exist to create premium services, with faster, guaranteed delivery quality, for things like medical monitoring which require higher reliability. Of course, suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services. Such discrimination is procompetitive. Blocking premium services in the name of neutrality, on the other hand, can have the unintended consequence of blocking premium services from which consumers could benefit. ATT has even said that under a net neutrality regime, they'd have no incentive to invest in broadband infrastructure. The reality is that net neutrality chokes broadband competition, because it prevents experimentation in business models and pricing. We don't need net neutrality because the antitrust laws already protect consumers and competition from anticompetitive discrimination on the Internet. Broadband providers can't do anything that would hurt consumers or competition. If they do, it means they have monopoly power (because you can't impose monopoly prices without monopoly power, as consumers would just buy your service from your competitors). And if they have monopoly power and abuse that power (by extracting monopoly rents), they're already doing something illegal under current antitrust laws. Which is why FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has said that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don\"t like are non-existent: \"The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it\"s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy.\" [7] ISPs don't slow the Internet down in a free market; they compete with each other, which creates incentives to speed the Internet up. Net neutrality would choke that competition. [4] http://money.cnn.com... [5] http://www.nationalreview.com... [6] http://www.wired.com... [7] http://www.fcc.gov...", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6991204619407654}, {"content": "Title: Life after Death Content: Thank you. If you like, I'd like to start another debate. I've been assured by my ISP that my connection is now stable. If you agree, I'll create a new debate and invite you directly.", "qid": 46, "docid": "f9ce2a4a-2019-04-18T14:42:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6989145874977112}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6988082528114319}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet Content: Argument 1: In case of emergency, it is important to have the ability to regulate. Op. Argument: \"I don't see any threats of terrorism\" Response: First, there is a difference between regulation and censorship. Regulating has to do with net neutrality as much as censorship. Second, it doesn't matter if you don't see the cyber terror threats. The fact is that they exist. It was exemplified by Sony, and there is proof in my evidence. Third, if you don't understand how government regulation would help, follow the link I gave in round 2 for more information. Argument 2: Net neutrality, econ Op Argument: they spy on us Response: Again, if you don't want someone spying on you, it is your duty to elect leaders who will produce anti-spying legislation. It is important that we deal with the real threat over my opponent being paranoid. My opponent has shown no evidence that the government's goal is to spy via or heavily censor the internet. Argument 3: Net neutrality, ethically Op argument: Governing isn't neutral Response: We need to look at what is definite. Right now on the internet, there is definitely a lack of net neutrality, more money equates to a larger internet presence. However, the government is an uncertainty. I think it is important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. We are electing them from us. They are not out to harm us. Additionally, when my opponent says \"It's just taking some of the power from the rich and giving all the power to the government\", he/she is mistaken. Maintaining net neutrality is about giving the rich and the poor equal opportunities on the internet. Argument 4: Protecting privacy Op Argument: Government can't be trusted with privacy. Response: Business have real interest in taking information whereas the government does not. We again need to look at what is certain. Although I disagree with this, we can call the government a maybe in terms of privacy for the sake of argument. We should trust a maybe to protect us instead of letting companies that are with certain trying to get our information succeed. Stepping back, it remains important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. The government consists of people we have given our trust by voting into office. We need to put our safety in their hands. These are the four voting points in this round, I urge a pro ballot.", "qid": 46, "docid": "8c43a9f3-2019-04-18T15:14:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6985604166984558}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Whoever joins this debate, lets make this a civilized debate. My first argument is simple, the definition of net neutrality Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00009-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6981790661811829}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality forces network owners to operate in suboptimal ways", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00012-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6978985071182251}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: This debate is about Net Neutrality. RULES: No Profanity Sources are not required but are recommended. 1st round is for acceptance ONLY 2nd and 3rd rounds are for arguments ONLY Last round is for thanking eachother for the debate ONLY To those who have no idea what Net Neutrality is; Net Neutrality is this, \"the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.\" Source for the definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6976220011711121}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Bro. Net neutrality is not needed. I'm telling you guys. Just because you have to spend like a billion dollars just for one Google search doesn't mean the end of the world. Seriously, we are probably better off without the internet, anyway. This is the start of something---I can feel it. Having net neutrality can damage the world economy in terrible ways. When the world realizes that they actually don't need the internet we will all be happy. I hope you know that.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6969890594482422}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Leading Internet experts opposing net neutrality:", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6968269348144531}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: I believe in net neutrality but I don't when reading your response I noticed that you only thought about \"providing your son that yacht he always wanted,\" and \"WE SHOULD HAVE EVEN MORE POWER,\" and what I want to say is that net neutrality is NOT about providing people like you with more power and your son with a yacht it is about how the Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, etc. So again net neutrality isn't just about you and what you want it is about what is best for everyone. I believe if everyone is provided with an equal kind of Internet than the world will have less people like you.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac301-2019-04-18T11:55:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6964049339294434}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00009-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6958819031715393}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6957521438598633}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners Content: \"Protect Net neutrality.\" St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: \"Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00037-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6936578750610352}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: Do you have any non partisan evidence contradicting net neutrality? Do you know what it even measns?", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.69319748878479}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality. Content: I have told you what net neutrality means two times now. I also do not have to be partisan, this is a debate for a reason. Please, actually try to have a reasonable argument in this final round, other than me being partisan or asking for the meaning.", "qid": 46, "docid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.692949116230011}, {"content": "Title: WODC: This House Believes That Provisions of Internet Services Should be a Public Utility Content: Okay, none of my opponent's arguments against net neutrality work. This debate is not about net neutrality and whether it should be tossed aside or used is beside the point. Somebody could be pro net neutrality and against considering the Internet a utility or somebody can be for considering the Internet a utility and against net neutrality. My opponent has dropped several of my arguments. My opponent has dropped the argument that the cost of infrastructure and entry is so much that it takes a significant amount of control over local markets for a start up to succeed, and since they're the new guy in town it's extremely hard to gain the 30% of the market they need. Broadband companies such as Comcast, have huge natural monopolies, and in a world that requires such a big infrastructure and market penetration to succeed, it's virtually impossible to have a competitive industry. He has dropped my arguments showing that currently the Internet companies have virtual monopolies over local markets. These facts automatically get accepted into any judges calculations as it's too late to bring up new arguments against them as per WODC rules, as well as just a general principle of fairness. LANNAN IS CONFUSED AGAIN My opponent's rebuttal round is spent using arguments against the nationalization of the Internet industry. Let me define nationalization for those who may not be aware of what that is; \"Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. \" . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This debate is not about taking private assets and turning them into government property. The debate is merely about recognizing that the companies who provide Internet services have too much control over the industry. When a company has too much control over an industry, it's competition is no longer able to act as a check against the company acting against the best interest of the consumer. The regulation that comes with recognizing that Internet services are a public utility, are there to insure a balance between making a profit and treating customers fairly. This type of regulation actually allows a company to keep their monopolies because it understands that these types of services require massive infrastructure. Just like electric companies and consumers would be worse off with more competition in broadband, because it would create an alarming amount of overlapping infrastructures, however that is kinda beside the point. The massive infrastructure actually helps create a natural monopoly as I have argued and my opponent has not contested the natural monopoly exists. Con mentions how theoretically price controls can be too high or too low and harm industry. While I concede that it is possible for the government to charge outrages prices for goods and drive consumers away or charge too little and destroy a company, it is unlikely. Phone service, electricity, and water services have been regulated as utilities for as long as me and my opponent have been alive and my guess is we both have electricity and running water, which is believe it or not, quite affordable. While the landline telephone industry going the way of the dinosaur, when it was a necessity, government regulating it as a utility kept the prices low enough for one to be in virtually every home while the companies providing the services actually made plenty of profits the entire time they were regulated. The regulations, neither harmed consumers or the companies, it merely balanced out the disadvantages of having a monopolized industry, and it should be noted that competition in these specific industries isn't necessarily a good thing either as the massive infrastructures are overlapping and waste a lot of resources. It's one of those situations where people are better off with a regulated monopoly than many competing companies. My opponent moves Onto discussing Kant and what's known as the categorical imperative, but greatly misunderstands the categorical imperative, as well as gives us no reason to favor that moral system, over the normative system we already use. Seeing as how the normative system is the one we already use and We were given no reason to assume Kantian ethics, I say we use normative ethics. The first problem with applying Kantian ethics in this situation is that Kant was describing a system of personal ethics for people to apply, and my opponent is trying to imply personal ethics to the state without explaining why personal ethics are even applicable to a non living entity. According to Kant perfect duties are to be performed all the time, where as imperfect duties were to be performed in some circumstances. Things that are imperfect duties aren't things the state should refrain from as my opponent assumes. If we're applying the categorical imperative to the state, imperfect duties should be done sometimes, meaning that sometimes it is correct to treat a utility as a utility. I've explained why we should do so in this debate. If it is an imperfect duty, it is still one that should be performed based on the reasoning I gave. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Regulated vs Unregulated \"My opponent harps on the US having such a terrible internet speed and quality, but they are sadly mistaken. We can see that we are actually 10th in the World for the fastest speed and best internet quality. We are definately not the 40th slot that my opponent mistakably claims. \" Um I linked to a study showing that America is 40th among countries and territories looked at. I actually went through the trouble of quoting stats and quotes from an article on the study, where as my opponent merely says I'm mistaken without pointing out which of the statistics I quoted is wrong or why. I read the article my opponent links to in the comment section. Out of a list of 10 countries we see that the United States is 10th. We have no many ideals how many countries that study looked at or it's method collections. So one list shows the United States in last place of 10 areas and the other shows it as last place of 40 countries. Come on Lannan, last place is last place. Clearly not all countries and areas are included in my list of 40. My list obviously excluded third world nations and the Gal\"pagos Islands. There is no need to split hairs here. The point is that the United States could and should do better. A point which my opponent doesn't counter at all. \"We can see that this is a HUGE concession as my opponent here concedes that under the status quo that the free market is better as \"They make out better when they're unregulated\"\" My statement was that the monopolies do better when they are left unregulated, not that the economy or customers do better. Clearly, my argument is that these companies have too much leverage over consumers and despite the fact that Comcast does better when they don't have as many rules to follow, the average American does worse. My opponent ends that round with a baffling remark about nationalization, which isn't even something we're debating. Status quo and Anti Trust \"We can see here by what my opponent decided to point out is that once again we need free market competition over that of the Public Nationalization of this industry as it helps the industry. \" The quote by the FCC chairman is meant to point out the lack of competition in the Internet industry. The quote is by another person. The chairman may be knowledgable about the problems facing the industry, but I disagree with his conclusions on the solution. He sees the problem is not enough competition and jumps to the most obvious conclusion, however the most obvious solution isn't feasible in this situation as I've shown the industry to be too hard to break into. \"My opponent has dropped the entire argument that I've made here and we can see that the current Sharman Bill has done it's job. \" I haven't dropped any arguments. The current bill you bring up has done absolutely nothing to prevent these industries from monopolizing (and we haven't even concluded that monopolizing a utility is bad, only that a monopolized utility should be regulated as one. ). I've shown that the current attempts at preventing monopolies has failed in this circumstance, that the industry naturally monopolizes as it needs deep market penetration to be profitable and that the status quo isn't working and we need provisions of Internet services to be recognized as a utility. Conclusion My opponent hasn't even argued against the resolution and instead has argued against nationalization and argued against net neutrality. He has dropped most of my arguments and has baffled me with his interpretations of my arguments. I urge my opponent to read over my arguments several times to comprehend them properly. I also urge him to just forfeit the debate and save the judges the trouble of having to read through all this and analyze it as a formality.", "qid": 46, "docid": "32192392-2019-04-18T14:44:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6925829648971558}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net Neutrality may restrict value-added services", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00018-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6925775408744812}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Pro's entire argument reduces to a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, with no support in any factual evidence. The lack of factual evidence is telling, because the simple truth is that there isn't any factual evidence to support Pro's assertions. For example, Pro continues to assert that \"net neutrality has always existed.\" But as I've said previously, that's simply untrue. Pro said to \"google it,\" so I did, and this is what I found: \"Until 2015, there were no clear legal restrictions against practices impeding net neutrality.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro says that \"without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition.\" But as I've already explained multiple times, Amazon and EBay can't do that. Current antitrust laws already make that illegal, so further regulations on top of the antitrust laws aren't necessary. Pro also states: \"Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it.\" But that's also completely unsubstantiated. Just because someone opposes net neutrality doesn't mean they're paid by big ISPs. And even if they were, that doesn't mean they're wrong. Pro keeps saying to Google things that are simply false. Pro also drops all of my antitrust arguments. He doesn't even mention the word antitrust once in his argument. He just wants to pretend that the antitrust laws don't exist. But of course, they do. So net neutrality regulations are simply not necessary. Pro hasn't addressed that argument.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6920962929725647}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: Net Neutrality is freedom of speech. With Net neutrality in place it creates an equal playing field for everyone one. This means that if an ISP doesn't like something they can't do anything to block it. So how does this help us consumers? If you are researching a topic you wont only see one side to it just because your ISP supports it, you will be able to look at both sides and determine what you think is right. Removing Net Neutrality is taking away your freedom of speech which can cause some issues. Propaganda will become a thing on the internet if Net neutrality is take away.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6913634538650513}, {"content": "Title: The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy. Content: \"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such \"network neutrality\" obligations on broadband providers.\" http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...", "qid": 46, "docid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6910278797149658}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet: Content: As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, \"The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.\"[2]", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00050-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6907958984375}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Network neutrality damages competition and niche suppliers", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00030-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6902594566345215}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Net neutrality will force ISPs to ask permission from FCC.", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00011-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6902420520782471}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality allows some sites to hog bandwidth Content: \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" OC Register. September 25th, 2009: \"One difficulty with government guaranteeing entitlements at the expense of others is the problem of those who abuse the free ride. Bandwidth-hogging services such as person-to-person file sharing and downloadable video from sites like YouTube and Google strain network capacities. Broadband providers legitimately claim they have a right to regulate such traffic over their networks, which may mean giving priority to their own services or charging varying rates. [...] That's why large bandwidth providers such as Verizon and AT&T have opposed previous 'net neutrality' proposals. Their networks would be abused. And that's why operations like Google want net neutrality mandated by federal regulations. They could offer services without sharing the whole cost to provide them over broadband networks.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00047-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.689564049243927}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: Govt regs like Net Neutrality have unintended consequences", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6888142824172974}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: How would we be better off without the internet. The internet is a great way for small or big businesses to gain publicity without any hard work. Without Net neutrality bigger businesses can just pay the ISPs to block the smaller businesses. So Net neutrality is just gonna slow down innovation.", "qid": 46, "docid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6883735656738281}, {"content": "Title: Internet providers have a right to control their networks Content: \"Editorial: Net neutrality not so neutral.\" An Orange County Register. September 25th, 2009: \"What's at stake is who gets control, and who pays the cost. We believe businesses, yes even big corporations like AT&T, have a right to control what they own and to operate without financial penalty imposed by the government.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00071-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6880563497543335}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality \u2013 All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally Content: Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.", "qid": 46, "docid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6873185634613037}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Net neutrality \"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.", "qid": 46, "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6873129606246948}, {"content": "Title: The US shouldn't require net neutrality. Content: Judge, is it fair to let certain internet companies only allow people with similar political views, or block their competitors sites? Is it fair to let big companies invade your privacy and crush small businesses? If you answered \"no\" to any of these questions, judge, then you technically agree with me on the fact that net neutrality is good. 1) Net neutrality stimulates competition. Judge, if we ban net neutrality the big ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, would be able to block competitor\"s websites. That way the big companies would be unable to compete with each other because people could not access more than one big service without paying more, and therefore there would be no need for competing. According to the New York Times, competition stimulates innovation, or the invention of new products, which we will not get without net neutrality. According to Forbes, if net neutrality didn\"t exist, many small internet providers would not exist due to the lack of competition. Nobody would be competing with each other so nobody would want to switch to new providers. The impact of this, judge, is that with no competition there will be a lot less innovation, which means less ideas and new products. This will impact the ENTIRE population, because they all rely on new technology and keeping up with the fast pace of innovation. 2) Net neutrality helps small businesses. Judge, if we ban net neutrality internet providers will be able to pick which sites show up first, and ban or block websites that they don\"t want their customers to see. Small businesses will not be top priority on these providers\" lists and may even be banned, therefore leaving them unable to get off of the ground. According to the New York Times, Google was a small buisness built in a GARAGE. It is now a huge thing that has advanced technology greatly. However, without net neutrality, the next Google will not be able to make it. According to Marvin Ammori, a technology expert and Yale professor, if there were to be no net neutrality, high class providers such as Comcast and Verizon could sell special treatment to their favorite web companies like Google and Netflix, and charge extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds. However, it could block small websites with things so trivial as opposing political views and the sites that show up first after a search will OBVIOUSLY be the favorites of the ISPs\", and the small businesses that may be more relevant to the search will be left in the dust. The impact of this, Judge, is that without small businesses, any new ideas, such as Google, will not be able to move past the special treatment of ISPs and will forever remain unheard. And just like our point on competition, no new ideas means less innovation, which affects the ENTIRE population. 3) Not having net neutrality would mean an invasion of your privacy. Judge, let me explain this to you. People like to encrypt, or code, many things, from emails to personal information like credit card numbers. However, according to the Economist, without net neutrality the FCC has no rules against decrypting this information. Because of the fact they they want complete control over everything they use in their service, big internet providers will have the power to decode any encryptions placed by their customers. Judge, this means they have access to YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION! This is a HUGE invasion of privacy! Access to this type of thing should be very limited, and your information should be only visible to you. How can we let our privacy be invaded like that, Judge? We have the right of privacy, as stated in the Constitution, and we cannot allow this to be taken away by ISP companies? And not only that, but to give you better results internet companies can literally track and watch everything you do online. The impact of this judge, is greater than anything possible! It impacts nearly every adult on this planet! All these people, judge, will have access to anything they want. The only other people on this planet with that type of power are high up government officials, and even THEY need a search warrant. In conclusion, if you want a more innovative, successful economy, and more privacy and free speech on the Internet, AND less discrimination between big ISP companies, then vote for Con and support Net Neutrality. SOURCES 1) http://www.theopeninter.net... 2) http://www.theguardian.com... 3) http://www.nytimes.com... 4) http://www.forbes.com... 5) http://www.economist.com... 6) http://www.latimes.com... 7) http://www.latimes.com... 8) https://www.eff.org...", "qid": 46, "docid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6856652498245239}, {"content": "Title: Network neutrality Content: ISPs have a right to recover costs from heavy bandwidth users", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00013-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6851167678833008}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality Content: Ok you say ISPs wouldn't slow down websites because in a free market people wouldn't buy their service and his is only a valid argument if they have a monopoly or talk to other companies. That would be true expect for one problem in many places you only have one option. In many places you only have Comcast or you only have time Warner. Also these companies do talk to each other. In fact these to companies have talk about which territory they get plus Comcast bought out Time Warner so people often only do have one option. You say it's against the law so they won't do it. Well A. people do nothing about because they are bought off and B. there are many loopholes. Then you say another problem is if it's pro or anti competitive discrimination. Good there should be no discrimination unless the contest is illegal. Your next argument is if we put in net neutrality laws it would kill competition and investments. You're problem is net neutrality isn't knew the internet has been that way for years and the internet is great I don't want to change it you want to. Also net neutrality doesn't kill competition but ISPs blocking competitors does. I not bothering with you're last two because the first I already addressed and the other one is based on the idea net neutrality doesn't already exist which it has for years.", "qid": 46, "docid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6848424077033997}, {"content": "Title: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies Content: \"Consumers Deserve Protection\". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: \"In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality \u2013 so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn\u2019t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet.\"", "qid": 46, "docid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00051-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6847869753837585}]}
{"query": "Is homework beneficial?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: homework Content: Does homework help the learning process?", "qid": 47, "docid": "d686eda-2019-04-18T12:57:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8553024530410767}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be given less to the children Content: Giving homework is beneficial for students in many ways. It teaches the student about time management and makes them sincere. It helps the student to recapitulate the lessons done at school so that they don't lag behind. It also teaches them the art of planning and organizing their studies one after another to get good grades. Homework also helps the teacher to asses the ability of the student and she can help the student to improve his or her weaknesses. But most importantly it makes the students study and helps them to realize that even if they don not like to do the homework sometimes they have to do things in life they do not want to. So the pressure which is created is actually good because it helps them to face reality and also their life Thank you", "qid": 47, "docid": "6c734766-2019-04-18T13:20:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8471678495407104}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Abolished Content: Firstly, let me define the important terms. ~Homework: work that teachers give their students to do at home ~Abolished: to end an activity or custom officially The argument I will be saying in this round is: ~homework is beneficial to children in moderate amounts And in Round 3 I will be stating that: ~homework enables school days to be shorter Then in the final round, I will be doing a rebuttal of my opponents well-meaning, but perhaps misguided views. Firstly, homework is beneficial to children in schools, as long as it is in moderate amounts. I, as team opposition, understand that in large amounts, homework can overload the child and can be very stressful. But when moderated, homework can be extremely beneficial. The most common benefit of homework is the obvious, improvement in academics. \"Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses. But, according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework.\" This source obviously shows the correlations found in tests. However, doing homework has a lot of less-know benefits for children \"Pryor-Johnson identifies four qualities children develop when they complete homework that can help them become high-achieving students: responsibility; time management; perseverance; and self-esteem. While these cannot be measured on standardized tests, perseverance has garnered a lot of attention as an essential skill for successful students. Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students\" mental and physical health. Responsibility and time management are highly desirable qualities that benefit students long after they graduate.\" My source clearly demonstrates my point. Whilst the general public may not know these benefits, they are there, improving the child's work across the board. So, as you can clearly see from these arguments, and the sources I have provided, homework should not be abolished because it is beneficial to the children who do them. Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://education.cu-portland.edu... ~https://www.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8351460099220276}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: I will be arguing that homework is not only beneficial but imperative for students success. The best way to put something to memory is repetition, and this is one of the things homework does. Let's say student A is in a math class and is having trouble with factoring of quadratics, the best way for the student to learn is to do examples and learn the different ways that they can factor and as they do more and more problems it will become faster and faster until they eventually master it. The other big thing that homework does is that it forces you to think about class outside of class time so the information is not forgotten. Let us use student A for an example again. If he learns the method to factor the quadratic in class and then he spends 24 hours away from class what are the chances he learns it? The homework is reinforcing the information. It also fosters independance and improves study skills (1) source will be in comments as con has limited me to 1000 character and wont fit.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c338-2019-04-18T12:35:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8318953514099121}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Assign Their Students Too Much Homework Content: My opponent mentioned that the homework is helping the students learn. However, while homework was first assigned to be helpful, the benefits of homework are not consistent and definitely not guaranteed. Students are so concerned with trying to pass their classes that they don't even pay attention to the content of the homework. Homework is only useful and helpful when it's not assigned in excessive amounts. In conclusion, most students are stressed out with the amount of work they have to complete in class and at home. School is not an easy part of one\"s life. But with the excessive amount of homework they receive, it\"s easy to understand why. Homework is stressing the students out more than it is helping them. Students deserve to receive a reasonable amount of homework that is done for practice, preparation, and extension of a lesson. Homework should not be given just to be completed when it\"s not necessary for the student. Teachers need to recognize that their students are becoming stressed with homework that is not usually useful to them. Students should not have to be strained or deprived from their sleep, especially at such a young age. Homework should only be assigned when it is handy.", "qid": 47, "docid": "479318c7-2019-04-18T11:28:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8293766975402832}, {"content": "Title: We need to get rid of homework Content: Although you personally believe that homework is a waste of time, I have demonstrated that it has merits which make keeping it worthwhile. You did not demonstrate that removing homework has benefits outside of your own personal case.Thank you for the debate, and keep at it! Like many other things, if you want to get better, you have to keep practicing. Well met!", "qid": 47, "docid": "2439be89-2019-04-18T16:47:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8243337869644165}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: Let's begin! Research shows that homework is great. Kids to better if their grade was partly homework <1>. It is extremely beneficial to kids. Homework provides a way to review concepts learned in class <2>. \"A typical homework-completing high school student will outperform students who do not do homework by 69% on standardized tests. \" ~ . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... . Homework teaches discipline <3>. Critical thinking is improved. Homework helps kid learn study habits and teaches time management. Homework also teaches responsibility and develops a concern in studies <4>. Homework gives a chance for students review or learn concepts that they either did not understand or if they missed the class <5>. <1> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <2> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <3> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <4> . http://www.forandagainst.com... <5> . http://www.family-homework-answers.com... We all know that parents dislike their kids when they jump on the couch, scream, or run around the house breaking some items along the way. Homework solves the problem of breaking items. If homework is not banned, items around the house would not be as broken as if homework was banned. ==> Conclusion After reading these arguments, I hope that you can understand why homework is beneficial. I have nothing to refute and defend, so I will conclude my side of Round 2. Thank you and happy holidays! Sincerely, Yami Yugi", "qid": 47, "docid": "68a4cf31-2019-04-18T18:58:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.823850154876709}, {"content": "Title: homework brings more good than harm Content: I think that homework reinforces information taught at school, which is extremely valuable when it comes to exams, and even later life. I had enormous amounts of homework at school, and so did well in my exams, and I'm very grateful for the knowledge I now possess because it was hammered into me through homework. It does increase stress, but think that really is just an excuse to be lazy, as homework nowadays takes so little time that I doubt it prevents people playing video games or watching TV etc. Homework is valuable for forging a productive, clever, society from our younger generation that in turn improves the lives of everyone who benefits from cars, computers, medicine, and various other things that are only accessible because of their creation by people who know what they're talking about i.e those who learnt from their studies by consolidating the facts outside of the classroom.", "qid": 47, "docid": "546112c3-2019-04-18T13:30:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8230106830596924}, {"content": "Title: should Students be given homework during the weekends Content: Since this debate is coming to a closing and we\"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you\"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general. 1.It improves your thinking and memory 2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life 3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely 4.It teaches you to work independently 5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work 6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class 7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information 8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits 9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations 10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects (Brought to you by http://blog.eskool.ca...) I would like to thank the people at http://blog.eskool.ca.... That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it\"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems. \"In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. \"So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework\"\" (Brought to you by http://www.studentpulse.com...) There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don\"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University. \" DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework. Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school. \"With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant,\" the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of \"Review of Educational Research.\"\" Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors. (Brought to you by http://today.duke.edu...) Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence. Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners. Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond. (Brought to you by http://www.topmarks.co.uk...) Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ea4173a6-2019-04-18T17:11:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8223843574523926}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Homework is beneficial because: =It makes students learn how to juggle their workload and time. =Pushes students to work hard. =Making sure students understand what they have learned so far. = Repeating is the mother of perfection. =Prevents someone from forgetting what they have learned. =students learn to de disciplined and balance the amount of homework and their time. =Makes students think. I mean critical thinking skills.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733bf1a-2019-04-18T15:28:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8220703601837158}, {"content": "Title: Homework is horrible Content: Hello, my name is dtien and I will be arguing that homework is not a waste of time. Homework isn't simply \"busy work\" teachers give to students: 5 studies show a positive correlation between completing homework and excelling in school. Besides helping children understand the assignments given in class, homework teaches students how to be responsible and to manage their time wisely. If a child is falling behind one day in class, that child is given the ability to catch up before the next class by doing homework. Homework also gives students questions to study for their tests. http://education.cu-portland.edu... I apologize for being so brief but this is really all the proof I need to show that homework is beneficial. Hopefully I can expand on my ideas next round once I know what Pro has to say. Have a good day and good luck to my opponent!", "qid": 47, "docid": "59460e7f-2019-04-18T13:41:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8203978538513184}, {"content": "Title: Homework takes up class time Content: When homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class.", "qid": 47, "docid": "d23d9ea5-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00010-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8178750872612}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Homework creates a bridge between school and home. Parents rarely get to spend much time with you while you're at school. Homework allows them to keep up with what you're doing in your classes on a daily basis. But you don't have homework purely for your parents' benefit. It's good for you, too! Homework can help you become a better student in several different ways. First of all, homework given in advance of a particular subject can help you make the most of your classroom discussion time. For example, before beginning a discussion of a complex period in history, it can be very helpful to read background information as homework the night before. Homework also gives you valuable practice with what you've learned in the classroom. Often, the brief period of time you have during class to learn something new is simply not enough. Repeating classroom concepts at home helps to cement in your mind the things you learned. For example, you've probably experienced the value of homework when it comes to mathematics. A new concept explained in class might seem foreign at first. With repetition via homework, however, you reinforce what you learned in class and it sticks with you. Without homework, a lot of classroom time would be wasted with repetition that could more easily be done outside the classroom. In these ways, homework expands upon what is done during the day in the classroom. Your overall educational experience is better, because homework helps you to gain and retain more knowledge than would be possible with only classroom work. As you learn more, you know more and you achieve more\"and you have homework to thank! Homework teaches lessons beyond just what's taught in the classroom, too. Bringing homework home, completing it correctly, and turning it in promptly teaches a host of other important life skills, from time management and responsibility to organization and prioritization. Despite these benefits found by researchers, the topics of who should receive homework and how much homework are hotly debated among educators and researchers. In one study, researchers found that academic gains from homework increased as grade level increased, suggesting homework is more beneficial for older students. Some researchers have found that too much homework can lower or cancel its benefits and become counterproductive, because students become burned out.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c6bb-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8169251680374146}, {"content": "Title: Homework shouldn't be given Content: Homework gives us practice and we understand the lesson or concept better if we practice at home. Homework helps us realize are weak points. Most people dont listen in class.", "qid": 47, "docid": "eb740db4-2019-04-18T16:06:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8148050308227539}, {"content": "Title: We need to get rid of homework Content: I'll take this argument. Best of luck, Pro! I suppose for now I'll construct my argument. Homework as it stands is an integral part of being at school, and I believe that it should stay that way. There are two particular perspectives as to why I believe this. 1) From a student's perspective, homework offers a wide variety of advantages in return for doing it. As is its primary purpose, homework offers a way for students to review the material that they have learned in class. This is critical as it tests whether or not a student has understood what has happened in class, since most teachers will not have the time to do so during schooltime. There are also wide variety of useful skills that can come out of doing homework, such as time management, improving study habits, reviewing material, more opportunities to improve grades, etc. 2) From a teacher's perspective, it allows the teacher to evaluate how their students are performing in class. This allows the teacher to see who understands the material, and who needs more help. This is especially crucial during lesson planning; there is no point moving onto new material if a teacher discovers that 90% of the class did not understand what happened previously.", "qid": 47, "docid": "2439be89-2019-04-18T16:47:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8144514560699463}, {"content": "Title: Does homework have any benefits Content: My point of contention is that homework can be very beneficial given the right balance between the amount of homework and time available for students to complete it. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your point about children having to do too much of it, as I don't know the country that you're based in or and I also don't know how you define a substantial amount of homework. These are the reasons why I think that it is beneficial and is not a waste of time if the above criteria is met: 1. It allows for the development of time management skills within students, since they have to manage their homework with the time constraints given. The source cited states that homework is important in the process of self regulation and control. [1] 2. Homework forces students to apply the knowledge that they learned in the classroom, which is especially important for development of intellect, as being able to apply knowledge of a given topic is what allows you to utilize it within your everyday life. While you may not be able to directly apply trigonometry into your life, the type of thought processes that mathematics hinges on can give students a better ability apply study skills in their everyday lives. [2] 3. Homework reinforces education, which while may not be directly applicable, it is crucially important for survival in an increasingly modern economic marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data that shows that the unemployment rate increases 3.25 times when comparing people over 25 with a doctoral degree and those who only have a high school diploma (1.6% to 5.2%). It also shows that the difference between these two groups when it comes to full time weekly earnings is that those with a high school diploma earn 2.41 times less than those with a doctoral degree. [3] 4. There is also a link between the amount of education one has and their estimated IQ. While IQ may not be the end-all-be-all determiner of intelligence, it gives us a good idea of one's general intellectual capabilities. On page 63 of Coming Apart, Charles Murray displays a graph that shows that the difference between those who don't have a degree and those with a high school diploma is 11 and 12 (82-89, 05-09), and the difference between those with a diploma and a PHD or its equivalents are 27 and 25 respectively, this shows that there are relatively significant differences in IQ between people who have radically different amounts of education. [4] Sources: [1]- Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2011, December). Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from http://www.davidsongifted.org... Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 194-218 [2]- Y. Sagher, M. V. Siadat, and L. Hagedorn, Building study skills in a college mathematics classroom, The Journal of General Education 49(2) (2000), 132\"155. [3]- The NLSY79. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.bls.gov... [4]- ONeill, William L. Coming apart: an informal history of America in the 1960s: with a new introduction by the author. Ivan R. Dee, 2005. Pg. 63 I wish the best of luck to you in this debate! I think that this is the first debate on this website for both of us.", "qid": 47, "docid": "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8138703107833862}, {"content": "Title: No Homework:) Content: As early as 1994 scholarly artices recognized the benefits of homework. High schoolers who are assigned homework outperform 69% of other students in the same classes without homework[1].Long term studies using a variety of research designs show the positive effects of homework.[2]Citations1. http://www.cehd.umn.edu...2. http://rer.sagepub.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "748ad8df-2019-04-18T15:53:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8112202882766724}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a waste of time Content: Fitst of all I would like to add that anyway teachers have to repeat last topic in order to see did everyone understand it or not. Therefore I think that when homework does take up time in class it is helpful for learning. And when it does not then it does not harm the classwork. Homework aids classwork by providing a space for those who have not finished the work to catch up and by helping us to remember what we did in class. Do not you think that Homework is a way for you to practice what you are learning? If you didn't have homework, you would have to stay in school until you finished your practice, and since everyone works at different rates, you'd be there until the slowest people finally caught on. Will you like it?", "qid": 47, "docid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8105597496032715}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned Content: Thank you for accepting the challenge. --Framework-- There is an important background I will try to establish in this debate in order for the resolution to be more easily affirmed and that is the benefits of homework. (x1)A review by researchers at Duke University of more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 showed that, within limits, there is a positive interaction between the amount of homework which is done and student achievement. The research synthesis also indicated that too much homework could be counterproductive. The research supports the '10-minute rule',the widely accepted practice of assigning 10 minutes of homework per day per grade-level. For example, under this system, 1st graders would receive 10 minutes of homework per night, while 5th graders would get 50 minutes' worth, 9th graders 90 minutes of homework, etc.[1] ======================================================================== some more benefits of homework and why homework should not be removed: 1.Homework encourages students to work more independently, as they will have to at college and in their jobs. Everyone needs to discipline responsibility and skills in personal establishment,working to deadlines, being able to research, etc. If students are always \"\"spoon-fed\"\" topics at school, they will never develop study skills and self-discipline for the future. A gradual increase in homework responsibilities over the years allows these skills to develop . For instance, to read a novel or complete a research project, there is simply no time at school to do it properly. Students have to perform independently and be willing to read or write, acknowledging that if they struggle, they will have to work through the problem or the difficult words themselves. Diane Ravitch points out that a novel like Jane Eyre cannot be completed if it is not read at home -- students have to work through it themselves . 2.Having homework also permits students to genuinely fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests when they do short homework assignments related to the test . Students gain confidence from such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests. Education is a partnership between the child, the school and the home . Homework is one of the main ways in which the student\"\"s family can be involved with their learning. Many parents value the chance to see what their child is studying and to support them in it. It has been described as the \"\"window into the school\"\" for parents, the area in which schools, parents and students interact daily . And schools need parents\"\" support in encouraging students to read at home, to help with the practising of tables, and to give them opportunities to research new topics. 4.Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day -- not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best implement of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom -- students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example, students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student. =======================My argument |====================================================Contention 1: Limited amount of well planned homework |============================= It is true that overload is bad,but that does not advocate for complete removal of homework. This \"over load homework\" problem can be cured. Limited portion of finely planned homework should be assigned to students. Very limited amount of homework will not harm the students. It's an option. There are two options to solve the problem. a)Reducing the amount of homework to a well planned schedule homework b)Removing the homework as an activity in school. As I said in my framework (see x1) that how \"10 minute\" rule benefits students and this limited amount of homework will not become a burden to students. As we can see that option (a) is better than option (b). Because it will not only reduce a lot of burden from students, but also benefit all the students. Homework should not be banned. The resolution is affirmed. source: http://dukenews.duke.edu...", "qid": 47, "docid": "779b1229-2019-04-18T16:52:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8102754354476929}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional Content: Thank you for your welcome, and also your clarification, but I do know what utilitarianism and active & passive mean. While homework does have its benefits, which you mentioned, such as improving student's grades, scores, and futures, the cons of homework far outweigh them. Homework can clarify the subject, but if the concepts have not been learned once class is over, the homework becomes pointless. School is, and kids lives in general are, already immensely stressful without homework. Clear relationships between student's stress and ailments (physical and mental) have been found . I am again going to emphasise that homework should be limited. Though you make an excellent point about time restrictions, many teachers assign time-consuming homework that no one could complete quickly, no matter how intelligent they are or how well they understand the concept. If homework were to be limited to a few nights a week, this would open up more time for kids to be kids. I cannot speak for everyone when I say this, but at my school, we have at least four hours of homework total. Per night. Add in school, extracurriculars, meals, and sleep, and that leaves little to no time for freetime. No matter how well you manage your time, there will always be something that does not fit. If you were to try to squeeze in some freetime, you would most likely end up giving up some sleep, which would impair your performance at school the next day. As most kids enjoy having freetime, this is often the case. Therefore, I must say that, though homework is intended for a good cause (that is, improving ability), the ideals commonly get lost in the stress that balancing the different aspects of your life, and homework becomes more of a burden than a helper. You mentioned that homework benefits teachers, but I would have to differ. Homework does show teachers whether the material is clear or not, but it creates extra work for them (as well as the students). Now they not only have mountains of classwork, tests, and projects to grade, they have to grade daily homework as well. This is more evidence why even just limiting the amounts of homework would be beneficial. As for benefiting the nation, you yourself mentioned that the issue we have does not lie within homework, but rather within emphasis on athleticism. In that way, homework is unrelated, and not the fix for the issue: stronger emphasis on education through something such as more personalised learning is.", "qid": 47, "docid": "503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8100229501724243}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Abolished Content: Right, before I begin my arguments, I shall do a short rebuttal of my worthy opponent's arguments. I said in my previous arguments, that homework in moderate or small amounts is beneficial. I have stressed that throughout my arguments. And then my opponent went on to say that homework can be too much, and too stressful. That the child won't have any time to do homework. Well, I will elaborate this in my rebuttal, however, I said in moderate amounts. In moderate amounts, 1 small assignment a night due in two days can't be too stressful, can it?Now onto my argument. Homework enables the day to be shorter. My opponent claims that the day is too busy for the child. However, the day would be even longer without homework. Homework enables teachers to get through work that there isn't time for in class, and to finish off class work from that day. Without homework, school days would be much longer. What proof of that is there? you might say. However, one does not need proof. Logic serves the mind just as well.If my opponent's claims that \"there is too much homework\", just pause to think about what would happen if that homework is eliminated. How much work is done at home as homework? How many assignments, and school work is done at home? How much studying at home? Well, imagine if homework is taken away. Then how many hours would be added on the set school day? If we aren't going to be finishing schoolwork in class, and teachers can't set is at homework, we would need longer lessons. And what about those major assessments, or in high school, that huge coursework? A teacher can't set that as homework, since we're abolishing it, so it must be done in class. And classes are already full of work already, where would one find the time to do it? The answer, the school days must be elongated. So that student's \"already busy day\" would be even longer. Of course, you may say students will just do the work at home on their own. And they can do it on their own. But let's be honest with ourselves, how many of us actually do that? How many of us would finish of the work we did in class at home, if it wasn't set? The sad answer, not very many of us. We can't find the motivation, or work up the trouble to do it, if it wasn't mandatory or required. After all, many students just can't be bothered half the time, me included.So, if homework is abolished, school days would be much longer, and who would want that? No one.", "qid": 47, "docid": "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8099790811538696}, {"content": "Title: Students shouldnt have homework Content: Although homework can be copied , that is only due to the fact that the homework we receive is too long. Homework is beneficial to understanding a subject and furthering your knowledge on the selected subject. Therefore Homework is beneficial to knowledge as long as it is a reasonable length to prevent anxiety.", "qid": 47, "docid": "7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.809807538986206}, {"content": "Title: Should students spend more time in school, rather then given homework. Content: My opponents seems to claim that my research doesn't show how it does more harm then good. Which, in way, is true I will give you that, however. since that is the case, lets explore all the \"good\" things homework does. One of things homework does is that it teaches responsibly. It teach students to prioritize important things first, and non important things last. It also teaches them good study habits, and teaches them in which ways they learn best, however. BOTH of these skills can be learned in school, with out the excessive homework. Also homework also, in way, turns counterproductive when teaching students life skills they will need. (2) Homework tends to keep students away from other important activities that could teach them important things as well. For instance, according to my second link provided below, \"Homework denies kids of sports and social activity. For example, scouting groups and sports teams teach cooperation and leadership, in addition to helping kids stay physically active. Another problem with too much homework is that parents can get too involved. They can put too much pressure on their kids and can confuse them by using different instructional techniques from the teacher's.\" Also I have noticed at the end you point out you wrote more. Was that supposed to support your claim, or was that just something extra that wasn't needed? Last time I checked, length does define how good my argument is. Also just wondering, is there anything links you can provided me backing up what you are saying? As of now, it seems that most of what you are saying is purely opinionated, and not based on fact. Unless you have links to website backing you up that is. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Though my opponent has made some interesting points, I cannot but help but to ask, in what ways does it keep parents involved. I, personally, have seen many parents, and families not able to spend time quality time that every family needs. Think about it, instead of spending time with your family and connecting with them. you're at the table. Doing homework. Instead of spending time with friends, and developing close relationships with your peers, you're at the table doing homework. (1) It has been shown that the average high school student spends 3.5 hours their time a night working on homework! That is insanely too much for the average high school student. I understand that this may not be the case for all high school students, but we are looking at this as a whole. Another bad side effect is that homework stress students out way too much. (3) In fact, research shows that over half of today's students(56%), have claimed that homework is the greatest source of stress related issues. (3) It has also been shown that homework can lead to heath problems, such as sleep deprivation and other health problems such as headaches, exhaustion, weight loss and stomach problems. (3) As I stated above, homework can lead to less time with friends, and more time stress over how to complete your homework before the next day. It also provides less time for outside of school activities such as sports, and clubs that are offered in high schools around the U.S., and some of these clubs/sports can teach you very important life skills that cannot be learn inside a classroom, or sitting at your desk for the next three and a half hours. Vote pro. 1. http://blogs.edweek.org... 2. http://www.teenink.com... 3. http://news.stanford.edu...", "qid": 47, "docid": "93890144-2019-04-18T12:45:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8087513446807861}, {"content": "Title: This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Content: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... Although i admit that too much homework is bad and that homework doesn't mean student achievement. Homework does in fact help someone consolidate information. I support 1-2 hours of home work because I feel that it is beneficial to that extent. futile-pointless I will show why homework is not pointless first i will negate my opponents main argument: \"\"study for a plethora of tests and quizzes, play sports, get involved in the community, eat food with nutritional value, and get an adequate amount of sleep, all in one day?\"\" I am a student athlete, i am also an A student as well as being actively involved in my church and other clubs. Eating nutritional food has no correlation with doing homework. 6-7 hours of sleep is adequete and manageable with all the other things I do. To answer your question, I do a little trick called time management skills. During boring classes, i optimize efficiency by doing homework or studying to reduce time back at home. I take naps on bus rides to ensure that i am energized for the day ahead. I plan what i'm gonna do and what i have to prioritize. \"\"As a student, I don't get home from school until 4:30 or 5:00 and I am doing homework sometimes until 8:30 almost every night. It is very stressful when you have seven classes a day and homework in every single class; it becomes very overwhelming. On top of that, I have to get up every morning at 5:30 am just to catch my buss at 6:40. Many mornings are very hard for me because of lack of sleep from the night before staying up doing homework and studying for two or three tests the next day.\"\" so you do homework until 8:30 and yet you can't find adequete ammounts of sleep. 8:30-5:30 is like 9 hours of sleep, that's plenty. You need to either A) know how to stress yourself out less by doing exercise or meditation or B) stop trying so hard in school and learn to be more efficient. You most likely taking classes you can't handle and that's why your overstressed. \"\" they banned homework, test scores might improve because then students would have more time to study and be prepared than if we have five different subjects to do on top of studying for a test the next day.\"\" That may not be true, most kids when given free time, watch netflix or play Xbox. The really dedicated ones who would study if they had time most likely already do study since they prioritize. Also, kids can study in the summer if they really wanted to. \"\"one reason why homework should be banned is because homework is just too much.\" why don't we just assign less homework then and not ban it completely. \"\"Another reason why homework should be banned is because it is evil.\"\" Lol, you have plenty of time to go to sleep. Homework is voluntary, the government doesn't force you to do it. You are obligated to do it for a better grade but you don't have to sacrifice everything if you truly don't want to. \"\"according to research some of the smartest country like Finland and Japan don\"t have homework. We can be just as smart as or smarter than them without homework. This shows that homework have no academic achievements towards grades. This is why kids should not repeat not have homework.\"\" This statement has no evidence to back it up. You cited Finland as an example of where there is no homework yet they're doing fine. This article to some extent agrees with you, but it also shows that they're are factors aside from that. In Finnishsocieties, teachers are looked as something good for the community. Finnish classroom sizes are also much smaller which allows for more individual learning time. In Finland, they're are no accelerated class so everyone learns at the same pace(which is bad for high achievers like me). We cannot become like Finland!! Abolishing homework does not lead to more academic success, that is from the basis of a logical fallacy. Correlation between no homework and high test scores does not mean causation. You know what is correlated with better test scores? Good teachers, which Finland has an America sadly lags behind in.\"More than two decades of research findings are unequivocal about the connection between teacher quality and student learning.\" http://www.smithsonianmag.com... http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... onto my main points Homework is far from pointless. It exercises the most important organ in your body, your brain. Without homework, we wouldn't mentally stimulate ourselves and we won't apply ourselves anywhere outside of school. Doing homework ensures that you know what the teacher is teaching and you know if you understand concepts enough to apply them to homework questions etc. The education system is here to prepare ourselves for the workforce and stressful scenarios. Oftentime, people who work have things or objectives to complete at home(businessmen) and homework teaches people how to prioritize outside of the workplace. Homework is voluntary. You won't get arrested for not doing homework. Homework is just work in itself, if you want to apply yourself and get a good grade, you should do it. If you can't handle all the stress and all the time management you have to do, then don't. It's simple really. Homework prepares you for the workload you will receive in universities. Universities oftentime require their students to write essays, lab reports, take home tests, and a whole lot of other stuff. If students weren't taught how to effectively do homework and essays at home outside of school, then these students may fail these courses. Our university system is the BEST in the world, you can't disagree with that. Our homework load prepares us for these awesome universities. 6 out of the top ten universities are in the US, 4 in the UK, and both do homework. Where is Finland on that chart? This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Homework helps you spell. When you write an essay, you are crtiqued on your grammer or spelling errors. This helps you learn from your errors. You misspelled society in your title. \"\"This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity\"\" This shows how much homework you need to do and how educated you truly are.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8082312941551208}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks. The 2nd Benefit of it to prepare for a big test. Doing homework also build up responsibility.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733befb-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8081035017967224}, {"content": "Title: Homework is beneficial for school students Content: I don't think homework is really beneficial to the school students. Teachers in the school have already given assignments or lessons to the students. The most crucial thing is that the students learn or gain something fruitful from the schools.Some research indicates no direct relationship between learning and homework, whereas other studies state that homework can cause stress in young students and that students from lower-income homes may not have access to the same amount of parental assistance and resources as students from higher-income homes. We just have to ensure the students score with flying colors in their exams and understanding towards all the subjects. As you can seen in above statement, homework causes stress to students. Especially in Asia region, parents like to sign up extra-classes after school for students to brush up their studies. They have to do the homework which is assigned by the teachers from school and extra-classes. If we remain in this state-quo, students will just get too stresses out and give up their studies. Is this the outcome you speculate?", "qid": 47, "docid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8079679012298584}, {"content": "Title: RESOLVED: Intelligence should determine grades more so than Effort in School Content: The basic objective of homework is what school is designed for in the first place: to increase your knowledge and IMPROVE your intelligence. Homework, classwork, and projects improve your sense of responsibility, and provide a real time report of your progress in class. Homework can reveal weak areas in individuals, and even in the class in general. Homework, classwork, and projects improve cooperation between students and in some cases builds teamwork, they can reveal weak areas in individuals or in the class as a whole, and can alert teachers to who learns how and may teach them to teach more intelligent students more efficiently. My opponent has forfeited round 3, but I just wanted to reiterate my point. Regardless of whether or not you actually like to DO homework- which I never really did in school- you should understand that it is a better method of teaching than limiting grades to test scores or giving more importance to test scores rather than to habitual progress, completion of work, and demonstration of understanding and progressive learning. I rest my case.", "qid": 47, "docid": "3c682384-2019-04-18T19:37:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8076408505439758}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: Homework helps to reinforce the ideas learnt at school, as well as to help students get used to the idea of always having work to do, such as adults do in the 'Real world'. It can be said that homework is a 'waste of Time' because it is seen as 'more work at the end of the day' or 'that the work should be done at school, if it needs to be done at all.' The purpose of homework is not to give the child 'more work', but to reinforce all the ideas taught to the student that day. Studies done in 2006 report that doing homework resulted in a 26% increase in grades. This SHOWS the productive and positive affects of doing homework.", "qid": 47, "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8072072863578796}, {"content": "Title: Is homework good Content: Hello there, please forgive any grammer issues as this is my first online debate. I do think homework is good. The reason I think this way is because it is intended as a means to keep the learning of a subject fresh in the students mind for as long as possible. It also gives parents opportunities to further connect with their childs intellect and provide their own insights and ideas thus helping them progress through difficult situations with perhaps an alternative option of solving a problem. I'm long past the age of homework now (don't laugh) but I know I hated it, I know it seemed like a chore and a waste of time but I do believe it helped shaped my intellect for the better in grown up years.", "qid": 47, "docid": "bc9ca527-2019-04-18T14:21:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8067344427108765}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be mandatory. Content: Homework helps the teacher and the student in a school. Homework helps the student because the student understands the lecture the teacher gave better. Homework can also show if you know the topic or not. If you figure out you do not know the topic, you can ask your teacher. Homework helps the teacher because the teacher has less stress. When the student does the homework, and they get everything right, the teacher knows that the student understands the topic clearly. This can also notify that a student doesn't know the topic, and he or she will be helped. Homework also helps students on tests. When a student does his or her homework, he or she understands the topic and will do well on the test. Homework is good for everyone is a school environment.", "qid": 47, "docid": "6cbdf87a-2019-04-18T17:46:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8065752387046814}, {"content": "Title: When out of school we should have time to ourselves Content: We should expect to get a certain amount of homework per day and build other activities around the homework. Homework can be a useful part of time with family as it provides a chance for parents and other relatives to take part in schooling.", "qid": 47, "docid": "d23d9ea5-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00008-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8058643341064453}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: I would like to start off by stating that homework is generally for beneficial for the student than it is wrong. Homework is a part of the simple assessment process that teachers use to determine what areas their students need help in, and can help the student improve from that point. Often times (and almost all of the time), teachers don't have the sufficient time they need in a day to teach material and ensure that the students fully understand; and teachers will use homework for the students to take home and bring back the next day. Even if the student gets the gist of a subject, the teacher would still send home homework in order to prepare the student for any future tests;which is essentially required studying and practice at home. Outside of the educational ideals, homework teaches students in a simple way about an important aspect in life for the future-- responsibility, that is. With the responsibility and accountability of being required to take time to finish school work at home, they develop much needed life skills for the future.", "qid": 47, "docid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8058154582977295}, {"content": "Title: should the homework be banned from schools Content: 1) Homework is beneficial because it teaches children useful skills at an early age. It teaches kids responsibility. It is a child's responsibility to make sure his/her homework is completed for the next day. It also teaches children time management because students plan when to complete their homework based on their schedule. 2) You can not compare Japan and Denmark to the United States because although they may not get much homework , their work load during school is far more intense than in America, so that makes it even. C) homework should not be banned from schools.", "qid": 47, "docid": "d4ad3156-2019-04-18T15:31:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8057765364646912}, {"content": "Title: home works should be reduced Content: I am there fore realizing my opponent has forfeited.. here is my argument for round 2# Homework helps you catch up on work at home that u did not do at school also it is a great way to study also if u look up you will see that no homework,no grades thing ends up saying no you do your homework or u will die We shouldn't ban it but moderate better so that they have plenty of time to relax but still learn more. Plus in later life you get homework from your job so you better get used to it, so when the time comes you will be ready. Seriously, homework is good for you. You can catch up in class and it helps you improve. Homework is a good way of studying. reasons why homeworks are good 1) Homework allows you to consolidate what you have learnt for the day. 2) It gives you an early warning if you do not understand a concept or something previously taught. 3) Homework appeases parents. 4) It gives teachers something to do. 5) Practice Practice Practice! Consistently doing homework means that you don't have to study that much for tests. 6) Prepares children for working life by having deadlines. 7) Cultivates responsibility in students. 8) You can actually do your homework in class instead of complaining so you don't have to do it at home. thank you lovedebate11", "qid": 47, "docid": "f54bb389-2019-04-18T18:08:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.805148184299469}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned in school Content: Most students might feel that homework is an extremely tedious and useless task to do but throw me tomatoes and banana peels because I believe otherwise. Homework can help students in a plethora of ways both consciously and unconsciously. First and foremost, students are bound to become more responsible by fulfilling this task. This is because it is a given task to be completed and submitted at a due date. They will learn what they must do and when they must do it. Consequently, their time managing skills will improve. They will learn how to divide their tasks among other extra curricular activities and set aside 'tv' time or 'computer game' time which will be helpful in organization and peace of mind. Homework is also a productive way to pass time. Most teenagers or students spend their time online playing games or checking notifications on facebook to see the latest comments and likes. Doing something that would enhance their brain (as they are still young) such as math exercises or reviewing problems would be a much better way to spend time than looking at the latest post in the news feed. This leads me to my next point which is that homework increases ones knowledge. There is a reason why the teacher wants the students to review on a subject matter. If they were doing mediocre or possibly horrible at a test, facing and repeating the challenge is a must in order to prevent future mistakes from happening in their tests. No matter how much one loathes it, I believe homework is a necessary part of a student's life and should not be taken away from his/her duties", "qid": 47, "docid": "3ec31e7c-2019-04-18T16:14:06Z-00009-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8050311207771301}, {"content": "Title: Children should have LESS homework! Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I believe I should win this debate. In conclusion, there is no good reason to have less homework.", "qid": 47, "docid": "8ca47073-2019-04-18T16:33:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8043938875198364}, {"content": "Title: That Homework Should be Banned Content: Hello Debate.Org. I am here to convince you that homework shouldn't be banned and why it is beneficial for you. I will speak about two points,my first point being that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork and my second point being that homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. My first point is that homework builds a sense of responsibility and commitment towards schoolwork. Everyone will have to face the fact that one day they would have to get a job, most jobs require the skill of responsibility and organisation. This is achieved by homework. Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of a student in school. A study has (where is the study from reference) compared the achievement of 20 students who have homework and who do not in 1962 (try and find a newer stat, they can rebut and say that it is too old). The results were outstanding, 14 students showed a benefit in doing homework, meanwhile 6 felt no benefit at all. I myself am very busy, having out of school activities and other assigned tasks from other classes. \"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\" this is quoted by Nelson Mandela. He is telling us that we can do anything we want, we can go anywhere we want to be if we are given the right education. Homework brings up the skill of participation, this increases each student\"s individual involvement in applying specific skills and knowledge while enjoying learning. This brings me to my second point, homework builds on skills that are learnt in class. Only the talented will pick up tricky maths and confusing science equations in one lesson, having homework improves your skill of the subject. Have you ever heard of the saying \"practice makes perfect\" this falls into play with homework. Homework gives each student an opportunity to demonstrate mastery of skills taught in class; to increase speed, mastery and maintenance of skills. According to an article published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, homework gives you positive affects such as advancing your knowledge of the subject and opening your mind up to learn and create. Harris Cooper, an educational psychologist, performed a \"meta-analysis\" which is a statistical technique for combining numerous studies into the equivalent of one giant study. Cooper performed a meta-analysis on numerous homework studies. About 70% of these found that homework was associated with higher achievements in learning. Henceforth homework broadens knowledge and builds on skills that are learnt in class.", "qid": 47, "docid": "b7e16db9-2019-04-18T14:29:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8023297786712646}, {"content": "Title: Homework is Necessary Content: Homework is a big issue these days. Homework may be useful to you in some ways, But did you know almost 60% of kids do homework and hate it, And nearly 40% of parents surveyed and admitted that homework was not any help to their child. My two main arguments will be: 1)Stress (more on that later) 2)Co-Curricular Activities are Very Important I request whoever agrees to participate in this debate do so until the end.", "qid": 47, "docid": "dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8023192882537842}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: It should be interesting. Now, as Con, I'm saying homework is bad. Homework doesn't work This statement is quite self explanatory so let me give you some research I found: \"there is absolutely no evidence of any academic benefit from assigning homework in elementary or middle school. For younger students, in fact, there isn't\u2019t even a correlation between whether children do homework (or how much they do) and any meaningful measure of achievement. At the high school level, the correlation is weak and tends to disappear when more sophisticated statistical measures are applied. \" Now, why give children homework if it doesn't work? You say it is because it leads them to success for their next test or quiz. Well- and this is my personal opinion- the teacher should prepare you for that test or quiz. The teacher should be responsible, have the students take notes, answer some questions in class, and then have the stuff that would've been homework, become class work. It's that simple. Now there may be some thought on that there's not enough time in the class period. Well, then extend it or if the student has questions, let them come into you after class so that they still get the concept. Then, before a test or quiz, review a little, get the student's brains going, and take it. I don't study for certain classes because the teacher reviews it when we get in the class for ten minutes and then we take it and I've aced almost every one. If someone needs to study extra, good for them, but don't make a study guide mandatory. And in fact, if someone gives too little or too much homework it bring diminishing returns (the opposite of where you want to go) and because a teacher doesn't know the exact amount of homework to give for every individual student, then homework wouldn't work anyways. Now to my next point. Homework and timeBetween the busy life schedules of parents and students, homework can get in the way. I have already covered that homework simply doesn't work; so if it doesn't work, why waste time on that when you could be doing something exciting? Many students have other things to do than sit at their desk doing pages of homework and studying for the three tests they have tomorrow. It can become a burden and make the student's not want to go to school or not do it because its time consuming nature. Kids want to play sports and do things they enjoy and hang out with friends. Why should all of those suffer because they have to sit at home and do some homework that doesn't work anyways? Why should their social life suffer or their relationship with their family suffer because of useless homework? Let kids be kids and let them have fun instead of burdening them with homework. Now to my next point. Homework creates stress. Homework, stress, and time can all be related. Because of other things, kids don't have enough time to do homework, or visa versa, and then it creates stress. Like I have said before, homework doesn't work. Studies have shown there is zero correlation between the academic scores and homework. The best is a very low percentage and the worst, nonexistent. So, if homework creates stress, that's unneeded stress and another thing to add on to the disadvantages list. Especially for those who don't have a good family life or are poor, they don't have resources. If teachers are giving the kids homework and the kids doesn't have a computer or can afford a text book, well then there goes their grade. Even if they try, they won't be able to succeed with resources that a classroom has. This can cause stress on them because they want to succeed and they can't help their position in life. It stresses kids out. In a statistics article I read a few months back, it said that homework was the main leader of the five stressors in a life and family. Why is stress better than homework? RebuttalsIf the kid really tried and wanted the grade then yes, they would got over notes and the book to make sure they are going to get an A. Most parents care about their kid so they'll make them anyways do the studying. Homework isn't essential if they have a good teacher. I've gotten good grades without studying because the teacher reviewed and made sure we understood it before she handed out the test or quiz. I look forward to your response and here are some sites:. http://www.alfiekohn.org...http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.time.com...;", "qid": 47, "docid": "cf3337ae-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.802227258682251}, {"content": "Title: THBT Homework should not be given out to students. Content: I believe that for this debate, I will be taking the PRO side. In this debate, I will be introducing some reasons for why homework is bad and how it doesn't help students learn better. Some of the points I will be covering will be the fact that a lot of the time homework is simply busy work. How much will you really learn from a standardized worksheet? If homework does not provide opportunities for meaningful learning experiences, it's unlikely that most students will get a lot out of it. As a part of the PRO side, I am defining this motion as \"schoolwork that a student is required to do at home'.", "qid": 47, "docid": "25f8605f-2019-04-18T12:14:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8014638423919678}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: If I could summarize the Con's Round 4 arguments, it would be like the following: Homework causes family disputes. Still no rebuttals on the Pro's (my) arguments. So I am still left with refuting the rest of the Con's statements.However, this round, there is some truth to what the Con says.But once again, I'm forced to bring up the matter at hand of this debate. The Con argues that homework is more bad than good.Therefore, I can only provide evidence that homework is generally more beneficial for the student.As a matter of fact, homework pays off!The benefits are the obvious: It helps children develop positive study skills and habits that will serve them well throughout life Homework encourages children to use their time wisely It teaches children to work independently Homework teaches children to take responsibility for his or her work [1] Besides any disputed educational effects, the latter are reasons homework is beneficial for all children, no matter how old, how well they do, or how much they struggle.Study habits, time management, independence, and responsibility are characteristics that all people need to progress in life, for whatever career path they choose to take. Yes, it is true, homework causes some stress and may result in family disputes. (But not make kids fat. Read this inaccurate and irrelevant article, and you'll understand why I don't buy it. [2])Yet, it can be argued, and I am arguing, that the general benefits outweigh any handicaps. Not only that- but I guarantee that in a majority of the cases in which students are becoming less active or belligerent over homework, the parents are to blame. When students have massive amounts of electronic games or television to watch, why expect them to do homework instead. If every parent were to remove the distractions from the household, then you would have the select few students that genuinely struggle with education and the few situations where homework actually hinders the student pyschologically. In conclusion, homework is generally good and helps more than it does hinders.Thanks for the debate willtreaty1156, I understand this is your first.Vote Pro![1] Top 14 Reasons Why Homework is Important - e-Skool. (2010, October 27). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://blog.eskool.ca... [2] Hey Teachers , Ban Homework and You Will Have Less Fat Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://www.datehookup.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8003197312355042}, {"content": "Title: We Shouldn't have homework! Content: First, there are three arguments for why homework is excellent and ought to continue in modern schools. 1. Homework aids doer-learners. It is generally accepted that there are three types of learners: those who learn by hearing, those who learn by seeing, and those who learn by doing. While many are content to hear or see instruction of a given subject, some need to actually do it. Thus, homework is beneficial for this latter group because the instruction is learn through action. 2. Homework reinforces instruction. Although many would probably be thrilled to not have homework, the quality of the education received would certainly suffer if it was removed. Whether the homework is assigned reading, term papers, etc. , all of it is designed to reinforce the instruction in the students' minds. After all, those who do their homework are more academically successful than those who do not. I feel that this is a self-evident truth, but I'll leave it Pro to dissuade you. 3. Homework mirrors real-life demands. After high-school, there are mainly two paths for graduates to take: college or work. For both of these paths, assignments will be allocated and the professors/bosses will except to see them completed. Now, having done homework with deadlines before, graduates are used to these demands and are thus more likely to succeed. But remove homework and students will be unfamiliar with long-term assignments, deadlines, and the like. In short, homework helps to prepare graduates for real-life demands. I will now refute Pro's arguments: 1. \"Checking [homework] takes valuable class time. \" No, this is absolutely false. Instructors generally do not grade homework in class because it is a time for teaching, not evaluation. Instructors usually grade in their offices or homes and are paid (by salary) to do so. Class time is seldom, if ever, affected by grading homework. Pro's argument is ridiculous. 2. \"Kids cannot handle so much schoolwork with such a little attention span. \" Well, this is half-true. Kids do tend to have smaller attention spans compared to adults, but I would answer that the homework is tailored to their ability to perform. Here's what I mean: if a teacher knows that X student can only focus for Y time before pooping on the floor, then said teacher (assuming he/she is smart) will not assign more than X student can handle. Since I have family members who teach middle school, I can testify firsthand that the workload is intended to be manageable. What if it's not? Well, ideally, the kids and their parents complain and either the instructor or principal corrects the problem. Yes, some may refuse to reduce the workload, but that is rare and not a acceptable reason to abolish all homework everywhere. Homework is good, even if it's occasionally abused. 3. \"[Homework] takes away from family time. \" I find this argument ironic. How long is an average school day? About 6-8 hours. How long does daily homework take to accomplish? 1-2 hours at worst. You see, homework is not the main usurper of family time! Rather, it the length of schools days that's the real culprit. If a student is diligent, there still is ample time for familial interaction. Also, I find Pro's argument to be laughable simply because students generally avoid socializing with their families. Many would rather play Minecraft, Call of Duty, etc. than sit around the table exchanging stories. So, to wrap up, I have presented three reasons for why homework is good and have attempted to disprove Pro's arguments. I stand ready for Round 2.", "qid": 47, "docid": "48cd3dfc-2019-04-18T13:56:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.799932599067688}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: The majority of my opponents contention contains information about the basis of homework. Yes homework is beneficial, but the contention goes against the resolution which states, \"Large amounts of homework,\" therefore, any argument against the basis of homework should be disregarded. Furthermore, Finland, a country that succeeds in the education without the burden of homework. has a 93% high school graduation rate, against the United States which has less than 75%. 2 in 3 students go to college in Finland and test scores dominate all other competing countries. This is proof that homework is not essential to a student's success. My opponent did not properly respond to my question as test scores base a students future in college (college being the determining factor for jobs). Why else would grades matter? Definitely not just for self gratification.", "qid": 47, "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7998365163803101}, {"content": "Title: there should be no homework in schools Content: Homework may be annoying and use up time, but overall it helps students learn. If you just learn in school with maybe a 15-minute break for lunch the knowledge you learned won't sink into your brain as much as it would if you learned the knowledge over time. Homework is important because it helps the students wrap up what they learned in school and see if they truly learned it. If they did the homework wrong they'll know they have to study more for an upcoming test. On the other hand, if they just learn all day and then do whatever they want at home, the knowledge wouldn't sink into their minds as much as it would if they did homework. Overall homework helps the knowledge you learned in school sink into your brain so you can fully understand it and not fail on your next test.", "qid": 47, "docid": "effd51d-2019-04-18T12:26:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7997124195098877}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be mandatory Content: I will rebut some of my opponent's arguments1.Homework has shown no proven benefitsThis statement is wrong as many studies have shown that doing homework has benefits (http://www.theguardian.com...; AND http://today.duke.edu...). I cannot believe that Pro has said that homework has shown no proven benefits. 2. Waste of timeHomework is not a waste of time since it gives students practice. Pro has also failed to rebut the fact that more practice=more perfect. 3.Homework is not carving names in wood nor it is reading menus at a restaurant. Homework is writing long essays and reading long paragraphs. Pro is comparing homework to something we do everyday. In addition, there are people called teachers who will explain a hard problem to students who are frustrated. 3. ResponsibilityYes, I accept the fact that no responsibility can be earned from completing homework with no care. However, if a students gives care to his or her homework, the students will learn responsibility. In addition, you can gain responsibility from regular life and homework. Pro has also failed to spell \"unnecesary\" correctly.4. Getting an A on the last term does not mean that a student will get an A on this term. Furthermore, students can practice and get even better by doing homework. For example, if a student gets 90% on a test, he or she can do homework to help get the percentage to 100%. Now, for my arguments.1.PreperationHomework prepares students for upcoming tests. Since tests are worth more than homework, students can do homework in order to find their trouble spots and work on them. In addition, homework ensures that students are ready for class activities.2.Time management Homework teachs students to manage their time. Since teachers give due dates, it is important for students to hand it in on time. In addition, many careers require excellent time management skills to succeed. Therefore, teaching time management to kids at an early age helps them develop the skill once they are older. Furthermore, since many kids play games, it teaches them to limit their gaming time and focus more on homework. 3. QualitySometimes, it is the quality of the homework that causes students stress. Many teachers give homework that is off-topic. Therefore, homework should not be banned, but teachers who are giving the wrong homework should be banned. Fortunately, the quality of homeworks given nowadays is better than the quality of homework in the past. Sources:http://today.duke.edu...http://lessonplanspage.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://news.stanford.edu...;", "qid": 47, "docid": "506b6158-2019-04-18T16:27:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.796873927116394}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a Good Thing. Content: The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child.", "qid": 47, "docid": "b3c9295e-2019-04-18T15:39:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7966910600662231}, {"content": "Title: Children should not have homework. Content: Since my opponent has mostly dropped their position, and it's with a logical position: for some students, homework is good and others it is not. There is good logic in that. My opponent did ask about how students view homework, and this is what I found through a quick search: 65% of students view homework as a waste of time, 50% view homework as being overly challenging or simply too difficult, and 29% of the students believed homework was interesting[5]Now, this may not be able to tell us too much, because this is based on how homework currently is. These numbers would likely change if homework was made in such a way where the students got to have a say over what was involved in the homework. I think teachers should just have a overall guideline on what students need to know, and then the students could then create their own homework that teaches them this topic. This would likely increase the amount of students who would find homework interesting(as it's low) since they would get to have a say in what the assignment is. Thus, to reiterate some things, homework shouldn't be completely elliminated, but it should have input from the students so that the students get to do what they believe is most beneficial for them. We don't all learn things the same way, and that would be most beneficial in my opinion, Maybe some students would choose to go without homework, and I think that is fine.Sources:[5]http://ro.ecu.edu.au...", "qid": 47, "docid": "a5d6b89f-2019-04-18T12:19:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7965506315231323}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be mandatory Content: 1.http://www.edutopia.org...2. http://www.alternet.org...Case 1: Homework shows no proven benefitsMany studies have shown homework has no benefits. In fact, high amounts of homework made many highschoolers drop out! (1) A quote from Harris Cooper, one of the best reasearchers on the subject. \"The conclusions of past reviewers of homework research show extraordinary variability... Even in regard to specific areas of application such as within different subject areas, grades or student ability levels, the reviews often directly contradict one another.\"Variabilltiy shows that homework has no benefits, just as it doesn't show it build responsibility or character.Case 2: Waste Of TimeHomework has shown nonproven benefits, so isn't it just wasting the child's time? Think, the child isn't gaining any knowledge, responsibility or character, what is the use of spending hours and hours on homework.Rebuttal 1:Teachers can see if their students are struggling with something based on test scores. I have proved no.benefits with homework. You could say I am gaining writing skills when I carve my name in wood. You could say I am gaining reading skills by reading a menu at a restaurant. Homework has shown no benefits. I can't see how it can help students, as homeworks seems over-whelming. It can also make a student confused or frusterated at a problem he can't solve. It will bring their GPA down even more.Rebuttal 2:You can say getting a dog builds respinsibility, yet, if the child chooses not to feed, give it water or give it love, no responsibility will be gained. Why have un-necisary responsibility. I will just cause more stress. All of the skills you say students \"gain\" from homework are actually gained in regular life.Rebuttal 3:I meant, if a student gets an A on the test, he shouldn't need to do homework. You gain no skills with homework. I have proved this.This argument kinda doesn't make sense. Good luck!", "qid": 47, "docid": "506b6158-2019-04-18T16:27:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7951714396476746}, {"content": "Title: homework Content: Thank you con for your argument. I will now post mine:Contention 1: Homework helps the students learn the material at homeHomework helps students learn the material from school at home. It is useful in keeping them knowledgeable about what the have learned at school, so they can go to class the next day, knowing the material, and being prepared.Contention 2: Homework is useful to help studyHomework helps give the students something to look over and study at home. It gives them notes to help them prepare for a test or quiz.Contention 3: Homework is an good way for students to bring up poor gradesHomework is a really good way for students to bring up bad grades. Usually, homework is worth 10% of your grade. So, for example, if you get a 75% on all your classwork, tests and quizzes, if you do all your homework, and get a 100% in that category, then your grade instead will be an 85%.Thank you. I await my opponent's rebuttals.", "qid": 47, "docid": "6bc9904a-2019-04-18T16:46:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7951687574386597}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: Pardon my delayed response, my time has been rather limited lately. Ladies and gentlemen, homework has plagued many a student ever since it arrived on the scene eons ago. It has been the bane of students and an unwanted burden on those that have to endure it's prolonged existence. But as troublesome as it is, is there any benefit to it? I think that the few places where it does help are sadly over shadowed by the problems with it.It denies the child the opportunity to rest.Children, like adults, are prone to stress and collection of stress. But unlike adults who can clear their minds and take on much more pressure children cannot really vent this unneeded stress in any way. The only way that they have to release their inner turmoil is with rest, spending time with family, friends and just playing like children do. The six to eight hours children already spend in school should suffice. The hour that might be wasted on homework each night. The rest they are not getting by doing something they enjoy further add to the stress and further diminish their ability to efficiently work and lowers their test scores and lengthen the time already spent on homework and the cycle starts again. It has no scientific support.Despite it often being praised for locking in the lessons of the day or further assist them on getting a good test score most researchers disagree on the benefits of homework. Some seem to think it solves all the problems of the world while others while others say it in fact diminishes effort and test scores, at least before high school. The children don't need homework at this age and the added stress, fear and general resentment towards school results in lowered test scores. They aren't learning, they're reciting and memorizing because they are told to. The fact that they're experiencing all the downs of homework and still not reaping any benefits is troublesome to say the least. Too much for no reason.But why do we issue homework? Often we try to answer that question with the standardized \u201cIt helps kids learn; it enforces the lesson of the day; it gives them the chance to look back and get ahead and it is a necessary part of education.\u201d The problem with these statements is that they are all false. We issue homework because we're raised to the idea that it is something that is important. We issue home work because the teacher said so. We issue homework without really having a need for it. If a child is late on his/her educational path and has been slacking off it may be required of him to use some of his time at home to learn and catch up. That's all right assuming that he actually does it. But most of the times we issue homework because at some point we simply go \u201cWell, I don't actually have a valid reason to assign homework to these kids since they're all doing well, but they still should do something four to five times a week.\u201d This is just the norm, and it isn't helping the children at all. It may lock in a lesson or two, but at the cost of test scores, co-operation in the class room and general spirit and behavioural patterns in the group. It's a bore.There, I said it, perhaps the least scientific and the most biased argument and still it serves the point. Children just do not enjoy homework. At no point will you hear a child sitting trough an hour of homework and say: \u201cGee, do I have to stop? I'm having so much fun!\u201d Children are people too, and just like you don't like to do what bores you and just like you don't really pick the fruits of that activity children don't really gain anything from doing homework. They complain of stress, boredom, general resentment at their school for placing this unneeded burden on their backs and in turn don't really commit. They slack as much as they can because as unbelievable as it may be they don't need to solve the exact same equation for x 25 times. Homework is extremely repetitive. With the exception of the occasional essay or video assignment that they just might enjoy it almost always boils down to doing the same thing over and over again until they either finish the assignment or snap. If you still have that math folder you where assigned in the fifth or sixth grade you might notice the patterns in it. \u201cSolve for x in the following equations:a) 2x = 5+xb) 5+2x = -xc) x/10 = 3(x*2 + 5)d) 2*x-4*x = x/(4+1) [add the rest of the alphabet with similar looking problems]\u201d none of these problems are hard, not even for a beginner in basic algebra. And yet they take ages because 26 of them take time that the child is wasting on listening to his Ipod, doodling little penguins at the corner of his book or reading something that entertains him. In some subject repetition is good, but in most cases 5 problems do the job just as well to get the general idea. Any more and the child will feel pressured, stressed, bored, angry, depressed and starts to develop a resentment towards school. The common sentence \u201cI hate school\u201d isn't because they're rebelling against the system as a part of a phase; They're just not happy. They don't feel comfortable in school and need a rest from it now and again. But when school starts to follow them home they'll not feel comfortable anywhere and that against cuts into test scores. Ladies and gentlemen, School is a wonderful place. It helps our young grow and blossom and reach the heights of success. But they are spending an awful lot of time in there on a day to day basis, why should the have to invest even more time than they truly require? Why should we force them to deny themselves of rest when they cry out for it? Why should we put pressure on mere children when they state in agony how they cannot handle it? Why should we have homework when we do not need it? I say let school stay where it belongs in school and let home stay at home where it belongs. Homework is a thing of the past, and as all things old it will eventually have to make way for new, better solutions. http://www.alfiekohn.org...http://www.alternet.org...http://www.sundaypost.com...http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "68a4d029-2019-04-18T16:39:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7945874929428101}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: I think that family time is achieved even when a student does have homework. It is when teachers give loads of homework that it becomes a problem. Homework is good for young students and even high school age students because it teaches them good time management and it also teaches them responsibility. Homework helps students develop positive work pattern and helps develop good study skills that each student can use later in life. Homework does give some students stress but without homework, a student's grade would dramatically increase as noted in a study about the effects one school saw when they got rid of homework.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.793914794921875}, {"content": "Title: We need to get rid of homework Content: Thank you for the discussion! However I believe you have confused your argument. Much of the proof you have offered suggests that increasing homework load is not beneficial. However, the crux of our argument is whether or not we should remove homework altogether. I claim that it is your burden to prove to me that homework itself is counter-productive, rather than an increased homework workload. For example, if I were to adjust the homework amount from 3 projects to 1, or have the homework assignments be reduced from 6 to 3, I don't believe many of your arguments hold.Before I address your points, I'm going to preface the fact that your personal stories are not strong evidence. You keep claiming that it is \"real life evidence\". So are statistical data, as they are also gathered from real people. Personally, I have had a great experience with my academic performance and homework load, but that shouldn't count as \"real life evidence\" enough to counter your example. Since you're making the claim that we should remove homework altogether, make sure your argument works for all students, not just you or your friends.[Point 1:] You make excessive claims. Please cite your sources when you make bold claims like:-> \"Like I said homework does not improve your grade. Its how you were born and how you study.\"Source? Because my experience in college suggested the exact opposite. Perhaps you haven't been challenged enough in a class yet.-> \"About most children in USA stay up through out all night doing most of their homework\"A 2011 Study found that American High Schoolers only spend on average, 1 hour a day doing homework, so 7 hours a week.(Source: http://nces.ed.gov...) Your experience might be completely different, but it is not the norm.[Point 2:] The evidence provided is weak.-> \"A study has been show to state that homework does not increase student percentile of passing there test. Basically to break it down test score in the NYC are remained flat and has been dropping each time during a new benchmark exam and children have been getting homework each grade and the homework increases.\"Your own evidence refutes your claim. From the very same article you linked:\"Researchers from Binghamton University and the University of Nevada conducted a study showing that although homework may benefit some students\"particularly high- and low-achieving students\"it\"s counterproductive for students who are average learners.\"The article says in the beginning paragraph that for some people homework can be helpful, and for others, homework can be harmful. Much of the article talks about changing the quality of homework to be useful for everybody, rather than abolishing altogether. It would stronger if you provided evidence that no homework improved everybody's academic performance.-> \"Another study has been also shown that students who don't do their homework get the same average grade as most of the children who do most of their homework.\"Is this the article you are talking about? (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)The study also says that there is a positive link between time spent doing homework and time spent performing on tests, so isn't that good marker of improving academic performance? The study also makes no claim about whether or not removing homework benefited students.[Point 3] Addressing Hypothetical Claims with Hypothetical SolutionsSince there is little factual evidence presented in the arguments you make based off of my second original point (the teacher's perspective), I offer similarly ungrounded counterclaims to show your argument holds little weight since it sways either way depending if the conditions are right. (AKA: Making a series of assumptions which cannot be shown to be held constant in every case).-> \"That is the reason we have pre- exams and ready- exams to see what children need help on. You don't need homework to see how the well the teacher thinks your doing.\"But a teacher has to modify his/her course daily or however many times they teach per week. Are you suggesting that we have daily/weekly tests in lieu of daily/weekly homework? Wouldn't that defeat the point of removing homework?Another issue is that the longer time between each pre/ready exam, the longer the exam is going to take (since it cuts into class time). Nevertheless, you would always be removing classtime that a teacher could be spending teaching, thus reducing the amount of material that can be taught over a semester or a year. In terms of classes that have standardized tests, this is especially bad for your class as they might not cover enough material for the exam. And if you're thinking about accelerating the pace of the class, that also makes the class harder for everybody, which i believe is counter-productive.-> \"Teacher give a highly amount of homework that children have to stay up to do some children attend after school and it wouldn't be fair for them to have 6 homework's because they would have to stay all night doing it\"This is only problematic if it happens repeatedly. As I showed in [Point 2], this is not the case for most students (high school at least). You also assume that you couldn't explain your situation to your teachers, that you had no say in the completion of the assignments, that somehow 6 classes all assign heavy projects on the same night such that you're forced to spend all night doing it, etc. There doesn't seem to be a complaint here if there isn't a lot of homework.-> \"Would you like it if you had three projects and later on you spend three full days doing it and you cant spend time with family on the weekend?\"Again only problematic if it happens regularly. If it happens once in a while, that is common for most students. See previous point about real time spent working for most American students. -> \"Lets say you did not know you had a typed up writing assiment to do and when you finished typing and you did not know there was no ink. What are you going to do? I bet you would say go to a library. What if your in after school and you came back at five o'clock. And your library closed at 5:00. Where is your time to print? Of course no answer. And everyone does not have a computer. And computers are expensive.\"There are two separate scenarios being presented in one paragraph. The first is a case where you suddenly and temporarily don't have the tools to hand in an assignment. The second is where you do not have the tools to do assignments, period.The solution to the first is easy. If I were that student? I'd ask to submit it by email. Or provide proof that the assignment was done and completed via said email. You could also ask others to print it. Or save it on a USB drive. There are a wide variety of solutions and assumptions being made here, so this case is moot.The second situation suggests it is not fair to assign homework that a student cannot complete (due to a lack of tools). You are correct. I would highlight a (non-comprehensive) list of assumptions you are making:- There is no method possible of getting a computer to use (library, school, friends, parents, work, etc)- You cannot explain your situation to the teacher or the school- The school does not believe you and lets you take the class and fail the grade- You basically have no way to control the situation in any way shape or form- There is no method possible of getting a computer to useAs you can see again, because I could add more information to suddenly make the issue much more easier to address, until either of us can provide factual evidence, the arguments are essentially hearsay.Hence I have demonstrated that the last 3 or 4 points you make are not a solid basis to suggest that we should remove homework.Looking forward to your response!", "qid": 47, "docid": "2439be89-2019-04-18T16:47:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7935072183609009}, {"content": "Title: homework should be given Content: Due to my opponent's failure to post any follow-up arguments, I will end this debate by stating that homework should be given in school because it is more helpful than harmful.", "qid": 47, "docid": "f9c95d4e-2019-04-18T15:27:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.792712926864624}, {"content": "Title: Homework is Necessary Content: In Round 2 I'm going to discuss 2) The benefits of homework on the ability to perform, And 3) Why the practicality of homework should appeal to all. As for my first point of discussion, I think the famous saying goes; save the best until last. Firstly, As a precursor, I think when discussing the topic of stress, Homework is one of the minor impacts directly affecting it. My reasoning for this is that for homework students are normally given ample time to complete the assignment and furthermore, Are able to most importantly take it home, Allowing them up to at least 5 hours a night to complete such assignment but also with access to the Internet, Communication with their parents, Their peers and teachers (via email or face-to-face inside or out of school). I think perhaps a more suitable reason for the stress direct to an individual would be poor time management, Not allowing them to factor in necessary activities such as homework, But rather leaving this too late then distressing as to why there is so much to do in such little time. Secondly, As aforementioned, The practicality of homework is so simple, And that the only barrier students create for themselves is poor time management. You're able to take this homework to anyone in your social circle and they will gladly help you, Especially teachers who value students excessively that ask for help when needed. With correct habits and priorities, Children can turn homework into something that they take pride in and reap great rewards from, Not just a burden to carry until the latest possible moment. On the practicality discussion, It is also relevant that students often get lost when it comes to \"revision\", They don't know what to cover, What structures to produce for themselves. So, Having a teacher set a specific piece of homework can even be a burden released from the student, With them not having to worry about covering the wrong topics. Thirdly, The benefits of homework quantity on student achievement has proven time and time again that it has helped students access higher grades, With the relationship being a positive correlation, Thus one of the main reasons why it has remained in our society for so long. Homework being set from a young age greatly aids children in the preparation for examinations and tests later on in their education, With homework often incorporating essay style writing and homework also provides the ability for students to work together in their own time, Developing team building and interaction skills towards something that matters; the cultivation of themselves - the topic I will discuss next round.", "qid": 47, "docid": "dee3e592-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7922451496124268}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned in USA Content: Well I thought I was going to get a real opponent but it is just some guy trying to advertise Call of Duty or posted it on the wrong debate (which is not likely at all). I am still going to continue with my argument. Homework prevents the waste of time and gives students something beneficial to do with their time. Students waste a lot of time on social media, on the Internet, playing video games, etc. It is okay to use those things in with limitations when you are taking a break from something and trying to lower stress by doing something you love but mindlessly wasting their time and using these things to an over-extent is not something they should be doing. Studies show that students who have homework and do it get better test grades and overall grades in school than ones who do not have any homework. In my closing statement I would like to say that having and doing homework, but not too much of it, is beneficial in learning from a student and teaches them life skills they will use in the real world as well as giving them something useful to do instead of wasting their time. Sources- (1)- http://www.ascd.org...", "qid": 47, "docid": "45419141-2019-04-18T13:34:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7919671535491943}, {"content": "Title: Should Homework Be Banned Content: These are the benefits of having homework The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child. However, some parents, students and even some teachers feel that after 7-8 hours of lessons in school, it is unfair to expect students to come home and work for another three hours.", "qid": 47, "docid": "952deb76-2019-04-18T14:21:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7919531464576721}, {"content": "Title: homework should be given Content: Homework should be given in school. Homework has a purpose far greater than kids think. It's not just a burden or \"busy work\" that teachers give us because it's fun. Teachers have their own homework when they give it out too. They spend hours grading every individual paper. Actually, homework is helpful for students because it allows them to practice the lessons they learned and remember facts better. It's the same as a dancer dancing for 2 hours every night after school. It gives them a chance to perfect their skills.", "qid": 47, "docid": "f9c95d4e-2019-04-18T15:27:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7916055917739868}, {"content": "Title: Homework Ban Content: Note: My structure will change because I will use many quotes, so there is no \"argument\"I: Arguments\"Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of students in school. According to Cooper\u2019s much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who received homework and achievement of students who did not. Results are that 14 of the studies showed benefit in doing homework, while 6 did not. This further strengthens the statement \u201cTime spent completing homework is time well spent.\".\"This means that if you spend your time well doing homework, then your grades will probably go up, making it a possibllty of going to a good university and a good job.\"Homework is an important and valuable component of learning. It teaches the students important life skills that they will need to apply even when they become working adults, especially time management, prioritizing work, as well as values, namely responsibility and self-discipline. \"This means that they will be smarter, and will have important life skills.\"By doing homework, they will start to develop time management. They will start to allocate their time for leisure pursuits and completing their homework. Through this, the students will be able to learn the value of self-discipline as they try to refrain themselves from playing until they have completed their assignments. They will also develop a sense of responsibility by knowing the need to finish homework in time and contributing to group work or projects. \"This shows that they can develop time management, and will grow more mature.If we ban homework, we won't have these things.\"Hence, some students may not fully understand the topics that the teachers taught in school and they might have problems learning well and coping with the syllabus. Setting homework and assignments extends the student\u2019s study beyond what they learn in school and allows for a wider and deeper understanding of the topic. With homework, school hours are also put to good use in which teachers can spend their time teaching well instead of giving the students class work to do, and students can avoid distractions from others when they attempt their work at home. They can also catch up on missed classes by doing homework.\"More than making it more mature, it is just like practice makes perfect. Homework can make you understand the topics easily.\"Homework is useful to inform teachers of the students\u2019 weaknesses in certain topics, giving them a chance to improve and acquire new skills. If there is no homework, teachers would have to base majority of the students\u2019 standards on tests alone, which is not reliable at times.\"Why is this not reliable? Because students can cheat.\"Homework provides students with sufficient practice for what they have learnt in school so that they can build a good foundation for that topic. With a good foundation, they can progress better in school and achieve better results for their tests and exams. It also lets students revise and recap what they are taught and more importantly, homework gives an early warning to students who do not understand certain key concepts so that they are aware of it in the future. \"Homework can make you more factual, and better at tests.II: ConclusionI have shown that homework is not needed. Vote Pro.III: Endnotes(1) (https://schools-education.knoji.com...)", "qid": 47, "docid": "c47ceb6b-2019-04-18T12:45:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7911612391471863}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a waste of time Content: Do you think that homework is a waste of time? I strongly believe that it is wrong to think that due to that it helps us to improve and fix our knowledge. To my mind we need homework to better understand topics that we have learned at school. It is known that teachers do not have enough time to explain everything clearly to each student. Moreover, it helps us to become more responsible by working independently. I believe that homework helped me to become more organized too. Because of that I did it every day of each academic year I got used to do evetything on time and in a good quantity. It can be added that if you are more organized then it means that you will do every work faster than it could be done.", "qid": 47, "docid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00007-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7907372713088989}, {"content": "Title: Homework puts students off learning. Studies have shown that many children find doing homework very... Content: If homework puts students off learning, then it has been badly planned by the teacher. The best homework tasks engage and stretch students, encouraging them to think for themselves and follow through ideas which interest them. Over time, well planned homework can help students develop good habits, such as reading for pleasure or creative writing.", "qid": 47, "docid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00015-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7901573181152344}, {"content": "Title: Is homework necessary Content: I think that homework is necessary. Homework helps memory, and helps you learn. If schools think that homework dos not help they wont do it but they bleave that is is helpful. It dus help. it helps me learn math and it helps kids be responsible. thay ned that to get a job not being responsible gets you fired", "qid": 47, "docid": "b3cad6e6-2019-04-18T14:54:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7893073558807373}, {"content": "Title: Homework is not as good as schools think. Content: Homework is not as good as you think. Homework stops students from playing with friends, exercising or having fun. Also, schools sometimes give so much homework in 1 night that the student cant possibly complete it all. Your Move Juice", "qid": 47, "docid": "41374fcc-2019-04-18T17:32:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7891260385513306}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should stop giving homework Content: Ok, Hello. First off, I am a student myself and believe that homework benefits the learning of a student. Teachers don't give out homework just because they dislike you. They give out homework because they care about your future. Homework completely helps and is essential to learning.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.789115309715271}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional Content: First off, welcome to Debate.org! I look forward to a good debate~ So when we examine this topic, we can't look at just the negative aspects of homework, but also acknowledge the benefits to three different groups of people: the students, the teachers, and the nation itself of the student. But before beginning, I'd like to mention that I am conducting this debate under the value of utilitarianism- that is, what does the most good for the most amount of people is the most morally justifiable. So first, benefits to the student. There are a few purposes of homework that are intended to further the student's educational career while simultaneously providing a better education from home. First, homework is intended as practice for the student. [1] A study done in 2006 showed a positive correlation between homework completed and class test scores. It combined multiple studies and each gave the same result: 77% of 35 studies found a link between time spent on homework and achievement in school. [2] Clearly, in a world where test scores are becoming lower and lower, it is up to the teachers (indeed, it is their job) to do whatever they can the raise these scores back up. Of course, homework does more than just force the student to practice. It also, in many cases, prepares them for class activities the next day and increases the student's involvement in their education. We need \"active learners\" as opposed to \"passive learners\" (if you are familiar with that term.) Homework is even intended to build student responsibility, perseverance, and time management. The point of school itself is to (a) educate us to become intelligent, contributing members of society and (b) prepare us for future occupations. Now, if we can't even manage our time, how can we even expect to jump into a busy, hectic job with plenty of stress? So yes, as odd as it sounds, we need stress in our lives to prepare us for our futures. But believe it or not, there are also benefits to teachers, as well. When teachers assign homework, believe it or not, they don't usually intend it as \"busywork\" meant to waste your time. Homework, of course, is intended to prepare the students for future classes as well review previous ones (which I mentioned in my last paragraph). But it's also a way of checking to ensure the students understand the material and are keeping up with the class. [1] In addition, by using it to prepare for future classes, homework will increase productivity because there will be more time in class for additional learning. Finally, homework also benefits our nation as a whole. When we mentioned that homework leads to higher test scores, and then also how it increases skills such as time management for the student, we must realize that these skills transfer over into a future careers and lives. When we begin to be able to explore subjects more than a 60 minute class will permit, we are increasing our knowledge and therefore furthering society as a whole. A new study recently reported that based on math, reading and science scores, the US is 36th best- in the world. [3] This is a problem. The US is 27th in math alone- out of 34 countries. [4] While these test scores are dropping by the day, it's clear that the issue isn't that we have homework, or even that are teachers are doing poor teaching. It's that we live in a society that places more emphasis on athletic achievement than academic. It's that we see people like Mark Zuckerberg succeeding without a college education and expect everyone to be like that. It's a lot of things, but obliterating our education by removing homework/placing restrictions on it is not the way to go. It's comparable removing hospitals in a plague. NOTE: I'd also like to mention that placing limits on the amount of homework a teacher can assign is unrealistic, as you mentioned, yourself, that \"certain homework is difficult for certain students\" and therefore has no set time. One may complete it in an hour, the other in 10 minutes. [1] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu... [2] http://www.districtadministration.com... [3] http://www.cnycentral.com... [4] http://www.oecd.org...", "qid": 47, "docid": "503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.788809061050415}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Thank you for bringing up this topic, as I will be quite happy to refute your arguements. Although your topic is not quite clear, I shall believe that as I am pro, I am saying that homework is good. Homework, especially in America, is a fundamental part of children's education. It is a necessary tool to go over what they learned during class. Most, if not all, of classes need to review topics. Listening and taking notes is not enough in school. If children do not have homework, would they actually go over notes? Would they really find worksheets to fill in, projects to make, essays to write, and problems to solve? Unless their parents enforce their kids to do work, if homework was optional, at least 90% of kids wouldn't do homework! Even for the children who WOULD do the homework, homework is an essential guide that leads them to success on their next test or quiz. To sum it up, homework is a necessary tool, most children wouldn't do homework if it was optional, and it will make them better students.", "qid": 47, "docid": "cf3337ae-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7887300252914429}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: I personally don't consider homework to be necessary for the success of a learning process and even harmful for the students perception of the joy of problem solving. This will be shown (in terms of fairness) in the next round of the debate, but as a short preview; I'll cover the 1 Fairness 2 Learning Success Factors 3 (Relevant) Benefits of Spare Time As my opponent forgot to kindly limit the concept of homework, I will do first: According to various dictionaries, as an example here the FreeDictionary {1}, homework can mean 1 (Educational) school work done out of lessons, esp at home 2 (Educational) any preparatory study 3 (Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done at home for pay As this debate is listed under \"Education\" I consider the Industrial aspect of the core term as not relevant. Also, I would like to underline that I consider homework in this case as a compulsory work, therefore I would like to exclude university reading (that is usually a voluntary thing) as well as university assignments such as compulsory research papers as they are rather difficult to classify as homework and are also done in a rather voluntary education environment and concern grown-up-students. Considering that Pro failed to define his term in the first place, I'll leave it to the judges whether my topic limitation can be seen as valid. {1} FreeDictionary: homework . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "abf51816-2019-04-18T15:38:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7883539199829102}, {"content": "Title: homework doesn't do any anything Content: To claim that homework doesn't do anything is an incorrect statement. Yes, maybe YOUR homework doesn't do anything for you, and yes, bad homework certainly doesn't do anything; however, GOOD homework certainly does help. It reinforces the ideas taught in class. Just because YOUR teachers give shitty homework doesn't mean that all teachers do, nor does it mean that all homework is useless.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ee865dc8-2019-04-18T12:36:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7881772518157959}, {"content": "Title: should homework be banned/reduced Content: As time consuming as excessive homework may seem, it has a number of advantages. Our brain is like any other muscle in the body, it requires constant and tiring practice to grow and develop. Therefore, it is only when we pressurise our brain that actual development will occur. If we forever do only how much we find convenient, our brain growth will stagnate. The amount of homework being given in schools teaches the students the importance of time management and deadlines, prepares them to undertake pressure in their lives, and enables them to become responsible, self-reliant and punctual. Homework given in every subject helps the student evaluate their level of understanding of what was taught at school and know how much harder they are expected to work. Solving a large number of problems of the same and of different kinds sharpens the students brain and prepares them for all possible problems. Homework also helps the student remember concepts in a clearer manner by reinforcing them via direct concept and application based questions. It helps the student summarise all that happened that day at school and reiterate important facts and points.", "qid": 47, "docid": "cf422126-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7878592014312744}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be optional Content: Homework helps develop a student's study skills; their ability to research a topic on their own. If a student needs help, they can ask questions in class, or develop better note-taking skills or research habits.Homework reinforces thr topics learned in class and sometimes prepares students for future cconcepts, so, if everyone has done their homework, class time can be used to continue on to more advanced topics.Homework allows parents to take a part in the student's education, if they are willing and able. Homework encourages the development of a student's self-discipline since it requires them taking initiative/responsibility for themselves without their hand being held.I am a free tutor, and peer tutoring is often a free route to take; further strengthening relationships in class.", "qid": 47, "docid": "49b76b2f-2019-04-18T15:51:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7864594459533691}, {"content": "Title: Students should never have homework on weekends. Content: I will be arguing that it would be more likely beneficial for the students and the educators if homework was given out on the weekend. My argument is not stating that there is a direct causation of success and homework as that is currently still being debated [1]. However I am stating that homework in general is more likely a beneficial component in education rather than harmful. A. Homework is an important instructional tool. 1. Purpose of homework. There are two types of homework, instructional and noninstructional. In the case of instructional it is: preparation, practice, extension, and integration [1]. The purpose of instructional homework is to further improve on skills, knowledge that was or will be covered, and allow students to utilize their multiple skills to complete a complex project. Noninstructional homework is used to develop social interactions and behavioral skills. 2. Homework is correlated to be a benefiting factor with more positive effects. Extensive studies by Harris M. Cooper continually show a correlation between students who complete homework versus students that do not, especially on test covering direct material on assignments. His research simply states that, despite constant argumentation to dispute any correlation, homework does more good than harm [2]. In general, based on various studies, the effects of homework have shown a gain of 20-30 percentiles [3]. Even though, some may debate the benefits that come from homework, we cannot ignore that it is a potentially crucial and helpful factor in education. It would be like a team of athletes that are expected to perform better than other teams but never have practice after learning a new technique/play. 3. Alternative method that allows practice of skills and teacher evaluation of retention is lacking. Simply put there is currently no other well known method for encouraging students to study material outside of the classroom, as well as encourage self-involvement with learning. Furthermore, a new method would have to allow teachers to track the progress of the students and be effective in flourishing their knowledge. I will further discuss this later. B. Main Reasons that students, and some teachers do not like homework. 1. Time Management is an important factor. On the student side many arguments can be boiled down to homework is limiting to other leisure activities and family bonding that could be reserved for weekends [4]. However, in this article, they give testimony to a child that \u201ccan\u2019t usually start [her] hours of homework until 8:30 PM,\u201d meaning that homework is already limiting within the weekday; thus, reserving homework on the weekdays would only cause more stress to the child that has to finish everything during their most busiest of days. Another argument that was given was that the children do not sleep as well during the weekends, which should be a time for resting. However according to a study by Mary Allard, male and female students spend, on average, 5.7 and 4.5 hours a day on leisure activities after school respectively [5]. In addition, the students slept 2-3 hours more on the weekends than on the weekdays, despite jobs, homework, and other social activities. It is odd that even though given homework, children are still finding more ways to rest and be social during their time off of school. On the other side of the argument, some teachers argue about the amount of time spent grading [6]. While some teachers argue that they hate grading, and others say that it is important practice work, they clearly voice that the spend too much time on the homework given back, which causes them to judge student behavior or completion rather than correct methodology of work. On average, teachers spend around 782 hours per school year teaching (in classroom) which means that on average of 180, 6-8 hour, school days, the teacher are teaching for approximately 4.34 hours [7,8]. That is assuming however, that teachers are not distracted, victim\u2019s of Murphy\u2019s Law, or working with one student in particular that really needs help [9]. That is not a lot of time to work with students in-class, as well as grade, if a teacher is not properly oriented, thus they will get backed up on teaching and homework can help keep students if given after school or on the weekend. 2. Students get burned out Some teachers have stated that homework is \u201ctime consuming, dreary, and uninspiring,\u201d to the point that children will become less motivated and apathetic toward learning [10]. In so doing, some teachers have done the extreme and do not issue any \u201chomework\u201d for their students. This was done mainly by well time management of the class and the effectiveness of the teaching. However, it is important to note that: a. While teachers claimed benefits of not doing homework, the have no definitive causation that students did better in the same regards as they criticise students that have homework. b. There is more than one type of homework, as stated above, and an assignment that is meant to help children practice a skill is what practice homework enriches at home. Also, children were able to finish \u201chomework\u201d in school just as much as outside of school. Thus all the teachers are doing is allotting more class time to homework, assuming the children are retaining information or completing their work. c. Homework is more than just practice, as stated above, it is important social tool. Otherwise you are limiting a student from learning how to study intensely on their own in higher learning, thus they will also be less likely successful without proper time management skills when they start their careers [11, 12]. Sources1.http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... 2. http://users.manchester.edu... 3.http://www.ascd.org... 4. http://www.eastside-online.org... 5. http://stats.bls.gov... 6.http://www.opb.org... 7.http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org... 8. http://nces.ed.gov... 9. http://people.howstuffworks.com... 10. http://www.alfiekohn.org... 11. http://www.adi.org... 12. http://www.palmbeachschools.org...", "qid": 47, "docid": "bf1a606c-2019-04-18T15:14:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7860796451568604}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: You made some very excellent points on the negative aspects on homework. However, yes homework can be counterproductive but that is called busy work. Busy work is homework that is non productive to the subject you are studying. Trust me I have gotten busy work for years from many teachers. You are not taking in affect of the positives. Homework encourages good time use. With this ability you can schedule your sleep habits and work ethic, you can prevent sleep deprivation and promote good work ethic. This supports the statement you said \" homework has been linked to causing health issues in students such as sleep deprivation\", this is caused by students with poor time management. Homework can strengthen personal time management. Homework can also increase memory and thinking strategies. Homework reviews what was gone over in class and this can help you on tests. When you said \"the negatives outweigh the positives.\" you are not taking in effect of the big picture. Sleep deprivation is very much like being drunk. Being drunk is not big picture. I know I am going off topic by talking about inebriation so I digress. The big picture is that you can never use too much time on helping your brain. When you also said \"Students were more likely to drop activities\" this is caused by homework. Here is a scenario, imagine you want to be a network engineer but you do the homework in the engineering class and you realize you suck at this course and you want to drop it. The homework taught you that network engineering is not you strong suit and you LEARNED that you cannot be in that field. Homework is not only just positive learning. This goes along with what you said about health problems it causes. It teaches you that too much homework can lead to sleep deprivation. I say in the big picture, the long term positives outweigh the short term negatives. Over to you", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c240-2019-04-18T14:46:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7845088243484497}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should be Banned Content: My arguments summed up: Homework is a necessary evil as it assures that students take an effort toward their education outside of school. Homework is just a way for students to exercise their minds are prepare for tests and exams. In moderation, homework can be helpful. And I'v always believed that the main cause of academic strain and stress is caused by exams. Huge tests that hang over your head and force you to study at risk of failure. But that's a different debate. It's been fun.", "qid": 47, "docid": "2acab7ab-2019-04-18T17:01:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.783486008644104}, {"content": "Title: Homework is a waste of time Content: To my mind our debate is not about size of homework, therefore we cannot talk about too much homework. However, I believe that doing homework will not make you \"smarter,\" but it will teach you how to use the \"smarts\" that you have in your brain already - doing homework makes you faster and better at doing other things.Homework is something that we all need. Homework helps us develop a work ethic and get better grades. Homework can be a good and bad thing. Homework shouldnt be stacked on top of each other but planned out from teacher to teacher. Moreover, to conclude I would like to add that Im a student who relies on homework to help me out on grades and preparing for tests. So, I totally believe that all students have to do homework in order to at least develop their skills.", "qid": 47, "docid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7831403017044067}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: I will rebut my opponents case this round. I thank my opponent for going this far.Pro's framework\"Firstly, I would like to define homework as work that was meant to be done at home, but is now often done during class. Now, I would like to state my framework for this debate. The purpose of homework is to help students\" futures. Therefore, if the proposition proves that homework does not benefit the future, then they win this debate. I would now like to state my three contentions for this debate.\"I firstly disagree with Pro's framework. Pro says that the purpose of homework is to help stdent's \"future.\" Not only that, but homework is for students to learn about the topic they were doing, and also remeber and practice what they are doing at school. Basically, Practice Makes Perfect. If Pro shows that this is unimportant, he wins. If I show it is useful, I win. I disagree with Pro's framework. BoP is on Pro, which means that he has the burden of proof.RebuttalsContention 1: Income Inequality\"Income Inequality is when poor individuals do not have enough resources to do their homework while wealthier individuals are able to hire tutors or others to help them finish theirs. According to The Pew Research Center, roughly one-third (31.4%) of households whose incomes fall below $50,000 and with children ages 6 to 17 do not have a high-speed internet connection at home. This low-income group makes up about 40% of all families with school-age children in the United States which is a major disadvantage for poorer students. Also, according to the US Department Of Labor, nearly 46 percent of high school students in 2013 were part of the labor force, which has increased significantly. One student named Lincoln Rhodes quotes \" \"I need the spending money, especially with inflation, and money to save for college even if I have to forgo homework,\" says Lincoln, who plans to study engineering in college. As you can see, many of these students do not even have internet access which is often necessary to use during homework. In addition, some individuals have a hard time juggling homework and jobs which they need desperately to support their families. How can we morally obligate students to do homework rather than support their own families?\"My opponent says hat about 40% of people have a disadvantagbe of doing homework, when the other wealthier students can get help with their homework. This argument is irrevelant and useless if we just listen to what the teacher is talking about. Especially the poor ones. Then you can do homework by yourself. What is the big problem of doing homework with your tutor. Thats exactly the opposite of what the teacher is talking about. The teacher wans you to do it alone, if you do it alone, and get it wrong, the teacher won't be mad. Se will just learn you are weaker in those spots of learning.And how much time does homework take? Not that long. Sometimes you can just do homework at class if you tell your teacher that you don't have enough time to do it. Most schools give about 2 pages of homework every day. That \"literally\" takes about an hour depending on the homework.Many students may say that this is a long time. But lets think about this.School is around 7 hours for mostly every single kid. May be 7 hours and 30 minutes, you get the point though. Sleeping is 8 hours. Lets be nice and say that riding and going back to school is about 1-2 hours. This means you have 8-7 hours left to do your homework. Most homeworks \"literally\" take one hour. you have about 6-7 hours left. You can rest in that time. How can you not have time to do your homework. Think about it like that. You have tons of time to do your homework.Contention 2: Counterproductive\"Since many students do not understand the homework they are given, which causes them to feel pressured to cheat on assignments. According to the Brookings Institution, 2,900 six to seventeen-year-old children found that time spent each week on homework had increased from 2 hours 38 minutes to 3 hours 58 minutes since 2005. Additionally, 75 and 98 percent of college students surveyed each year report having cheated in high school. This is an enormous jump in kids cheating today and it can be directly correlated to huge increase in homework given to students now. In addition, forty-three percent of parents admitted to doing their children\"s homework at least once to ease the strain. Almost half the dads, 47%, owned up to doing the homework, while 39% of mothers did so. Homework is supposed to build character however it actually increases cheating and things like parents doing the work for the children. Furthermore, since many kids do not understand their homework, they do the problems blindly and do not learn from it. This will impact children\"s future negatively, since all of the concepts have not been bolstered.\"My opponent says that bcause many homework the students don't understand, which makes them cheat. Just listen at school. There is no need to cheat, you can learn from mistakes. s://learningmythsbusted.files.wordpress.com...; alt=\"https://learningmythsbusted.files.wordpress.com...; /> http://poppies.es...; /> http://b-i.forbesimg.com...; />You don't need to care if you get something wrong. Look at the pictures. Mistakes are merely just you learning. A mistake is if you do not learn from your mistake. It is a mistake if you don't make mistakes but need to make mistakes. Mistakes are learning. Don't cheat. Learn from your mistakes, no need to hide them.My opponent says that over an hour adds to the homework time. They still have 3 hours to rest. Thats a lot.My opponents assertion of 98% of cheating is wrong. Why do you think that 2% won't cheat. Logically, that is wrong. No sources, this is a bare assertion.Opponent says because of homework, they won't know skills. They will no skills. They will not learn the skills if they do not do homework.Contention 3: Ineffective \"There are several studies on homework and academic achievement. However, most have proved Inconclusive. Here is an overview of all of the studies. According to Homework Myth, by 2011, a reviewer tracked down 17 experimental studies, most of which produced mixed results and some of which suggested that homework made no difference at all. In 2012 another reviewer found five more studies. One found that homework helped, two found that it didn't, and two found mixed results. Yet another review was published a few years later, But another researcher with fifteen studies actually compared getting homework with getting no homework, and their results actually didn't provide much reason to think it helped. From four studies, we can conclude that the results are inconclusive and that homework does not help or harm academic achievement making it completely ineffective and a waste of time.\"I will rebut my opponent's case which is in the text.My opponent shows studies which show that homework is not beneficial. First, no one knows if Pro is lying. Next study can be biased. It can just make believe that people should not do homework. They might have tried hard or whatever, because Pro gives no evidence of how the experiment went, this argument is still wrong.", "qid": 47, "docid": "abf51ede-2019-04-18T13:34:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7824950218200684}, {"content": "Title: We should have homework Content: Homework is meant for home unless given class time or a study hall. Homework is helpful for the kids who don't understand what the teacher is saying but can understand what the paper or book says. The comprehension between a teacher speaking to a whole class and someone learning individually is completely different.", "qid": 47, "docid": "f514b262-2019-04-18T16:54:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7822424173355103}, {"content": "Title: Homework in schools should be banned Content: Hello worthy contender. I put my arguments down in clear points. 1. Well homework, meant to be done at home, takes over the worthy time which can be better used in broadening one's mind behind books and enhancing one's physical stature. Homework confines our thinking and working abilities to only what is taught in school, whereas instead of homework, research work turns out to be more beneficial. 2. When students are given home work, they are meant to revise what is taught in school. Now suppose they are not given any homework, they\u2019ll be encouraged to pay attention in class more, and this will undoubtedly increase the concentration power. 3. Homework makes a child dull compelling her to look only through the doors shown to her. 4. Homework, is an improved way of spoon feeding a child, because a child is always helped at home, by parents or professional tutors. A student needs to apply and not mug up. Great people or rather scientist do not mug up things, they apply concepts and experience.5.Takes too much time Especially when you move to higher classes students have a lot od different classes and different homework assignments to finish. When adding all off them it takes a lot of time. Students need time for other extracurricular activities and family time. Homework could potentially be a time consuming activity for many. 6. Homework should be banned I swear most of the time i am stressed and 99% its because of homework. I dont want to be the typical teen who says \"i hate homework its so boring and im so lazy\" but its so true. And in my school they either give you little bit of homework with lots of hard parts for it or on HUGE project or assignment on top of other homework from other classes. I can not even explain how angry homework gets me. Sometimes there are group assignments and there is never a time where im not paired with the lazy people so i end up doing all the crap and i have to worry about other classes too. NO. I can not. I need a break and i hate when teachers pack the most work on weekends. But no I have to use my only two days of rest on assignments on top of other work that im mentally crying about. Do not even get me started. I legitimately cried like two hours ago becuase all the homework i have to do. And thats not a good thing. School is supposed to be \"a fun learning experience\" and \"learning and doing good and no stress\" This site will prove my point: http://www.education.com...Best of luck.", "qid": 47, "docid": "e5aef097-2019-04-18T17:02:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.782103419303894}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Be Abolished Content: Before I present the remainder of my speech, I will deliver a succinct rebuttal, pertaining to some flaws in my worthy opponents' reasoning. First of all, in my speech I stated that homework takes time, because not all students are brilliant at all subjects, that homework is stressful to a child - and they do not need that amount of stress and that a child might not always be the one completing the homework. The second part of the aforementioned arguments were ones that you seemed to have conveniently overlooked. Secondly, you stated that homework in MODERATE amounts would be acceptable; but moderate is a relative term, and how can you ensure that this MODERATE happens (I will expand on more in rebuttal)? Also, you said that the child would have to the homework at school, making the school day longer, but that leads me on to my first argument. There is not any need for homework in the first place. From your very own source (https://www.washingtonpost.com......) \"The value of homework has been the subject of various research studies over the years, yet there is still no conclusive evidence that it makes a big difference in helping students improve achievement. The most often-cited studies are those that conclude that there is virtually no evidence that it helps in elementary school but some evidence that it does improve academic performance in later grades. Yet this newest study looked at 10th graders and found no correlation.\" Your source also says that; \"Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses.\" Not only that, but please don't forget the part where the PUPIL SPENDS THE MAJORITY OF THEIR DAY LEARNING NEW INFORMATION. Yes, it is a teachers\" job to teach their students, and that includes giving them ample time to test out their knowledge without removing time from an already busy day. The pupil would leave that class with knowledge that they can utilize in the future. Also, teachers are known for giving their students a review sheet to do in class so they can be sure a student has fully grasped the concept. With this structure, homework is made obsolete. Therefore, a school day would simply remain the same length as homework would become non-existent. Moving forward to my second argument, you stated that a child learns responsibility from mandatory homework. On the contrary, the only thing a child learns is how to feel stress, and a pupil can actually learn responsibility more without the presence of homework. As you stated before, it is hard to get up and do homework, but the pupils that got up would be doubly as responsible as the work was not necessary before-hand. We are not saying that a child cannot work independently at home, but only that it should not be mandatory. So, if homework is abolished, children will gain more responsibility in life.", "qid": 47, "docid": "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7811010479927063}, {"content": "Title: This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity Content: This statement is quite self explanatory so let me give you some research I found: \"there is absolutely no evidence of any academic benefit from assigning homework in elementary or middle school. For younger students, in fact, there isn't\"t even a correlation between whether children do homework (or how much they do) and any meaningful measure of achievement. At the high school level, the correlation is weak and tends to disappear when more sophisticated statistical measures are applied.\" Now, why give children homework if it doesn't work? You say it is because it leads them to success for their next test or quiz. Well- and this is my personal opinion- the teacher should prepare you for that test or quiz. The teacher should be responsible, have the students take notes, answer some questions in class, and then have the stuff that would've been homework, become class work. It's that simple. Now there may be some thought on that there's not enough time in the class period. Well, then extend it or if the student has questions, let them come into you after class so that they still get the concept. Then, before a test or quiz, review a little, get the student's brains going, and take it. I don't study for certain classes because the teacher reviews it when we get in the class for ten minutes and then we take it and I've aced almost every one. If someone needs to study extra, good for them, but don't make a study guide mandatory. And in fact, if someone gives too little or too much homework it bring diminishing returns (the opposite of where you want to go) and because a teacher doesn't know the exact amount of homework to give for every individual student, then homework wouldn't work anyways. Now to my next point. Homework and time Between the busy life schedules of parents and students, homework can get in the way. I have already covered that homework simply doesn't work; so if it doesn't work, why waste time on that when you could be doing something exciting? Many students have other things to do than sit at their desk doing pages of homework and studying for the three tests they have tomorrow. It can become a burden and make the student's not want to go to school or not do it because its time consuming nature. Kids want to play sports and do things they enjoy and hang out with friends. Why should all of those suffer because they have to sit at home and do some homework that doesn't work anyways? Why should their social life suffer or their relationship with their family suffer because of useless homework? Let kids be kids and let them have fun instead of burdening them with homework. Now to my next point. Homework creates stress. Homework, stress, and time can all be related. Because of other things, kids don't have enough time to do homework, or visa versa, and then it creates stress. Like I have said before, homework doesn't work. Studies have shown there is zero correlation between the academic scores and homework. The best is a very low percentage and the worst, nonexistent. So, if homework creates stress, that's unneeded stress and another thing to add on to the disadvantages list. Especially for those who don't have a good family life or are poor, they don't have resources. If teachers are giving the kids homework and the kids doesn't have a computer or can afford a text book, well then there goes their grade. Even if they try, they won't be able to succeed with resources that a classroom has. This can cause stress on them because they want to succeed and they can't help their position in life. It stresses kids out. In a statistics article I read a few months back, it said that homework was the main leader of the five stressors in a life and family. Why is stress better than homework? Rebuttals If the kid really tried and wanted the grade then yes, they would got over notes and the book to make sure they are going to get an A. Most parents care about their kid so they'll make them anyways do the studying. Homework isn't essential if they have a good teacher. I've gotten good grades without studying because the teacher reviewed and made sure we understood it before she handed out the test or quiz.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7808351516723633}, {"content": "Title: Homework Hinders Learning Content: okay I see your points. Yes i do agree that some homework may be pointless like doing cross words and puzzles and such like that, but your still practicing, for example say you have to do a cross word puzzle for your vocabulary words in lets say science, they give you the definition and you try and find the word... sounds like learning to me because you are learning the definition of the word as your find it. On the other hand different teenagers have different ways of doing their homework and studying and some are just smart enough to get the homework done faster than others so I guess the teenagers finding time to do stuff is their time on how fast they get done and their study habits. I know I set up a schedule like if I have a test coming and a different one on the same day I would pick the subject I suck more in and spend more than a half hour or so, then the subject I'm most efficient in I study a little less because I understand it, homework is study material basically. I f you do the homework your studying (atleast thats how I see it, and most of my friends). Doing homework is just a more effective way of studying. Most teachers do give out lots of homework depending on what they are learning, some may give very little for many reasons. Homework is good, but yes it may be overbearing at some times, but we learn more from our mistakes, which mostly come from the homework we do!", "qid": 47, "docid": "acf20e3-2019-04-18T19:29:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7802844047546387}, {"content": "Title: is homework bad Content: Right on, krazykenya. The resolution states, 'is homework bad'. Thus, it is my duty as a PRO team to show that indeed homework is bad. My opponent agrees with me, and I can't figure out why. I advocate the following. whats the point of having homework.if you dont understand it at school during class whats the point in taking it home? Thank you, I await my opponent's rebuttal.", "qid": 47, "docid": "3427d4f1-2019-04-18T19:44:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7801744937896729}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: My Position: No homework; homework can cause negative effects.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c67d-2019-04-18T11:47:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7799142599105835}, {"content": "Title: should children have homework Content: should children have homework?", "qid": 47, "docid": "bc04d69b-2019-04-18T11:55:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7796529531478882}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned in school Content: Ok my friend, I want to point out a few invalid arguments that you posted. First of all you claim that homework keeps kids out of trouble. I bet not. Cite your source. Secondly, besides homework do you really think all teenagers do is go on Facebook, get into trouble, and surf the web? I think B.S. 1 in 3 teens actually have a job, and 1 in 2 teens have a source of income through labor. Funny isn't it? Don't you think that teens could go out and make some money, and do something productive? Thirdly, this idea that homework gets kids outside is also complete B.S. Homework does not get kids outside at all. For me, homework is really something that traps me inside. The average teen who does their homework does almost 70 minutes of it! Thats a good way to keep yourself locked up. Next, since so far all of your arguments are invalid, I will continue to point out that homework is not beneficial, as I said before (and you have not yet argued against) Here is a really good article that pretty much sums up everything: Add up all the time you spent doing homework. What would you say: a million billion hours? Roughly a trillion bazillion hours doing homework, over the course of your life? Well, as it turns out, it was a complete waste of your time: Research reveals primary school homework offers no real benefit - and only limited results in junior high school. Only senior students in Years 11 and 12 benefit from after-school work, associate professor Richard Walker said. \"What the research shows is that, in countries where they spend more time on homework, the achievement results are lower,\" Dr Walker, from Sydney University's Education Faculty, said. Okay, but, why does so much homework get assigned? \"At the moment homework (is often) an add-on because parents want it,\" says Dr. Walker. Haha. Here is the source: http://gawker.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "3ec31e7c-2019-04-18T16:14:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7796176671981812}, {"content": "Title: Don't stress over homework in high school Content: As the con position, I assert and will prove that homework is a necessary tool to fully understand and comprehend course materials in high school. I will also show that the best time to obtain knowledge is in the early years of ones life, and thus high school is just as, if not more important than college in terms of education. High school is the time in ones education career that you expand upon the basic knowledge learned in grade and junior high school. During this time a student must not only obtain the knowledge necessary for collegiate level classes, but must also develop the study habits necessary to succeed in college.", "qid": 47, "docid": "4b3d386-2019-04-18T18:27:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7786162495613098}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Not Be Required Content: Thanks!Point 1Con claims that my research is outdated, however fails to explain how the date is relevant to the majority of my contentions. In fact data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides a good look at trends in homework (HW) for the past three decades, and concludes that today's students have had about the same amount of HW over the last 30 years [1]. This means all of my studies are relevant. I presented studies that collected data from more than 10,000 students nationwide between 1990 and 2002 [2]. The TIMSS report is from 2007 and covers 59 different countries [3]. Is research from the last 8-20 years really that off base? Con would have to prove that the amount of homework assigned then vs. now is drastic enough to make a difference, but he won't be able to.Con states that my research only includes a small portion of the population, and therefore this research is not valid. However this negates the very own research he presents. First, almost all of the \"pro homework\" studies cited by the CPE is research from the 1950s to 1990s, making Con's claim about my allegedly outdated research null and void. Second, Con does not prove that those studies account for more of the population than the ones I have presented. If he cannot, then we have no reason to believe that the pro-HW studies are any more valid. Con's very own source: \"Information from international assessments shows little relationship between the amount of homework students do and test scores.\"\"Kohn says... there is no conclusive evidence that homework provides any benefits\u2014either academic or nonacademic\u2014to students.\" \"Homework also has potentially negative associations, one involving students' economic status.\"\"Teachers do not give students more help if they have trouble with homework.\"\"Lower-achieving students may take more time than higher-achieving students to finish assignments\" [3]. Indeed it would appear there is conflicting information, and there are some cases where homework could be beneficial. [ Re: Counterplan ]1A. Even if we accept HW can sometimes be beneficial, Con is only saying that *beneficial* homework be required - not all homework. Yet he cannot ensure the HW assigned will, in fact, be beneficial. 1B. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it ought to be required. Exercise, a healthy diet and a good amount of sleep are all beneficial to one's health and even education, as those factors affect one's academic performance [4, 5]. Schools can encourage these things in their facility, however in the home they rely on parents to do what's best for their children. As I mentioned in the last round, parents should determine or influence the way their kids learn or reinforce information in the home. If they want their kid to do homework, they can assign it or seek additional resources. In his Point 4 rebuttal, Con claims that HW is simply defined as \u201cschoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home\" and my suggestion that it can sometimes be beneficial works as a concession. It does not. First, homework is uniform and I specifically advocated an assortment of assignments TBD by teachers, students and parents - not uniform HW. Second, Con must prove that homework ought to be required - that is mandated by the school/state. Again just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be required. Homework can be suggested, encouraged or even assigned, but not necessarily mandatory.Point 2My opponent claims that he \"doesn't understand\" how the backlash from parents over homework proves that homework is a burden on parents. It's self-evident. Parents complaining about the burden (to the point of going to court) proves it is in fact a burden. He then goes on to say that some parents don't mind homework, and claims he can cite court cases where parents have gone to court asking for homework and won. I would like my opponent to prove that he can cite court cases where parents have asked for more homework and won. He won't be able to, but even if he did, all this proves is that the parents who want homework should be able to give their kids homework, whereas those who don't shouldn't have to. Many parents secure tutors or prep classes for subjects and tests their kids need help with. This can replace homework for the parents who believe it is helpful, without placing an undue burden on teachers and other classmates/parents who feel otherwise. Con argues that by reducing HW time, the problems of HW won't exist. But while they might be less significant, they would still exist. Even 1 hour of HW per night interferes with 1 hour of family or recreational time. Furthermore, Con cannot prove that all students spend the same amount of time on homework, and in fact this was one of my contentions in the last round that Con dropped. We don't assign slower students longer school days, but we assign them longer homework days. Kids who struggle with their HW would spend a lot longer on their tasks than those who do not, meaning required HW is still problematic.Con requests sources proving that parents do homework: A survey from 2008 shows that 43% of parents have done their kid's homework [6]. It's nearly 80% of black and Hispanic parents who do their kid's HW one day per week, and more than 40% of them do it THREE or more times a week out of likely four assigned HW days [7]. It is around 36% for white students. This cheating does not foster independence, responsibility or honesty, nor does it provide any of the alleged benefits of homework to these students. My opponent has dropped my contention that each child has a different home environment. Whereas some parents have the time and resources to dedicate to homework monitoring and assistance, other parents do not have the opportunity to be as involved. Thus a shoddy HW response might reflect poorly on the child unfairly. Many students (especially in low-income areas) specifically have a hard time completing their assignments. They cannot focus in their environments [8] which Con's own CPE source reiterates. Even when good HW is assigned, it is the student's approach that is critical. However teachers cannot monitor or control how students approach their HW. My opponent claims that my research on the utility of homework is outdated (I've argued that his is outdated) and yet I also don't believe his citations account for today's HW distractions. Research shows that students today are not grasping as much of the homework material even when they complete it, because they are distracted by social media and don't retain the information [8].Con argues it doesn't matter that teachers waste time grading homework because they know it is a condition of the job. That's fallacious circular reasoning. Just because something is a condition doesn't mean it ought to be a condition, which is exactly what I'm arguing (that it shouldn't be). I explained that teachers can use the time they spend grading homework to improve their own education (research, school or reading) or plan new and innovative lessons that provide more learning utility than homework. Point 3Con states that I have made the \"unsourced\" claim that by spending time on homework, kids are missing out on time spent on other things. Quite frankly it's ridiculous to ask for a citation on this self-evident fact. If someone spends time on X, they cannot spend time on Y. I'm not sure how that can be any more clear, but hopefully these sources will satiate Con's request [9, 10]. Here is another source claiming homework inhibits rest [11]. My opponent does not deny the utility of things like athletics, the arts, etc. but rather says they are provided in school (irrelevant) and that students already participate in after-school activities. But regardless of the amount of homework assigned, the time spent on HW interferes with other things whether it is rest, relaxation or other hobbies. Further, consider the fact that many older students work (or want to work) but can't as they must complete their \"second shift\" of homework after school. Most adults are not forced to complete work at home after their work day. Even if they were, adults have the option of getting a different job. Con advocates less HW but cannot ensure that less HW (and meaningful work) will actually be provided by the teachers that students cannot opt out of. Point 4Con writes, \"Voters should NOT buy my opponent\u2019s claim that it encourages cheating and creates a gap between the intelligent and academically struggling because this is once again bare assertion on my opponent\u2019s behalf.\" 1 - Parents often do their kids homework (which is cheating).2 - Students cheat because they fear penalty of not completing their assignments from teachers and parents.3 - Grades, rather than education, have become the major focus of many students [12]. Computers can make cheating easier than ever before, and kids have unmonitored (and often unlimited) access to computers in the home. Students can download term papers from the world wide web. They can also take pictures of math calculations that not only provide the answer, but how they got the answer so the student is able to regurgitate it without any effort or learning on their part. Studies show cheating is more common than ever before [13, 14] which is obviously most problematic in the home. Research shows the lowest amount of students admitting to cheating on written assignments is 84 percent, and some data shows it as high as 95 percent [15]. ConclusionCon's point that homework can sometimes kinda sorta maybe be beneficial to some people does not mean it should be mandatory for all. Outside influences have too great an impact on the alleged benefits of HW. Students, parents and teachers can ASSIGN homework, encourage it, grade it but not REQUIRE it given all of the problematic variables. This allows for HW's benefits but also accounts for its problems.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 47, "docid": "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7784764766693115}, {"content": "Title: HomeWork Content: Homework teaches students how to set priorities. Homework helps teachers determine how well the lessons and material are being understood by their students. Homework teaches students how to problem solve. Homework gives students another opportunity to review the class material. Homework gives parents a chance to see what their child is learning in school. Homework teaches students that they have to do things, even when they don\"t want to. Homework teaches students how to take responsibility for their part in the educational process. Homework teaches students how to work independently. Homework teaches students the importance of planning, staying organized and taking action.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1b0e2739-2019-04-18T12:40:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7782328724861145}, {"content": "Title: Homework should not be banned Content: Compared to the past, the amount of homework that schools assign for students became more and more. Some people argue that school should ban homework, but do homework really not have benefits? I think homework is necessary, and shouldn\"t be banned. Homework is not only good for reviewing studies in the classes, but also can assess how well students understand and how well the teachers teach. Also, some people argue that the time students spend doing homework is a waste, but it\"s not true. In fact, managing time for homework is a good preparation for the future. Firstly, reviewing the works in the classes can help students not forget what they learnt, and get high scores. When students learn new things in the school, they are lasted as short-term memory. By practice of information, which is homework we talk here, short-term memory is converted into long-term memory, so that students won\"t forget after days. (Adult_brain_growth.ppt) Only if the students made the things they learnt into unforgettable information, would they not have to review all the things before tests, and get higher score in the tests. It\"s actually much easier for students on the whole compared to doing great amount of revision just before the tests. According to the results of several studies, \"the average homework completer had higher unit test scores than 73 percent of non-completers (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006)\" (David J. Marks, PhD). This made evident that completing homework can truly higher students\" test scores. Second, homework can help both students and teachers to assess their learning and teaching conditions in order to improve them. Students would be able to find the points they are confused about, or they are poor at. On the same breath, teachers can check if students really understand the lessons, and if the teaching methods are good fits for students. Lastly, doing homework could be a good preparation for future careers because people often have assignments even they grew up and are working. The article about spending time on homework is worth it says, \"Having more meaningful homework assignments can help build management skills\" (Jane Eyre), and \"For high school students, doing assignments outside of the classroom get them interested in a career path.\" (Jane Eyre) This shows that doing homework is not only good for the academic studies students are studying now, but also good for future careers and life styles. To conclude, homework can help students with their studies, assessing, and careers in the future. So if schools ban homework, students would easily forget what they\"ve learnt in class and have no idea about how well they are doing in the studies. Have students had whole afterschool time as free time, they wouldn\"t be able to finish reading books or projects as well. Therefore, homework benefits students, and shouldn\"t be banned by schools.", "qid": 47, "docid": "779b1267-2019-04-18T11:39:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7775754332542419}, {"content": "Title: homework should not be banned Content: 1.Homework is not always a waste of time. There can be plenty of interesting assignments which allow students to improve skills developed during the classes. There is a huge diversity of tasks that might be given by teachers: researches, getting information from different sources, writing essays expressing individual opinions, participating in debates, watching videos and writing reviews. Some tasks might even challenge students, make them think creatively and improve their ability of critical thinking. Doing homework given by teacher can be as exciting as studying independently. 2.Yes, if students are self-motivated they will be studying hard, doing independent researches, but if your hard work is also valued it motivates you even more. Not every student is active and extroverted. Some of them need to be pushed in order to fully use their potential. 3.By checking tasks that are given as homework teachers can see what student struggles with, what are his/her strong sides are. Teachers then give constructive criticism and advice that helps students to improve their skills. 4.There are sometimes big assignments such as paperwork that require patience or tasks when you need to just memorize some facts, statistics. By doing these kinds of homework students learn how to deal with things they are not comfortable with. It teaches them how to work scrupulously and finish everything they've started.", "qid": 47, "docid": "7da30dea-2019-04-18T17:12:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.777570366859436}, {"content": "Title: Homework Should Not Be Given In Schools Content: \"Well Kids need homework to practice the skills they learnt and can be used as a study guide\" Although this is true, homework can also put a lot of stress on the students and as I said before it limits their free time and can cause sleep loss. If a student stays up all night doing homework doesn't it become hard for them to stay attentive in class the next day? Homework as I said before is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes it can be used as a guide for revision but it can also be a bucket of stress waiting to explode. The more stress put on students can limit their learning and ability to function during class. So in conclusion, homework can be useful and beneficial but it also has a lot of downsides to it which include stress,mental exhaustion,being tired,sleep loss and limits free time and social interactions just to name a few. Homework adds more pressure to already pressured students and adds load to their already stressful school career. It's been nice debating with you. Thank you for accepting this challenge and have a nice day/night.", "qid": 47, "docid": "ba50642-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7774628400802612}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have homework Content: If the main purpose of homework is to discipline a student, then homework is kind of pointless. It seems like the focus of your argument centers on homework being a tool of discipline. As I have stated in the first argument, an independent thinker is an independent thinker regardless if there are homework assignments or not. Also, could you please elaborate on how homework \"teaches\" a person not to procrastinate, to manage time, and to be responsible. You are making a bold claim without much supportive evidence. You stated, \"Homework tells you what problems you have, and gives you the opportunity to fix your problem. Otherwise, people would start finding out their own problems when they are adults.\" -This is an unbelievable statement for me to comprehend mostly because it is as if you are stating that homework is this mysterious force that has special, all-seeing powers. Homework is not that important! In fact some of the most intelligent people I have known never did any homework in high school. They had the best grades and test scores. They were independent thinkers. They read when they had to, studied when they had to. They did not need meaningless homework assignments to make them better students. You stated, \"Time management skill is taught by the student him or herself. They have to learn it by them self, not ask parents to teach it to them.\" - I did not state a thing about asking parents for help, I simply stated that parents are obligated to being the primary educator in a child's life and to help make teenagers grow up to become responsible adults, not just to expect all of the work to come from their teachers. You stated, \"Studying is a type of homework......... You sure that most students that don't have homework will study by themselves to become responsible. I think that this is not true. Students would most likely spend their free time playing games or enjoying entertainment, not studying.\" -If the student is irresponsible, then he will not do his homework anyway! Thus defeating the point! It is that simple! Assigning homework cannot change a persons deep rooted characteristics. Homework is not a magic potion. Lastly, you have made your point twice about homework causing stress, and how this is good for you for when you grow older. Well, stress is not good for the body at any time, for the young or the old. Stay as stress free as long as you can and you have a better chance of living longer, healthier, and happier life.", "qid": 47, "docid": "41aaccd5-2019-04-18T19:48:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7773479223251343}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should stop giving homework Content: I don't even need to even give a definition on homework to begin with you all know the deal. One thing to say for the other side. YOU ARE WRONG! Homework isn't that beneficial, I wouldn't like if a teacher just slams paper on the table demanding you to do your projects and bringing it back next week. Here's your response or what you are saying in your head ' This kid is just lazy children in America these days are just lazy that's all they don't want extra practice' NOT TRUE!! A statement like that is false and you know it is. The reason children aren't doing homework is not because of laziness that's 1. 2. Children have other curriculum activities other than home work you know, and teacher don't understand that it isn't that easy to go to after school, end at 6:00 and then expect so much homework to be done. Homework is just a lazy way of teachers to give an excuse that they don't want to do a lesson. 3. Many adults who haven't finished school are like 'I did homework when I was young so should they' That's not true this is just like saying 'I starved when I was young so should my child' 4. Mainly children already have 8 hours of school, added with extra curriculum. Would you like to be doing 5 projects at 9:00 PM? I know how it feels because I just had 8 homework assignments. No you don't. I bet you people against this is like 'Oh he's a whiney baby' and ' Oh he just another spoiled one' I am just taking my personal experience People just get stuff off the internet that says homework is helpful and crap and that kids get smarter. Some websites say that but its not true at all if that's the case many children in my class would be as smart as me so your really playing yourself from getting things online as proof that home work is helpful but its not true Its better to get a person inside the situation", "qid": 47, "docid": "ba89de7c-2019-04-18T15:44:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7765728235244751}, {"content": "Title: Is homework necessary Content: BOP is on pro, as he is the one making the claim. The definition of necessary is as follows nec\"es\"sar\"y G2;nes\u0259G6;ser\u0113/ adjective adjective: necessary 1. required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential. \"Homework helps memory, and helps you learn.\" My argument against this is that busywork does not in fact, help students learn. [1] Cooper (1989a) argues that reviews on the link between homework and achievement often directly contradict one another and are so different in design that the findings of one study cannot be evaluated fairly against the findings of others. There is no proven benefit to homework and it's effect on learning. There have been studies [2] that have shown that students who do not do their homework have similar average grades than students who do. \" If schools think that homework dos not help they wont do it but they bleave that is is helpful. It dus help. it helps me learn math and it helps kids be responsible. \" Just because it helps you learn math, does not mean that it is necessary for every student. Plenty of students I know (including me) rarely do their homework, and still end up with high test scores on their SAT's, regular tests, and quizzes. If it was completely necessary then there would not be a single person who does not do their homework that gets good test grades. \"thay ned that to get a job not being responsible gets you fired\" Not sure what relevance this has to homework, but students learn responsibility in a multitude of ways, thus making homework simply an option, not a necessity. [1]http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... [2] http://news.virginia.edu...", "qid": 47, "docid": "b3cad6e6-2019-04-18T14:54:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7763791084289551}, {"content": "Title: That Homework is a waste of Time. Content: Here is another study for you \"Recent studies in Australia have shown homework to be an unnecessary waste of time.\" This study has shown that there is no benefit at all for kids up to 3rd grade, and very little benefit for kids in grades 4-6, minimal benefits for students in grades 7-9, and some benefit to 10th-12th graders. Could you honestly say that homework is worth the strife that it puts families through for these little results. Particularly towards the start of high school kids have enough chores to do at home as it is, and then adding homework on top of all that can easily cause unnecessary stress. School to kids is the equivalent to a stressful job that many parents have. You wrote that if you only did work in class you wouldn't pass the subject, while that may be true, I said previously that some studying should be done at home as revision for tests. I'm not saying no work should be done at home, I'm saying that teachers should not give homework to students while they already revise, which causes the unnecessary stress I was talking about.", "qid": 47, "docid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7757512331008911}, {"content": "Title: Homework Is Unnecessary Content: Here are my arguments (I actually posted them in time!):1. Homework actually teaches kids responsibility. When kids do homework, they learn that it is their fault (NOT THE PARENT'S) if they turn it in late. [1]2. Homework also provides kids with the ability to manage their own time. This is key, and I still struggle with this sometimes; however, students should have learned to be able to manage their own time effectively. [1] This also ties in with perserverance, which essentially states that students don't give up on a project and they keep working until the project is done. If they stick to it, they should be done BEFORE THE DEADLINE! [1]3. Homework helps kids get better grades on their tests. Five studies were taken, and in each, \"the average student who did homework had a higher unit test score than the students not doing homework.\" [2] There were also 12 other studies that prove that homework helps kids get better grades. [2]As a note, the amount of homework recommended for kids varies by their grade. If they are elementary students, they should have less homework, but if they're high school students, they should have more homework. [2][1]. http://memphisparent.com...[2]. http://education.cu-portland.edu...(Yes, I know I didn't take up too much space, but I believe I was \"to the point\". The websites explain my arguments in much greater detail. Please read them.)I'm eager to hear your rebuttals. Thank you so much for working with me on this, and I again apologize for forfeiting the other debate.", "qid": 47, "docid": "81d5454b-2019-04-18T13:19:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7756602764129639}, {"content": "Title: Homework is immoral on a deep level. Content: Hey Harlan, I apologize for being unable to post on the first debate. I've been swamped with school and homework lately and just haven't had time. I am very interested in this topic and I look forward to debating it with you. My opening topic is in response to your original opening statement. Feel free just to repost your original opening statement and add a response to mine. I was once in your shoes Harlan. I completely hated homework. It was trivial to me. I would get the same grades in a class whether or not I did the homework. I hated the fact that I went to school for 8 hours a day just to come home and do another 2-3 hours of homework every night. I disagreed so much with homework that I even called in to a local AM radio show when they were on the topic of homework to voice my opinion. Then came high school and college. My whole opinion of the system reversed. For once in my life I realized what the point of homework was and how beneficial it was to understanding and reinforcing the material that was learned in class. The average high school class is 45 minutes long. In that time you take 5 minutes to organize the class and the rest teaching. In that 40 minutes of teaching it is impossible to reinforce the topics introduced enough to embed them in the minds of the students. That is where homework comes in. Homework reinforces the work that was taught in class and allows the child to fully absorb the information that was presented to them. In college, homework is essential. Without it most of the student population would be lost in translation. Sitting in a lecture hall of 400 students listening to an a professor talk in a monotonic voice doesn't allow anyone to learn anything, it mearly provides a guideline of what needs to be studied and what homework needs to be done to learn the material. Is homework immoral in some cases? Yes. Homework is immoral when it is assigned just to give a student homework and not to reinforce material that was presented earlier in the day. In this case homework interferes with a childs outside of school development as well as time spent socializing and interacting with peers and family members.", "qid": 47, "docid": "b0b290ba-2019-04-18T20:03:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7753465175628662}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: Homework is a very important necessity in schools. Homework helps build a child's mind and preparing them for test. If kids didn't have homework teachers would have to spend more time teaching, preparing them for tests.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733befb-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7749772071838379}, {"content": "Title: Should schools ban homework? ( junior high up) Content: I think homework is necessary for I improving work ethic and understanding of school material in students. It may take up time of the student's personal lives, but I will argue in the rest of the debate why it i necessary. Now I leave it up to Valdean to make a case.", "qid": 47, "docid": "afc97ee5-2019-04-18T17:00:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.77457594871521}, {"content": "Title: Homework Content: In my opinion, homework is a waste of time because of its ineffectiveness. Sure, it's good to study for a test every now and then or practice an important presentation you have the next day. I'm talking about the work that teachers give students to study outside of class like reading textbook pages, or completing an online simulator for science; things like that. If teachers really want students to study, they should give them time in class to do so. If they spend too much time rambling about a subject and their students don't have enough time to complete work, complete it the next day. So many teenagers have extracurricular activities that are stressful and time consuming enough. Teachers should evaluate the physical, mental, emotional and social stress homework causes students before assigning hours of it. After extensive research, I am able to conclude that homework doesn't actually help, nor do I, in my opinion think it aids learning in any way.", "qid": 47, "docid": "1733c338-2019-04-18T12:35:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7743021249771118}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Content: For this round of debate, I will state my contentions and provide supporting evidence as to why they are viable. 1) Large amounts of homework are bad for children. \"Nancy Kalish's daughter was an enthusiastic middle-schooler -- until homework started to take over, consuming her evenings and weekends. When she started dreading school, the Brooklyn mom began to grow alarmed.\" This is just one of many cases where children are being overworked to the point where a mother or father might get involved. A group of Australian researchers have stated that, \"Piling on the homework doesn't help kids do better in school. In fact, it can lower their test scores.\" Furthermore, according to Richard Walker, an educational psychologist at Sydney University, countries where students spend excessive time on homework prove to have worse results on standardized tests. These three pieces of evidence prove that homework is overworking children. In some cases, overworking be beneficial, but overwork defined by Oxford dictionary is, \"exhaust with too much work.\" Going back to my first example about the daughter of Kalish, exhaust has proved to alert her mother so much that she wrote, \"The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It,\" to further prove her point. For this reason, I urge a con ballot. I have a question for you. If these large amounts of homework are negatively impacting student's test scores, how is this beneficial to a student's future life? Keep in mind that test scores such as the SAT are a huge part of college acceptance. http://www.parenting.com... http://www.livescience.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.773852527141571}, {"content": "Title: Homework should be banned Content: Because the Rules say round 2 is for arguments, I wouldn't post my rebuttals this round.Framework Learn. Rebuttals are arguments. You have to post new arguments. You could have said no new contentions, but rebuttals are arguments because you are basically rebuting the case, making arguments. I will be posting arguments about practice makes perfect, smarter, more. I won't be making specific arguments, just paragraphsArgumentsLook at this, \"Studies have proven that homework does improve the stability of students in school. According to Cooper\u2019s much-cited review of homework studies, there have been 20 studies since 1962 that compared the achievement of students who received homework and achievement of students who did not. Results are that 14 of the studies showed benefit in doing homework, while 6 did not. This further strengthens the statement \u201cTime spent completing homework is time well spent.\".\"This means that if you spend your time well doing homework, then your grades will probably go up, making it a possibllty of going to a good university and a good job.\"Homework is an important and valuable component of learning. It teaches the students important life skills that they will need to apply even when they become working adults, especially time management, prioritizing work, as well as values, namely responsibility and self-discipline. \"This means that they will be smarter, and will have important life skills.\"By doing homework, they will start to develop time management. They will start to allocate their time for leisure pursuits and completing their homework. Through this, the students will be able to learn the value of self-discipline as they try to refrain themselves from playing until they have completed their assignments. They will also develop a sense of responsibility by knowing the need to finish homework in time and contributing to group work or projects. \"This shows that they can develop time management, and will grow more mature.If we ban homework, we won't have these things.\"Hence, some students may not fully understand the topics that the teachers taught in school and they might have problems learning well and coping with the syllabus. Setting homework and assignments extends the student\u2019s study beyond what they learn in school and allows for a wider and deeper understanding of the topic. With homework, school hours are also put to good use in which teachers can spend their time teaching well instead of giving the students class work to do, and students can avoid distractions from others when they attempt their work at home. They can also catch up on missed classes by doing homework.\"More than making it more mature, it is just like practice makes perfect. Homework can make you understand the topics easily.\"Homework is useful to inform teachers of the students\u2019 weaknesses in certain topics, giving them a chance to improve and acquire new skills. If there is no homework, teachers would have to base majority of the students\u2019 standards on tests alone, which is not reliable at times.\"Why is this not reliable? Because students can cheat.\"Homework provides students with sufficient practice for what they have learnt in school so that they can build a good foundation for that topic. With a good foundation, they can progress better in school and achieve better results for their tests and exams. It also lets students revise and recap what they are taught and more importantly, homework gives an early warning to students who do not understand certain key concepts so that they are aware of it in the future. \"Homework can make you more factual, and better at tests.\" However, if there is no work assigned, most students would not listen in class. \"ConclusionI have supported many evidence that homework should not be banned. Summary is because homework makes you more responsible, and makes you more mature, also good at time management. It also helps with your grades. I will go onto my rebuttals next round. Thank you.Sourceshttps://schools-education.knoji.com...", "qid": 47, "docid": "abf51ede-2019-04-18T13:34:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7737712860107422}]}
{"query": "Should the voting age be lowered?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Drinking Age Content: Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?", "qid": 48, "docid": "e76f7b80-2019-04-18T18:21:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9351968765258789}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.", "qid": 48, "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.885589599609375}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.", "qid": 48, "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8591787219047546}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be lowered to 16 Content: The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8559938073158264}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?", "qid": 48, "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8500292301177979}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is \"the cool one\", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that \"Children would be harder to buy\" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8465628027915955}, {"content": "Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)", "qid": 48, "docid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.846302330493927}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8451228141784668}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.", "qid": 48, "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8425058126449585}, {"content": "Title: Turnout Content: Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00027-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8411728739738464}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK. Content: Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.", "qid": 48, "docid": "6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8372926712036133}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!", "qid": 48, "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8362323045730591}, {"content": "Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8352332711219788}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age should be lowered to 16. Content: Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations \"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens.\" Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.\" Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. \"Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.\" You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... \"In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum.\" Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.\" As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...", "qid": 48, "docid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8336540460586548}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.", "qid": 48, "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8309657573699951}, {"content": "Title: Turnout Content: This would not be the case, as 16 and 17 year-olds are more likely to be in, or to have recently been in, an environment where politics can be discussed. This means they will have a developed interest in the subject and will be more likely to vote. Even if reducing the voting age were to reduce the turnout, it is preposterous that we should limit the franchise to avoid producing an embarrassing statistic. There would be more people eligible to vote and hence the actual voting numbers would presumably increase, even if percentage turnout didn\u2019t. \"Some people are concerned that lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections, the theory being that a larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are currently less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. However, analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%. Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.\" - Electoral Reform Society", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00026-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8267630338668823}, {"content": "Title: Children should be allowed to vote. Content: I accept the terms as my contender has laid them out and gladly accept the challenge. I will be arguing on the Pro/for side of the debate. I will argue that age restrictions have no place in our voting system. I will use resources including only scholarly articles and textbooks, which I will access through Indiana University Libraries. Not only will I conclude that humans under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, but I will argue that it may be beneficial to their cognitive/social growth. Let the fun begin :)", "qid": 48, "docid": "405a3347-2019-04-18T18:49:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8259084224700928}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Ladies and gentlemen, in this debate I am here to oppose the motion that the house would lower the voting age to 18. The context of this debate is that there is a low voter turnout. That is the problem that brings us to have this debate. Also this is not due to the fact that the voting age is too high, but it is due to the fact that there is voter apathy and lack of mature and politically active electorate. So, firstly, I will prove that lowering the voting age has inherent harms and should not be undertaken. And secondly, I will present an alternative that raises both voter quality, and participation rates. Moving onto my first argument, which is that it is impossible to find a reliable standard for maturity among young people. And, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, ladies and gentlemen. So, on the first level of analysis, what is the standard of maturity? We challenge the proposition to give us a clear, objective standard, and support for the idea that 18 is a reliable standard, as opposed to the legal age in Korea of 19. And second of all, in the second level of analysis, equating age with maturity is simply wrong, because young people of today are simply less mature than in the past, and are more sheltered than ever. Young people were forced to grow up quickly, and assume responsibility in society quickly in the past, ladies and gentlemen. They were forced to have jobs earlier, to marry earlier, but that is not the case today. Today, many children in Korea are being spoiled, letting their parents deal with their problems, even after they are quite old, ladies and gentlemen. And the so-called \"kangaroo youth\" are becoming an international problem. A prominent example of this is the Hanhwa chairman fighting for his son who was over 20 years old at the time, ladies and gentlemen. So we say that actually young people today are less mature and we see no reason what-so-ever to lower the age more than the maturity age that was in the past. For my second point, which is that young people of today are more likely to vote for style rather than substance. Not only are the young people today less mature, they are also very pop-culture oriented, easily persuaded by candidates who may be popular rather than good with high quality, which will reduce the quality of the votes overall, and distort the candidate's focus, ladies and gentlemen. And on the second level of analysis, the majority of young people today do not care about political substance. We demand that the proposition show us an uprising among young people in Korea to get the voting age lowered. Without this, how can they prove the political will among 18-year-olds? Is there a clear, measurable standard for determining the level of political participation and willingness among the youth? I say there isn't. And finally, to my third argument. The opposition brings you an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, as opposed to the harmful proposition plan. The counterplan is a compulsory voting clause in the law plus various measures to increase participation, such as voters' education, guaranteed government subsidy on candidate platforms, media broadcasted debates, \"Get out the Vote\" campaigns, and et cetera. What is needed is more people voting wisely, not a lowering voting age. The compulsory voting clause will bring clearly increased participation regardless of enforcement. In Thailand, this is not enforced, but even if it wasn't enforced, the voting rates rose by about 15% after the clause was established. And in Uruguay, it was enforced, and the voting rate soared from 67% to 88.2%. So it is clear that the benefits are existent whether you enforce it or not, and the government can choose enforcement. But either way, the clause plus the supplemented participation measures, such as Bush's \"Get out the Vote\" movement, will be successful. Because of these reasons, I ask you in this round to oppose this motion. Thank you.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8252871632575989}, {"content": "Title: Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16 Content: If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this \"Sense of justice\", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8238787055015564}, {"content": "Title: children at 16 have no sense of decesion making Content: I'd like to tell my fellow opponents that voting requires complete thinking and high order thinking.....added to it gud decesion making is also needed .....and children at 16....have no sense...they will go copying others and make a decesion that will spoil their and other's life ...so, according to me voting age should nt be reduced", "qid": 48, "docid": "ed086351-2019-04-19T12:44:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8219307661056519}, {"content": "Title: voting age should be lowered Content: I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?", "qid": 48, "docid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8214289546012878}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 16 Content: No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.", "qid": 48, "docid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8187688589096069}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.", "qid": 48, "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8165004849433899}, {"content": "Title: Consistency Content: It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can leave school; marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces. and also at the age of 16 you can choose to have sex it is legal to have sex at 16 which is a big responsibility in its self also as you can have sex you can choose whether to have a baby which would make you a parent and on all the medicines and food if you are over 10/13 you are classed as a adult so why can\u2019t they have the opportunity to vote? Can you please specify these qualities that at 16 year old lacks.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8133666515350342}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement", "qid": 48, "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8131493330001831}, {"content": "Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.", "qid": 48, "docid": "f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8129026293754578}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).", "qid": 48, "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8125413656234741}, {"content": "Title: YES, give them the rights they deserve! Content: First of all, your proposed scheme here poses a practicality problem: who or what, will be deciding on the maturity of 16 years-old voters? How would \"maturity\" be measured? Through tests? If we do let a group of 16 years old vote, and we ban another group of 16 years old from voting, then the problem of injustice will arise. Protests are likely to be sparked. From your argument, it can be seen that your only reason for lowering the voting age to 16 is that \"David Cameron ruined this country\". But it is unfair, if not dangerous, to damage existing voting system and democracy to exercise one group's political views.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8121668696403503}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Voting should NOT be based on age Content: I accept your challenge and will debate that voting should be based on age. Please clarify if your argument is as \"themohawkninja \" said in the comment section below. Right now I am under the impression that I will be debating against the use of literacy tests and political knowledge to decide who is allowed to vote. Pro will have to prove that there is a problem with the current system and that changing it as such will fix said problem. I look forward to this debate.", "qid": 48, "docid": "41bfce6c-2019-04-18T16:47:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8117868304252625}, {"content": "Title: Increase turnout Content: The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections. This matters because we don't want to look bad to other contries.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00012-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8104711771011353}, {"content": "Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00023-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8096739053726196}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.", "qid": 48, "docid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.808735728263855}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8070939779281616}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.", "qid": 48, "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8065071105957031}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a \u201cslippery slope\u201d argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the \u201ccorrect\u201d minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: \u201cTo be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. \u201d Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). \u201cFrom the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs\u201d [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: \u201cNevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future\u201d First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes\u2014this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century \u201cneuroscience\u201d with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior\u2014they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources\u2014what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. \u201cBy the end of the high school years, there\u2019s a \u201chigh point of agreement\u201d between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are \u201cpretty malleable,\u201d subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. \u201d [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...", "qid": 48, "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8044135570526123}, {"content": "Title: There needs to be a cut off Content: This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age.", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00022-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8033471703529358}, {"content": "Title: Increase turnout Content: A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age. At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00013-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8031822443008423}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14 Content: The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on \"my side of the fence\", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. \"The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14.\" 2. Compromise. \"The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17.\" 3. Alternative solution. \"Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis.\" You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.", "qid": 48, "docid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8008273839950562}, {"content": "Title: There should be no voting age Content: Extend my position You don't have this straight. Again if you are unclear or have any questions PM me, or ask me them in the comments section. I want you to do everything I stated in Round 1. It couldn't possibly be any clearer. In short: 1. Make a clear affirmation 2. Define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information 3. Cite all points you make that aren't merely logical ones with a direct link to what you are talking about 4. Make logical points about why there should be no voting age. Your only points so far only emphasize why there should be further restrictions on voting, not why there should be less. The reasoning you have given makes no logical sense. You are basically saying: \"We let tons of other incompetent people vote, so lets increase that incompetency by letting children vote too\" To which I respond, shouldn't we be striving towards more competent voters, not less competent? Show me the benefits no age restrictions etc. Could newborns vote? Could anyone that speaks vote? All valid things to put in your explanation.", "qid": 48, "docid": "68fec0d0-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7997177839279175}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16 Content: :) \"Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. \" Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the \"real world\" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.", "qid": 48, "docid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7982498407363892}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age Content: Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7958000898361206}, {"content": "Title: The voting age in the United States should be eliminated Content: The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.", "qid": 48, "docid": "e8f3cfdf-2019-04-18T19:27:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7951942682266235}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Content: I think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)", "qid": 48, "docid": "c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.794668436050415}, {"content": "Title: It should be lowered not scrapped all together Content: In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway", "qid": 48, "docid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00015-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.794187068939209}, {"content": "Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: Thanks to Pro for his opening argument!I will go ahead and utilize this round to present my own case and refute Pro's contentions.Neg Case: Firstly, let us observe that this resolution does not simply support lowering the voting age a few years; it supports eliminating the age limit entirely, allowing voting for ALL people under eighteen, ranging from infants, to small children, to teenagers. Now, there do certainly exist politically savvy teenagers who are able to make intelligent voting decisions, but I will argue that, for the most part, people under the age of eighteen, especially the children and infants, are subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity, and are most likely going to just copy the political opinions of their parents. What eliminating age restrictions does, then, is that it gives individuals with children the ability to double, triple, or even quadruple their say in the government by indoctrinating their children to cast their votes a certain way! This is absolutely unfair to all of the nation's other individuals, who only get one ballot per person. Thus, eliminating age restrictions undermines one of the core tenets of democracy: that all citizens should have an equal say in the government.Now, on to Pro's contentions...A. Voter EligibilityPro argues that since historically we have been eliminating restrictions on voting, including the gender and race restrictions, we should go ahead and remove the age restriction too. However, there is an obvious problem with this... race and gender have no demonstrable effect on one's ability to have independent political opinions, whereas age most certainly does. And, extending the logic presented in the neg case, that lack of intellectual independence means that age restrictions are mandatory in order to avoid inequality in representation B. Taxation without RepresentationPro: \"As one of the causes of the American revolution, \"taxation without representation\" was viewed as tyranny. Yet today if you are under the age of 18 and you have a job making money you are required to pay and income tax. Third from the bottom on this link shows those under the age of 18 still pay taxes. (2) This is Tyranny, but would not be if they had representation via voting rights.\"This may seem like a valid argument at first, but upon closer inspection, it is baseless. \"Taxation without representation\" is just a phrase with some historical significance; Pro has not provided any real Constitutional basis for us to believe that all instances of 'taxation without representation' need to be disallowed. And it certainly is not viewed as \"tyranny\" anymore, as Pro claims; non-citizen residents of the United States are not allowed to vote in federal elections, yet they are all still taxed quite regularly [1][2], and there hasn't really been any substantial resistance to the practice...This contention is completely founded on the unwarranted assumption that all instances of \"taxation without representation\" are bad.C. The purpose of voting D. Every citizen should have the right to voteBoth of Pro's points here are based in abstract, idealistic logic. I can just cross-apply my initial case here to show that the practical harms that allowing minors to vote causes is enough to override such logic.And anyways, in both contentions, Pro supports the assumptions underlying them with random quotes by notable politicians, which is definitely NOT sufficient warrant for us to accept them.All of Pro's contentions have been refuted, and the neg case still stands. The resolution has been negated.SOURCES[1] http://www.irs.gov...[2] http://www.irs.gov...", "qid": 48, "docid": "bda53b78-2019-04-18T15:58:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7933394312858582}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let\u2019s see if he has done that. 1: \u201cUniformed Voters\u201d Essentially con\u2019s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent\u2019s own words. \u201cHigh school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. \u201d My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: \u201cPropaganda\u201d This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: \u201cCounter Plan\u201d Con\u2019s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such \u201cmetrics\u201d have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con\u2019s Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con\u2019s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established \u201cof the people, by the people, for the people. \u201d At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con\u2019s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17.", "qid": 48, "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.792935311794281}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.", "qid": 48, "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7928747534751892}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17 Content: Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today\u2019s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered \u201cproficient\u201d in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): \u201cThe prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they\u2019d already done the same.\u201d What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends\u2019? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in \u201cdigital gerrymandering,\u201d where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen\u2019s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": 48, "docid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7926082611083984}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Content: I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.", "qid": 48, "docid": "c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7917251586914062}, {"content": "Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Thank you for your replyRebuttals\"I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems\"You need to explain this. You can't make the vague statement that a younger voting age would help the physical problems of the U. S. , and then go on and leave us with the ambiguity of what on earth you are talking about. If your statement is valid then I can simply say, \"The reason younger people should not vote is because it will hurt the United States and cause more problems\", and leave it at that and click submit. My opponent goes on to claim,\"The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office? ? \"All of this is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical in a debate over the voting age. This debate has nothing to do with President Obama, President Bush, etc. As the Instigator and Pro you have the job of showing that 16 year olds are mentally and psychologically competent to vote. \"I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people\"You have never effectively proven that presidents of the past were voted based on looks. ArgumentsMy opponent has NOT ONCE, attacked by arguments regarding the mental abilities of teenagers being able to vote. Again at 16, you cannot be on a jury, you cannot be drafted and serve in the military, you have not completed highschool, you have not completed basic civics, law, economics, and government courses, etc. My opponent has NO RESPONSE to this. I'm assuming he read my arguments, and if he did, he would have read where I pointed out that 16 year olds are still in highschool, still taking government and law classes. It is not important to my opponent that 16 year olds are too busy with school, getting an education, having a childhood social life, haven't completed basic law, government, and economics courses to know how the law, economy and government works. As long as they vote liberal. That is why my opponent entire \"rebuttal\" consisted of how great Obama was and how bad past presidents have messed up the \"money system\" or economy. That's why he posted a nonsensical source claiming Bush SINGLEHANDEDLY, spent 11.5 Trillion dollars. My opponent wants surefire liberal voters, not informed liberals/conservatives/libertarians who know how the economy and law work. For this reason the voting age should not be lowered to 16 as long as the vast majority of 16 year olds have not completed basic law, government, and economic courses.", "qid": 48, "docid": "f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7912070751190186}, {"content": "Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: People younger than 18 years old should be able to vote in the United States of America. This will be a short debate. Round 1 for con is acceptance.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bda53b78-2019-04-18T15:58:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7899572849273682}, {"content": "Title: The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years. Content: The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; \u201c16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country\u2019s democracy\u201d as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don\u2019t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7893672585487366}, {"content": "Title: lower the voting age to 16 Content: Voting at a lower age would increase participation", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.788745105266571}, {"content": "Title: You should be able to vote in USA under the age of 18 in certain circumstances. Content: Before we begin this debate, American citizen under the age of 18 includes teenagers, children and even toddlers. Therefore, we must consider the future of this beautiful. If teenagers, whom haven't even graduate from secondary schools, were to vote, imagine the outcome of the election. If children were to vote, they might be easily bribed with simple candies by outsiders, resulting these actions to taint the voting system of this country. If toddlers were to vote, they will definitely toy with the voting system. In conclusion, it is obvious that we need to think responsibly. Therefore, we shan't allow citizen under the age of 18 to vote due to the fact that they are still not considered as adults nor responsible enough.", "qid": 48, "docid": "d1dbbea-2019-04-18T15:11:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7877702116966248}, {"content": "Title: should under 18s vote Content: I contend that those under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote in certain circumstances; if they can pass a test showing adequate understanding of U.S. history and government, and if they fit all the other requirements that those over 18 have to fulfill to vote. In fact, I believe that as a country we should reconsider the aversion to the use of poll tests as a condition of voting. While in many cases those tests were abused to require an unrealistic knowledge level and were applied in a discriminatory way, if they were standardized and fairly implemented, they would help ensure that the electorate is informed enough to vote. The problem that minors don't have adequate education would be answered by requiring these poll tests. Personally, I am undecided about the issue; however for the purposes of debate I am taking the Pro side based on the only implementation (requiring poll tests) which would in my view make voting rights for minors make sense.", "qid": 48, "docid": "fd859ca2-2019-04-18T11:25:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7868642807006836}, {"content": "Title: People of all ages should be considered inherently equal. Content: So I ask my opponent but one question: Do you think an 8 month old baby should be allowed to cast a vote in a democratic election? More to the point, do you think there should be any age restrictions for choosing the people who govern our society and order men and women into battle? Are you really proposing that an 8 month old (As you stated in your opening argument) should have the same vote as a 30 year old? Should we also draft that 8 month old into service? Should we let the 5 year old work in a factory? Is it ok for a 66 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl? Or should we have some form of age restrictions? Imprecise though they may be. You're premises, I fear, do not work in practicality and reality. Do some societal laws and ideas need some revision? Sure. Are some teenagers more responsible than some adults? No doubt. Does this mean we should get rid of age restrictions all together? Absolutely not.", "qid": 48, "docid": "e1c0b08d-2019-04-18T12:20:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7863295078277588}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers and voting Content: I saw a debate of a similar nature on this site and decided it was not conducted rightly, so I have decided to re-do and see what happens The Argument- the voting age should be reduced to 15 Definitions(if any are really needed) vote- the right to vote in US governmental elections I would like to begin with a little examination of what qualifies adulthood. Legally adulthood is reached at the age of 18, but many of us under the age of legal adulthood already exhibit the signs of maturity and good citizenship (the things I believe are required to vote). Many teenagers already deal with many of the things adults deal with, such as work and managing their own lives, as at this point in their life they are preparing for adulthood. Seeing that teenagers, if not legally, socially are adults see no reason a teenager should be denied the right to vote. I believe the big question that could be put out there against this point is \"Are we prepared?\" and I would next like to answer that question. The simple answer to that question is yes....the longer answer to the question is slightly more complex. In teenagers we see a wide range of maturities from childish to very socially responsible, but I also see that spectrum played out even with people who are legally adults, which makes me ask the question that I am debating here today. Does the simple fact that adults have been alive longer qualify them to vote, is a mentally disabled adult more fit to vote then a mentally competent teenager?. I would contend the answer is no Seeing that age is not a factor I will move to others. Education is very important when we consider who should vote, but does education mean just graduating from high school and college?. Once again I say no, Many teenagers are educated very well even before they attain these 'symbols'. Im fairly certain there are a few debaters on this site that are teenagers and can hold there own in political debates. One of the founding fathers of this country had no high school or college degree and no one today would say they were not capable men. Seeing that education between adults and well applied teenagers is essentially the same I see no reason that this should disqualify us either. In closing if maturity and education do not separate us then what else that matters really does?. And if nothing else does separate us then why are we denied the right to vote.", "qid": 48, "docid": "813a48fa-2019-04-18T19:05:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7853598594665527}, {"content": "Title: A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes Content: While such a move might embarrass some parliaments into lowering their voting age there would certainly be no compulsion. And if it happened this would not necessarily a bad thing. If national parliaments feel embarrassed by the illogic of having differing voting age then it will be up to them to change it. In practice parliaments are unlikely to change their traditions simply because their peers have done so; they will look at all the evidence (which this change would provide more of) and then decide the best way forward for their democracy.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00021-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7847052812576294}, {"content": "Title: They deserve to have a say. Content: If they are now in a responsible stage of their life, they deserve a say on who will decide how their schools will be run through elections! Yes Because If a sixteen year old can join the Arm forces, then the right to vote should be allowed. If the voting age is lowered to 16, then politics could become a GCSE course, meaning they will be fully prepared at an early date, ready for an election if they are 16 for example.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7835243940353394}, {"content": "Title: Voters should be required to take a test before voting Content: Side-resolution- Voting age limit should be dropped if there is voting test. Lack of knowledge is the reason why voting is 18 plus, right? Then why people who don't anything about the candidates allowed to vote? Surely there should be test for voting, and the age limit dropped.", "qid": 48, "docid": "cbfd88a8-2019-04-18T13:14:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7814538478851318}, {"content": "Title: Lower the Voting Age Content: I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. \"However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time.\" Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: \"Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed.\" \"Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference.\" This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts", "qid": 48, "docid": "d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7808133363723755}, {"content": "Title: The lowering of the voting age>>> Content: Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.", "qid": 48, "docid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7802568674087524}, {"content": "Title: The voting age should be reduced to 14. Content: Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).", "qid": 48, "docid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7802413105964661}, {"content": "Title: Should the drinking age be lowered to 18 Content: I believe that the drinking age should be lowered because firstly its not like have a underage people do not drink. There are 14, 15 year old drinking all the time at parties because they have such easy access to alcohol. If and 18 year old is old to vote and considered responsible because they are legally an adult why can they not drink.", "qid": 48, "docid": "322dcc7f-2019-04-18T17:04:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7796781659126282}, {"content": "Title: No, wrong subject. Content: No, 16 yr olds should not be allowed to vote. They are the best on games and mindless modern trivia, but not on worldly subjects or politics.", "qid": 48, "docid": "ed086351-2019-04-19T12:44:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7790117263793945}, {"content": "Title: The right to vote, should be open to all. Content: I misunderstood what I was arguing, and I most likely cannot make a good case for this, but I will try. People make stupid decisions, yes, but an age limit or stoping prisoners from voting does not mean we still don't make stupid decisions. And by stopping people from voting, the stupid decisions voted in leaders make will still affect them, they just would not have a say in it. And yes, 6 year olds might not seem like the people who should be voting in our current environment, but in the end I think it COULD work. One, parents would have a big say if these children can go to the polls, and two education about politics and foreign policy would be pushed to the point where it would be a core subject in school. Stupid decisions are enviable when voting is done fairly, so why not let everyone have a say?", "qid": 48, "docid": "fbbf62d4-2019-04-18T11:31:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7783194184303284}, {"content": "Title: SHould voting be mandatory for all US citizens Content: Ok first of all I will fix your opening argument. \"NO ALL CHiLDREN IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND MOST PPL WHO DO NOT VOTE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS.\" \"The answer to the question is no voting should not be mandatory. Not all children are mature enough to cast a vote, and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process. There we go much better, first of all I will point out I personally am 100% opposed to mandatory voting. In fact I think that we should issue a IQ test before voting but that would make it way to hard for Obama or Hillary or liberal nominees in general. Ok first thing is first \"not all children are mature enough to cast a vote\" according to the laws in this country in order to vote you must be 18 years of age. Eighteen is the point in time when a child is now legally and adult so your point about children not being mature enough is moronic children do not vote. \"and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process.\" Well, that in fact may be a true statement but that is the point of high school, generally speaking by the age eighteen you should be old enough to know where you stand as far as politics are concerned.", "qid": 48, "docid": "750f1586-2019-04-18T19:47:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7781591415405273}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate Content: Your job is to argue that the current voting age should be, both logically and morally, kept the same.I will argue that the minimum voting age shouldn't exist at all. 500 characters max, and ten munites to argue. Think of it of as a speed debate.", "qid": 48, "docid": "e49c43ef-2019-04-18T12:03:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.777667760848999}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate Content: Your job is to argue that the current voting age should be, both logically and morally, kept the same.I will argue that the minimum voting age shouldn't exist at all. 500 characters max, and ten munites to argue. Think of it of as a speed debate.", "qid": 48, "docid": "e49c43d0-2019-04-18T12:03:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.777667760848999}, {"content": "Title: You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Content: Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a06c77c-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7771860361099243}, {"content": "Title: An opportunity for civic studies Content: While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their democratic rights and duties. What each democratic body does would seem to clearly be information that every student should learn as regardless of voting age it is going to be a civic duty for most of their lives.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00015-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7761940956115723}, {"content": "Title: Should kids at age 16 be able to vote Content: Thanks Pro for creating an interesting topic. Seeing that my opponent has made his arguments I will as well.Opening Arguments16 year olds should not be able to vote due to the fact that the vast majority are in high school and have no even completed basic law, history and government classes. This automatically makes them much more misinformed and unknowledgeable than the average voter about the way their country is run, what is and is not legal, etc. For example, students in the U.S. who haven\u2019t studied the U.S. constitution would not be reliable decision makers when it came to voting for or against a proposed law, proposition, policy, etc that may enforce constitutional law or violate constitutional law. Furthermore 16 year olds are often busy with school, extracurricular activities, events at home, etc and are often much more involved in their social and school lives than they are in the subjects of social issues, foreign policy, and economic matters. 18 is a much more legitimate age to be able to vote. At 18 you deemed mature enough by the government to become drafted into the armed forces [1] At 18 you are deemed responsible enough to decide the outcomes of court cases [2] You are most likely a graduate from highschool and completed basic social science and civics classes You are no longer under your parents legal control and are able to work, provide, and take care of yourself as an adult Vote ConSources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 48, "docid": "f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7744038701057434}, {"content": "Title: why 17 year olds should vote and why not Content: 17 year olds should be able to vote because it helps but notice teens need something to do before becoming an adult nobody wants to vote unlike teens . this is my first debate so have mercy please", "qid": 48, "docid": "cef3e002-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7742226719856262}, {"content": "Title: Should Students vote in local school broad elections. Content: on the kindergarten and younger students, could vote, if the teachers or parents took a day before the election, to explain the issues and what each candidate's agendas in \"laid men terms\". But the issues effective us ( the students) more that most. This could also be useful for practicing for when you turn 18 and vote. (we should actually lower the voting age for all elections-http://www.debate.org... )", "qid": 48, "docid": "10771306-2019-04-18T14:29:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7741891145706177}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: Introduction Hello, Con! I am excited to debate this issue for many reasons: my primary one, however, is because I have not debated in a long time and this looks like a good debate to get myself back in gear. It is an interesting idea, and you make some pretty interesting points. However, I feel I can counter them, and provide a few good reasons of my own for why the voting age should be lowers, or, at least, why eighteen year olds are no more responsible or mature than a sixteen or seventeen year old. I know that this will fulfill my burden of proof, but it will at least, hopefully, show why your arguments are not quite as good as you may believe them to be, in my opinion. That being said, let's start with rebuttals! Rebuttal 1: Maturity My primary issues with this point are that you have not provided statistical support for your claim, and you are begging the question. You are basing your reasoning behind why you believe eighteen year olds are more mature than sixteen year olds on things such as military age. However, this conclusion is under the assumption that eighteen year olds are mature enough to join the military, or that sixteen year olds are not mature enough to. The primary reason why the age to join the military is eighteen and not sixteen is because most sixteen year olds are in high school. This is not a problem of maturity, but a problem of circumstance. Of course, I can also turn this argument around and say that, because sixteen year olds are mature enough to own and drive a car, they should be allowed to vote. I am sure you disagree with this reasoning: but why? It is the same reasoning you are using with why they should not; I'm only turning it on its head. In fact, you made this point for me! \u201cIf 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country.\u201d I would hardly say that the amount of teenagers paying taxes is low: \u201cAt any given time approximately 45% of 16-17 year olds will be working and up to 80% of all teens will have a job before they graduate from high school. \u201d (1) If you have a job, even as a teenager, you pay taxes. That does not even take into account the fact that teens overall spent an estimated 9.7 billion in sales taxes alone! (2) Our brain is not fully developed until we hit thirty. Indeed. Are you arguing that we should increase the voting system, then, to 30? Rebuttal 2: Experience Why would you not trust a sixteen year old with your life? What about a sixteen year old makes them more untrustworthy than an eighteen year old? Furthermore, sixteen year olds cannot run for office. This is true. However, neither can an eighteen year old. Can you guess what the youngest age you can be to run for any political office in the United States of America? 25. (3) Are you arguing that we should raise the age to 25? But they are not fully developed themselves; so, 30? Yes, most 16 or 17 year olds have not had a long-term job or have run their own lives. But neither will an 18 year old: in fact, most people will not have this responsibility until they leave college, which is usually around 22 (given that post people finish college with a bachelor's degree). This is not even mentioning the fact that, whoever is on the ballot, adults will vote for at the same percentage as children. If children can vote bad, than adults can vote bad as well. There is no objectively wrong vote, though; one's opinion is their own. Your basic argument regarding the whole untrustworthy children when it comes to making decisions is one that can be applied to any adult. After all, I wouldn't trust just any adult with my life. Sixteen year olds would have the same options as adults. Rebuttal 3: Responsibility That logic is just silly. You must prove that a sixteen year old cannot fulfill the role of a juryman. The primary reason they are not is, once again, a problem of circumstance: being on jury requires that you miss school. Furthermore, juryman are decided based on voting registrars; you have to vote to be a part of a jury! So, this begs the question: 16 or 17 year olds cannot vote because they cannot be juryman because they cannot vote. This is circular logic. Point 1: No taxation without representation It is what the founding fathers fought for: teenagers pay quite a bit in taxes, as I have already pointed out in rebuttal one. As such, they deserve the same level of representation as others who pay taxes. Indeed, they may not pay the same amount in taxes as everybody else, but circumstances have always been a factor in what taxes are given to what people. After all, 47% of people do not pay income tax, because of age or socioeconomic standing (most are elderly or poor, or both). Point 2: Stability Sixteen and seventeen are good times to vote, stability-wise. Eighteen is one of the worst times, in fact. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are stationary; they attend school and have a regular social life. They have no real major changes that affect their lives. However, eighteen year olds are generally transitioning to colleges, attempting to find stable employment, and sometimes trying to find a place to live. This is also a time of economic instability: after all, college is significantly more expensive than anything you'll need to pay for in high school, and those who do not go to college still need to find a way to sustain themselves outside of their parent's homes. They are still trying to settle down. Point 3: Voter Turnout Voter turnout will increase if you lower the voting age. Studies such as Merrill's study of five states that had implemented a program called Kids Voting USA, which gives children information on voting and politics, and five states that did not implement the program. He found that parent turnout increased three percent, due to parents being inspired to vote due to their kid's enthusiasm to voting. The number was as high as nine percent in some states! (4) It would be logical, therefore, that voter turnout would increase in both children and adults if the voting age was lowered. Point 4: Unique point of view Voters will, obviously, vote based on their circumstances in life. As teenagers have a different point of view as, say, a mentally senile seventy-three year old man (who has just as much right to vote as a mentally stable thirty year old), they will provide a unique point of view to the election. Along with that, their views will be heard and considered by politicians when they make political decisions that affect things such as education and raising or lowing minimum wage, as just a few examples. Conclusion I eagerly await my opinion's response. This was a lot of fun! Best of luck to my opponent; his opinions are interesting, but I am curious of his actual position: is he in favor of keeping the minimum age of voting at eighteen? Or is he in favor of increasing the voting age? Based on what he said, it seems like the latter. If that is the case, this should be a very interesting debate indeed. Sources:(1) www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/teen-techguide1.pdf (WARNING: This is a PDF file. You'll need some form of reader to access it.)(2) http://www.youthrights.org...; second point(3)http://www.earlyamerica.com...(4)http://www.uvm.edu...", "qid": 48, "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7732546329498291}, {"content": "Title: should kids be aloud to vote Content: I believe Children should be children they should enjoy their lives and not have to worry about law and sh1t. I believe the legal age of voting is fine as it is and children would make careless mistakes because they do not understand the world enough to make big choices as big as voting.", "qid": 48, "docid": "5c5845e0-2019-04-18T17:24:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7730106711387634}, {"content": "Title: Should young people be allowed to vote... Content: There are several reasons why young people should not be allowed to vote. There are many teenagers and even adults who are very immature. Giving them an opportunity to vote is the worst idea. Students, for example, can make poor choices, and voting is a big thing. They should start with something small, such as student council within the school, and then go from there. Even if there are some people under the age of 18 who are mature, we still have to consider the ones that aren't.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a6f755aa-2019-04-18T13:27:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.772954523563385}, {"content": "Title: The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered Content: _____________________________________________________________________ In 2012, only 51% of citizens 18-29 years old, let me repeat that, 18 THROUGH 29 years old, voted in the election. If so many 18-29 year old citizens already ignore their right to vote, what difference would it be to give 16-17 year old citizens the same right? \"My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? \" - 1davey29 Just because 16 year old people have the right to do some things, doesn't mean that they have the right to do everything. If all 16 year olds, for example, had the right to drink alcohol or serve on a jury, or even start their own families, let's face it: for most 16 year olds, it would be a disaster. However, if those rights were staggered to different age levels, they would become more mature and have more of a sense of responsibility. Some choices are just more complex then others, and in that case they must be given at a later level, so they get used to responsibility on a smaller scale before making big decisions. \"If 16-year-olds cannot vote, our president, who represents our country, will not accurately represent the people's opinion. \" - 1davey29 It is incorrect to say that people vote according to their age, as many grandchildren and children vote according to their grandparent's and parent's views. The government does things that affect people of all age groups, but that doesn't mean, for example, a 12 year old should have the right to vote because new school policies affect them. Should toddlers have the right to vote because the government affects them too? No, because most parents can be trusted to make the best decision for the children. Young people are also a lot more likely to misuse their vote, and use it in a foolish way. The youth would be more likely to vote for the president according to the celebrities that support the candidate, and not the candidate's actual views. While this is not true for all youth, you can be sure that there will be many young people abusing their vote. _____________________________________________________________________ Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. Source(s): . http://idebate.org...", "qid": 48, "docid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7708793878555298}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age to 16 Content: I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?", "qid": 48, "docid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7708614468574524}, {"content": "Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: At this point, we need to focus on the resolution at hand. Pro has tried to shift the debate to a quite different topic: \"My position today is simple - that 18 is not a justifiable boundary.\" and \"I'd like to have a serious chat to whoever came up with the age of 18 for voting. It's completely arbitrary. \"First, this debate is not over whether or not 18 is the appropriate age to allow one to vote, second, Con actually agrees with Pro that 18 is a fairly arbitrary age and, in fact, Con will show that 18 is probably too young of an age. But whether or not 18+ is an appropriate age is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is whether or not 15-17 year olds should also have the right to vote. If Con shows that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to vote, then Con has effectively won this case (as an example). Pro does not need to defend 18+ year olds, but they must show that 15-17 year olds being allowed to debate is better than not allowing them.Due to space requirements, Con will now present a counter case as to why teenagers (15-17) should not be allowed to vote. In Round 3 Con will present refutations to arguments made by Pro in round 2 (which are mostly circular--i.e. they assume teens make for good voters which will be directly called into question in this round).I will quickly summarize the points I intend to make. Pro makes the argument that 18 is an arbitrary age--then why do they insist on 15? Why not 14 or 12 or 10 or 5? Pro gives no rationale for when they think one becomes \"rational\" enough to vote. Next, Pro makes most of their arguments under the presupposed assumption that 15-17 year olds are not irrational (making this argument somewhat circular). Con will make a case that shows, in fact that 15-17 year olds (and even higher ages) are actually scientifically proven to be irrational. Con reminds voters that whether or not 18+ (for instance 18-25) should be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case, so even if Con makes arguments that 18-25 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote is irrelevant to this case (if 18-25 shouldn't vote, then clearly 15-17 shouldn't be allowed to vote either).So what would a country want out of a voter? This is the question that must be answered by Pro, first and foremost. In Con's opinion a voter should be well informed, rational thinking, and have a stake in the outcome of an election. Con will now show that teenagers (15-17) do not meet at least two of these criteria.1) Teenagers living at home with their parents have less of a stake in the outcome of elections.I think it's fairly uncontested that the vast majority of teenagers live at home with their parents and do not support themselves. This means teens do not pay taxes (other than sales taxes), do not have an independent stream of income (meaning their contribution via sales tax is actually their parents' money), and do not support themselves. As such, policy decisions about income tax, property taxes, welfare, etc. do not have direct effects on teens.2) Teens are irrational human beings and their brains are not fully developed.An ideal voter would be able to make calculated decisions about cause and effect--they would be able to see how complex policies would effect long term outcomes. Unfortunately, teen brains are still developing and this ongoing development makes it difficult for teens to make such judgment decisions.I would expect most (older) voters to assume this prima facie: that teens are irrational, impulsive, and have very little self control. However, a) this is likely unconvincing to younger voters and b) this sentiment does not make it true! So is there any evidence to support this idea? In fact there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this idea [1, 2, 3, 4]. This comes from the fact that teenagers rely mostly on their amygdala for decision making whereas adults tend to use their frontal cortex in decision making.\"Their[teenagers] actions are guided more by the amygdala and less by the frontal cortex.\" [1]\"The researchers found that when processing emotions, adults have greater activity in their frontal lobes than do teenagers. Adults also have lower activity in their amygdala than teenagers. In fact, as teenagers age into adulthood, the overall focus of brain activity seems to shift from the amygdala to the frontal lobes.\" [2]\"And she says that adults process information in the rational prefrontal cortex. But, in the teen brain, most of the heavy lifting is done by the emotion-oriented limbic center.\" [3]\"The part of the brain that helps us make logical and rational decisions is just developing in a teen and usually it's not fully functional until the early to mid-20s. \" [4]The amygdala is more associated with impulse reactions and \"gut\" feelings:\" The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive \"gut\" reactions, including \"fight or flight\" responses.\" [2]This last quote is particularly important, as it shows that the frontal lobe is where cause-effect relationships are processed. This is paramount in making political decisions! One must understand the effect that certain policies will cause. If they do not, then they are not likely to make for very good voters. As this research suggests, teenagers are not the type of people we want in determining policy through becoming voters. It's not some \"arbitrary\" age limit--this is scientific evidence to suggest that teenagers are not \"mature\" enough to make such decisions.The next problem with allowing teens to vote is that they are not independent thinkers. Teens tend to support whatever their parents support. Again, there is overwhelming evidence to support this fact.\"According to Boquist, \"Family is the primary agent of political socialization. It's usually not purposeful and has to do with absorption.\"\" [5] This shows that while families influence political beliefs, there does not tend to be a rational reason behind it.\"Research shows that children tend to share their parents\u2019 political attitudes\u2014at least while they\u2019re all still living under the same roof, said UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin.\" [6]Again, notice the important caveat: \"at least while they\u2019re all still living under the same roof\". This is true of virtually all teenagers from the agers of 15-17.Finally, there is empirical evidence to show that 70% of children hold the same political belief as their parents. Specifically, 70% of children would vote the same way as their parents (77% for republicans, 71% for democrats, and 61% for independents) [7].So what does this prove? It shows that allowing teens (15-17) to vote does nothing to increase democracy, rather just works to reward parents with many children and whom tend to strictly enforce their views onto their children. So this essentially has no effect, other than giving parents with children a few extra votes for their particular ideal. Teens will not make independent, well-informed decisions. Sources:[1] http://www.aacap.org...[2] http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] http://www.tesh.com...[4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://articles.mcall.com...[6] http://gazettextra.com...[7] http://www.gallup.com...", "qid": 48, "docid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.769542932510376}, {"content": "Title: The USA Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered to 18 From 21 Content: should the drinking age be lowered", "qid": 48, "docid": "ccb2cd3b-2019-04-19T12:44:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7694780230522156}, {"content": "Title: 16 year olds should vote Content: I will argue against this. I. They are not yet adultsEven if they are informed, If they do not live by themselves, Have the ability/privilege of owning firearms, Own their own homes or apartments, Use their bank accounts, Have the ability to serve in the military, pay taxes, Or hold jobs, Then they cannot vote as they are not independent or other reasons I listed, As an eighteen year old can have. II. InfluenceYounger voters can be swayed or influenced on what candidates they should choose when voting, By their friends, Parents, And even teachers. [1] It could be more of an advantage to not yet let them vote, So they may have more time to mature, And to form their own political ideology (Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Etc)ConclusionAs younger voters do not hold the same positions in society, As older people like 18 year olds, And are not likely to be mature and reasonable in voting, It would be best to not let 16 year olds vote in elections. Sources used [1] https://www. Headcount. Org/should-16-year-olds-have-the-right-to-vote-pros-and-cons/", "qid": 48, "docid": "700510d3-2019-04-18T11:17:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7690817713737488}, {"content": "Title: allow voting at 16 in European Parliament elections Content: There should not be different voting ages for different elections", "qid": 48, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7681323289871216}, {"content": "Title: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages Content: Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don\u2019t vote even though they are eligible.[1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting. [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, \u2018Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?\u2019, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00014-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7680227756500244}, {"content": "Title: You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US Content: 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.", "qid": 48, "docid": "1c3a6a0a-2019-04-18T14:09:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7675583362579346}, {"content": "Title: People younger than 18 should be able to vote in the U.S. Content: Thank you Romanii for your refutations, My opponent observed that the resolution \"supports eliminating the age limit entirely, allowing voting for ALL people under eighteen, ranging from infants, to small children, to teenagers.\" He went on to conclude \"there do certainly exist politically savvy teenagers who are able to make intelligent voting decisions,\"\" My Opponent just admitted that there do exists in our society citizens who are deprived the right to vote due to age despite them being capable of their own beliefs, interests, and prefrences. Consider how intelligent the average voter really is\" \"In 2011, Newsweek asked 1,000 Americans to take the standard U.S. Citizenship test, and 38 percent of them failed. One in three couldn\"t name the vice-president.\"(1) \"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey. \"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.\" (2) Here is another link that shows more of the same (3) Turns out many of those who can and do vote are not particularly \"politically savvy\" unlike those teenagers my opponent says \"certainly exist.\" If we were to exclude the less politically savvy adults from voting it would be argued that we have taken away their unalienable right to vote. Therefore it is not reasonable to restrict one from voting due to intelligence. He goes on to that children \"are most likely going to just copy the political opinions of their parents\". \"What eliminating age restrictions does, then, is that it gives individuals with children the ability to double, triple, or even quadruple their say in the government by indoctrinating their children to cast their votes a certain way! This is absolutely unfair to all of the nation's other individuals, who only get one ballot per person.\" The same was argued about giving women the right to vote, giving their husbands two votes instead of one. As it turns out many women do vote with their husbands and many do not. As far as if it would be fair to give individuals with children the ability to double or quadruple their say in government, does not an adult with three kids under the current set up only have one vote to represent four peoples interests? That in not fair either. Remember I am in no way advocating that parents vote for their kids but that the kids have the ability to vote because they are citizens. It would be a hard case to prove that the average voter in the U.S.A. is not \"subject to ideological indoctrination due to their lack of intellectual maturity.\" My opponent says \"\"Taxation without representation\" is just a phrase with some historical significance; Pro has not provided any real Constitutional basis for us to believe that all instances of 'taxation without representation' need to be disallowed.\" Con is correct that there is not real Constitutional basis to believe that all instances need to be disallowed. I never argued there was, however the historical significance has had a huge impact on our society today and in many ways is a part of American culture. Many Americans still believe it is tyranny to tax without representation.(4) I certainly agree. Considering that many citizens who have the right to vote do not vote, it is a shame that we keep some citizens who would like to vote from voting just due to age.(5) Conclusion: To my delight it seems that Con at heart agrees with me as he stated in his argument that \"\"..one of the core tenets of democracy: that all citizens should have an equal say in the government.\" I agree. All Citizens regardless of race, gender, and age, should have an equal say in the government. This is a no brainer Vote Pro! (1)http://www.salon.com... (2)http://www.alternet.org... (3)http://www.publicpolicypolling.com... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)http://www.fairvote.org...", "qid": 48, "docid": "bda53b78-2019-04-18T15:58:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7673159837722778}, {"content": "Title: You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21 Content: The voting age is a tender topic that at the moment, isn't exactly what many would call a problem, so why mess with that now. Many kids and others look forward for the right to vote that now at this moment in our country is a right that we shouldn't tamper with.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a06c77c-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7671066522598267}, {"content": "Title: Youth are not represented in politics Content: This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gain would be rapidly eaten up by increase in the numbers of older people. It is however wrong to conclude that people vote by demographic or that the old will not support policies that benefit the young; loosening the security of permanent workers was used as an example \u2013 why should the elderly be concerned about this when they are already retired?", "qid": 48, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00013-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7657731771469116}, {"content": "Title: Lowering the voting age Content: In this round of debate, in this round, I am going to talk about some rebuttals on Pros points, ask Pros some questions, and summarize my arguments. The proposition side has, firstly, said that in nowdays, students are very so smart that they can choose the president wisely. She also said some points from Dr. Sam. However, it cannot be true. First of all, she did not state the exact source and did not explain who Dr. Sam is. Second of all, she said about the studies and being smart. On the other hand, study does not really affect voting quality. For example, somebody who is very bad at study can choose the president very wisely. Even it is true, she did not tell us why it is. Also, she said most of the students are smart in these days, but does that mean the minorities are not people? Although there might be many students who are smart, what about the rest of the others who are NOT smart? Secondly, she has told us that if students can vote at the younger age, it can be their habit which can increase the voting turnout. In contrast, it is not always necessarily true. In 2007, the voting age has been already lowered from 20 to 19. However, in the latest Presidential Election, it showed the lowest voters turnout- It was shown that only 60% of the total voters had voted for the election. It finally means that lowering the voting age does not affect people for increasing voting turnout. It only gets decreased more. Now, I would like to ask MickeyMouse these questions: 1. Do you believe that 18-year-olds make better political decisions than the most mature in society, such as 50-year-old businessmen? 2. The Korean Constitution states that you are an adult when you are 20 years old and that when you're 19 years old, you can have certain political and business rights. So what do you think about that? What is your basis for saying that the standard of an adult is 18 years old in Korea? 3. Even 18-year-olds cannot set up their own businesses, they cannot invest, they cannot vote, they cannot participate in political parties, and such. So, how can you say that those who are younger than 19 year old actually do have these valid social experiences that you need for the basis of voting? 4. Do you have clear and objective standard for maturity? Moving onto my summary, I would like to emphasize, again, my points. First, people whose ages are under 19 are not really mature and they do not have any valid social experience. Those who are younger than 19, still have to be taken care of by older adults. Thus, they are not independent, which means that they are too immature to participate in election. Second, young people mostly like style better than substances. They do not really care about the quality of the candidates, but care about being stylish. It is because they are pop-oriented. So, they can choose the president wisely since they do not consider about what should be considered about. Lastly, it is because of the purpose. What we seriously need to talk about is more people voting good-quality president, not lowering the voting age. Lowering the voting age, does not really mean choosing a wise president. So, therefore, because we live in the country called Korea, where the age is 19, we believe that we should run away from the international trend unless we change the Constitution. We live in a society where the cultural basis of an adult is 19 years old. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we beg this motion does not pass. Thank you very much.", "qid": 48, "docid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7655202150344849}, {"content": "Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: I actually strongly disagree with when you stated \"On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility.\" Most teenagers begin to learn responsibility at about 16 years old. At this age they're becoming adults, but they're not there yet. They're learning things like having a drivers license and started relationships if haven't started already. But, this particular statement that they learn responsibility at whatever age is more of an opinionated topic. \"You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole \"teenager stage\" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics.\" That's actually very true. Not many teenagers are very included in politics. How many Americans who are 18 years old actually care that much? What about people who are 35 years old? A lot do, but then again some actually don't. It seems to me that you're saying people can and should only vote if they're well-versed in politics. \"16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers?\" Like I said, how many voters have a standpoint in politics today? I know a lot do but some still don't. So those people shouldn't vote at all? That risks alienating citizens in thinking that the only way for them to have a say is to be politically active. I disagree with that. \"And studies show voting is a habit that has to start early. If people don't start out as voters, they're less likely to ever vote. Some researchers fear that as this generation of nonvoters ages, they will stay that way, causing a dangerous dive in voter turnout as baby boomers and older generations die out. In the 2000 election, senior citizens voted at about twice the rate of 18- to 24-year-olds.\" By: Carl Weiser of the Enquirer Washington Bureau To see the actual article go to this link http://www.enquirer.com... Good luck to you!", "qid": 48, "docid": "bc6012b0-2019-04-18T18:58:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7648621797561646}, {"content": "Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: Let me just say that you're mainly referring to \"teen\" as a 16 year old. We have to both keep in mind that an eighTEEN year old is still a teen. Just saying that so we can avoid confusion. Definition of \"vote\": express one's preference for wordnetweb.princeton.edu \"What I'm saying is that people should only vote if they have analyzed all parties, considered possibilities, found one they actually agree with, and so on, and so forth. Basically, I expect them to make a smart vote. Do you really expect this from a teenager? Let's face it, teens don't give much towards America.\" Yeah, you're probably right by saying they should vote when they found one they actually agree with. But how do they agree with a party? Politically or just because they think one's better than the other. There's practically no law that says voting only can take place if one thoroughly analyzes a party. Not everyone votes the same way. Not everyone puts the same things into consideration. Teens can actually give a lot to America because many start serving in the military at 18 and get a job before that. At the age of 16 teens can be treated like an adult. They can pay taxes, have a driver's license with little to no restrictions and can be charged for adult crimes even death penalty, get married and so on. In conclusion, 16 year olds should be allowed to vote because, they are young but intelligent. Like stated before, 16 year olds are often taking some type of government class or civics at that age which could make it one of the key ages to start. It pretty much means they could be the smarter voters. Governments, including the United States are desperate to bring the young people back into the civic fold, to try and make them feel they have a stake in their country. Incorporating voting at an earlier age is essential because less and less people are voting every year. Earlier you said that many 16 year olds won't do it. Exactly. If that's what you're saying then only the ones who will know what's going on will vote and have the say, although I think many more should vote. Thank you for this great debate Con.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bc6012b0-2019-04-18T18:58:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7622500658035278}, {"content": "Title: If You're Old Enough to Join the Army, You're Old Enough to Vote Content: I got into an argument about this with someone and thought I'd debate it here. Before 1970, the age in the U.S. when people were allowed to vote was 21, but 18 was the age when people could join the army, and get drafted. This caused quite a stir in the midst of Vietnam and the voting age was lowered by the 26th Amendment. I agree with this. If someone is able to join the army, particularly to fight in a war which requires a level of intelligence and maturity, then they are certainly capable of voting and making other adult decisions. Likewise, in the case of a draft, it is unfair to force people to fight for something they had absolutely no say in. I will expand my argument next round.", "qid": 48, "docid": "c4e55ab3-2019-04-18T19:54:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7618177533149719}, {"content": "Title: There should be no voting age Content: There should be no voting age. If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote? The argument that youth \"should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens.\" But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. \"We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting.", "qid": 48, "docid": "68fec0d0-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00008-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7613919973373413}, {"content": "Title: Should Youth have the right to vote Content: I believe that Youth Should have the right to vote and here is why. #1 People of all ages are required to pay income and sales taxes; therefore, denying them the right to vote is taxation without representation. #2 Children are legally permitted to have sex or drive a car in some countries, which are more dangerous and difficult than voting. #3 Voter turnout among youth will improve if young people get in the habit of voting before they reach 18 and go to colleges far away from their state of residency, like it did in Germany when some states lowered their voting age for municipal elections. #4 Education for and about democracy would be better served if there were no voting age. #5 Government entitlements suppress fertility, which means the youth demographic is systematically suppressed, with no political power to offset the effect. #6 Governments derive their just authority from the consent of the governed. To be legitimate, those who govern and those who legislate must be elected by the people, not a special subset of the people, such as those over the age of X years. #7 Those who oppose Youth Suffrage say that youth do not to have sufficient understanding of the realities of life to participate in voting. In response to this, most youth suffrage advocates point out these are the identical arguments used against women's suffrage, as well as the abolition of property requirements, in the past. Likewise, mental capacity or knowledge is often not a bar to the elective franchise.", "qid": 48, "docid": "57e0369e-2019-04-18T12:07:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7610026597976685}, {"content": "Title: People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old Content: Greetings to my opponent and the audience! I look forward to a great debate :). \"Currently, in the United States of America the legal voting age is 18 years old. Now, I'm sure the government has this because when you're at 18 years old you're technically an adult. I think that this is not fair at all because the government is pretty much saying that only adults can decide who rules our country.\" Yes, you're technically an adult when you're 18 in the United States. Of course adults rule this country: where do you see a teenager running for politician? Where do you see teenagers managing businesses and working at jobs? \"But, many people actually believe that 18 is the worst age to start voting because so many steps are being made in the person's life, going to college, getting a job, possibly starting a family/relationship.\" On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility. The 18+ year old has most likely already COMPLETED a government class and is at least competently-versed in political affairs. I'd like to note that many of those steps my opponent suggested do not happen contemporarily. \"Studies also show that the sooner you start voting the more confident and consistent voter you'll turn out to be. Many Americans never vote and if this is put in their mind at an earlier age, I believe that the nation could actually get more voters and everyone's voice can be heard. In fact, in the 2000 election people over the age of 50 had twice as many voters than people in the age group of 18-24.\" I'd like to see the actual statistics of those studies. Also, the good ol' quote \"quality over quantity\" applies here. Just because I can buy an expensive car, should I? Just because I can doesn't mean I should. Same with voting. You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole \"teenager stage\" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics. \"Another argument I'll make is that kids are still in school at the age of 16 unless drop out or early graduation. Usually at this age, kids are taking some type of government class which can actually make them smarter voters. Voting is not necessarily something you get good at since its your stand point. That's why I believe that if we incorporate voting at an earlier age such as 16, we'll have more voters in the future and people will think about it a little more.\" Simply because teenagers would have the ability to vote does not guarantee that they'll actually put thought into this vote. Have you seen a high school? I'm sure you have. They would incorporate race, ethnicity, how the person looks, the way they are, et cetera. Right, it's your standpoint. 16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers? They may not even be well-versed in what presidential candidate wants what and they'll just vote for whomever seems superficially appealing. I also hope for a wonderful debate. Good luck, Pro.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bc6012b0-2019-04-18T18:58:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7606749534606934}, {"content": "Title: Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages Content: There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people\u2019s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don\u2019t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80.[1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young. [1] The Economist, \u2018A slow-burning fuse\u2019, 25 June 2009", "qid": 48, "docid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00015-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7601346969604492}, {"content": "Title: Alcohol age in America should remain at 21 Content: I disagree. I believe the drinking age is too high and should be lowered to 18 for a number of reasons. I believe id a person at the age of 18 has the right to venture off alone and vote and make decisions for this country they have the responsibility to drink.", "qid": 48, "docid": "bda85ae6-2019-04-18T18:19:14Z-00008-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7601171135902405}, {"content": "Title: Drinking age should remain at 21 Content: I disagree. I believe the drinking age is too high and should be lowered to 18 for a number of reasons. I believe id a person at the age of 18 has the right to venture off alone and vote and make decisions for this country they have the responsibility to drink.", "qid": 48, "docid": "9531387d-2019-04-18T18:20:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7601171135902405}, {"content": "Title: Should the voting age be lowered Content: 1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said \"If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers\" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one", "qid": 48, "docid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7600376605987549}, {"content": "Title: Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16 Content: This was fun! It was a pretty interesting debate on both sides. This could go either way. Best of luck, Con. I'll post this debate into the voting forums once I have completed and posted these arguments.Maturity:This counter would work well against me, if it were not for the fact that I am not making this argument. I never said that maturity should be a factor: I simply said that your argument against why sixteen year olds cannot vote applies just as much to eighteen year olds. Sure, their brains would be more developed than a sixteen year old, but they are still not fully developed, which means you would need to provide a justifiable reason why you are making an exception for those who are eighteen to twenty-four, but not those under eighteen. I agree that fourteen year olds should not vote, but the reason why does not have to do with maturity. This is why I feel you fail to meet your half of the burden of proof (proving that eighteen is a proper voting age, but not sixteen).Good point, in regards to university being more independent. I concede to that. However, you would now need to provide a reason for why this is matters. Why does independence matter in the end when it comes to whether or not someone should be allowed to vote? This is why I feel this argument fails to meet the burden of proof.Kids leaving school was your point: you countered against my rebuttal that the reason kids do not have the ability to become juryman was a matter of circumstance was that children are not required to attend school, and can drop out as a result. You just refuted your own counter. As for learning, this is not true. In fact, in my driver's ed class, we were told to take the permit test the first two weeks into the course; it was a recommendation, actually. When it comes to voting, you are not taking an exam before you finish the course: in the United States, students take Civics and Economics (which teaches political problems and how the government functions) in eighth grade, which would be around age twelve. It is taking an exam several years after taking the course, after doing independent study on your own afterwards to decide your political ideology. I would call that prepared!Yes, sixteen year olds cannot fight. But this is not necessarily a maturity issue: after all, the army did not allow women in combat battalions until only a few months ago in the United States. (1) By this logic, are women not mature enough to handle combat? I doubt you believe this.Experience:Children still have all of those things from their parents, this is true. However, college students have a dependency on their parents as well. Parents send financial support so that their children can afford books, room and board, and basic essentials. As for jobs, teenagers get jobs to afford non-essentials. Games, extra-curricular activities like participating in clubs that require payments (like, ironically enough, Model UN and Youth-in-Government). They do not need to get a job because non-essentials are just that: not essential. They do not need a job; they want a job. This is an important distinction to make. Yeah, I was a tad silly in my reply to them living alone. I should have known you meant living independent of their parents. They are not financially independent, however; they are physically independent however, so point to you on that. But living independently does not mean that they are ready to vote, and not all eighteen year olds get this experience. For example, there are many eighteen year olds who do not go to university and college, and stay at home for several years. These people did not have the experience you describe. Would you deny these people the right to vote due to lack of experience? I doubt you would; as such, why is this an issue of experience, if those who lack experience would still vote?Responsibility:There is no reason to make the assumption that the difference is anything substantial in the span of just two years time. Furthermore, moral development (which includes the ability to make judgments) does not differ much after reaching the autonomous stage of morality, which usually occurs around the age of ten. (2) Therefore, the moral ideas of a sixteen year old likely would not be different from that of the same person two years later.Taxation:That logic doesn't really work for me. Firstly, the child is taxed for these things you mentioned, but the child does not have the ability to vote in support of politicians who support legislator regarding how these tax dollars are to be spent. The child's money is being used without them reaping the benefits of paying them: the right to vote for politicians who will use their tax money in the way they agree with. Secondly, this logic does not work because not all teens pay taxes. Only those who directly purchase things with their own money or those who have a job pay taxes. If these taxes are taken because they benefit the student, why are they not taxing all teens? Or all children for that matter? After all, these benefits affect small children just as much as adolescents.Stability:You vote to prevent worries or pressures. You will have a motivation to vote if you notice that one candidate will negatively effect you if they become a government official. You will vote for the person who will neutrally or positively effect you, would you not? It is the same thing. If you are a well-to-do upper-middle-class teenager, would you support a candidate that would tax your parents more, and likely cause problems for your household financially?Voter turnout:I believe it is sensible to allow sixteen or seventeen year olds to vote (I assume that is what you meant instead of \u201cwork,\u201d but I could be mistaken). Voter turnout benefits the country, because more of the general public's opinions are being heard.Sources:(1) http://www.cbsnews.com...(2) http://psychology4a.com...", "qid": 48, "docid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7597996592521667}]}
{"query": "Should body cameras be mandatory for police?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.", "qid": 49, "docid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8349660038948059}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: \"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.\" Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.", "qid": 49, "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8349549174308777}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8066003322601318}, {"content": "Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings", "qid": 49, "docid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8052620887756348}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don\"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:\"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime,\" states the policy. It adds that, \"(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties.\" http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI\"ll keep this short. There isn\"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven\"t won because I\"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn\"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I\"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses\"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such).\"I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate.\"I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera.\"This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. \"This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?\"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I\"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.", "qid": 49, "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8020094633102417}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.", "qid": 49, "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7803165912628174}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, \" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current \"fair\" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, \"Why is murder wrong? \", the most common response will be, \"Just because it is wrong\". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?", "qid": 49, "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7740704417228699}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7654083967208862}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I\"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I\"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don\"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses \"In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information.\" This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don\"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn\"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn\"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren\"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; \"For 12 months, Rialto\"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, \"the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,\" the study team explains.\" https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don\"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. \"In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion.\" The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as \"must arrest\" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We\"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can\"t tell an officer he can\"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim\"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don\"t we replicate that study in real life?", "qid": 49, "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7599295377731323}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7586512565612793}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. \"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.\" Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. \"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.\" Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. \"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.\" The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. \"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?\" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7578210830688477}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don\"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don\"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see \"Top 20 Drunks\" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don\"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don\"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we\"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted", "qid": 49, "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7512357831001282}, {"content": "Title: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Content: Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00079-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7484102249145508}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- \"Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race\" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that \"betting\" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- \"what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. \" With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- \"i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. \" Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.", "qid": 49, "docid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7465704679489136}, {"content": "Title: If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue. Content: Cameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00075-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7418149709701538}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: \"Body cameras can help an investigation\" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, \"Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.\" As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:\"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\" Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7397342324256897}, {"content": "Title: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras Content: It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00085-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.739059567451477}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00013-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7378954887390137}, {"content": "Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled \"Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy\", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?", "qid": 49, "docid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.736365556716919}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.", "qid": 49, "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7330346703529358}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: \"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments\" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: \"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.\" And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: \"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.\" Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. \"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government.\" I did not. Here is exact quote. \" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair.\" \"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.\" It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. \"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished.\" Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. \"Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone.\" They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. \"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace.\" Which is still a group... thus my point stands. \" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong.\" FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. \"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.\" I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. \"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.\" It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as \"lower racial discrimination\". Whether or not their classification of what counts as \"lower racial discrimination\" is objectively correct, is unknown. \"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.\" And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.", "qid": 49, "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.730277419090271}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: * This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today\u2019s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., \"Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that \u201cthe color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. \u201d The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system \u201cdisempowers people of color. \u201d At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites \u201care arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. \u201d That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the \u201cdisgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. \u201d\"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The \u201che did it because he is African American\u201d approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people\u2019s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., \"Knowledge that events are being recorded creates \"self-awareness\" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts\u2014as well as courts of public opinion\u2014should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., \" During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... \"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed,\" said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. \"However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. \"The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the \u201che did it\u201d and the \u201cno I did not\u201d approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.", "qid": 49, "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7301109433174133}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of \"a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering\" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.", "qid": 49, "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7264113426208496}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7263805866241455}, {"content": "Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b655ce20-2019-04-18T16:46:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7260586023330688}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: To start off, I'd like to address Pro's first attack on my \"positions. \" Pro essentially states that police officers are to be scrutinized for every action that they commit by the regular citizen, due in part to the deference they're paid because of their authority, and because that it is a way to keep such police officers accountable. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it leaves much to be desired, because the entire idea that Pro has built her argument on this point, and indeed the entire debate, around, accountability, seems to be a one-way street. The problem with this form of \"accountability\" coming from Joe Citizen is that there is no ability to make them accountable in reverse. Indeed, with today's technology, there is little to no available means except outright illegality to control the use of these devices for recording purposes during police interactions. Why is this important? Because with Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, any where, police are going to be subject to that person's biases, positive or negative, and the fact that such personal media can be transmitted to people everywhere, including to criminal sources which will use such information to their advantage. This is not a random theory, either - criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police[1]. Given the fact that police officers will have no effective ability to keep those with personal recording devices from committing such acts except to stop them on-the-spot, it seems highly questionable to allow Joe Citizen to keep police officers accountable - something I support - when there is no way to keep them accountable if they themselves break the law and jeopardize officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. The second point that Pro contests is the question of whether or not police officers would be hampered by the knowledge that they were being recorded; Pro, obviously, answers that it is an irrelevant question, as officers in such a situation should not have to act outside of their own respective boundaries, and if they do, should be able to justify such actions whether or not they're recorded. A fair, if misguided answer to this important point; the question, however, is not whether the officers can explain themselves in these situations - no doubt they can if their actions are justified - but whether the officers will feel safe to do them at all. Indeed, and my opponent must agree, something that hampers an officer's ability to make quick decisions on their feet is something that should be looked at with a very skeptical eye as to whether or not it should even be there! Fear is a highly motivating factor in every decision a person makes, and officers do not have the security of knowing whether or not their actions will get accolades or boos. Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment. The third point my opponent notes is that she doesn't know the many regulations and restrictions that govern actions that police officers take out on a beat, during operations, and even during their off-duty periods[2]. The majority of officers follow these rules, and the violators out there that don't should be dealt with, I agree. However, how lacking knowledge on police regulations, and pointing out that bad people exist is an argument, I have no idea. The fourth point my opponent addresses is one dear to my heart - citizen journalism. My opponent has wildly misrepresented my position on this, though not necessarily by her own fault - clarity is something that should always come with a statement like the one I made. My entire point of mentioning the citizen journalism aspect of this was the fact that it can be quite easily distorted for uses beyond those of Pro's noble crusade for accountability. I need not explain the fact that America's national media is already biased beyond all belief, especially to a Canadian used to relatively unbiased public broadcasting. Those biases are in fact bred and fed by the opinions of everyday people, and people seek to exploit this. Notably, people like Andrew Breitbart, or those guys who tapped a sitting Senator's phone lines[3], who try and build a career out of it. The point is this: citizen journalism is fine, and I support it, as clearly does my opponent. But citizen journalism has its positives, and its clear negatives - one of them being that information can be easily distorted to not only change contexts and situations, but often maliciously so, for whatever reason. Police officers, who are to remain impartial and trusted among their respective communities as keepers of the peace, are undermined by the actions of quite a few people who hold the view that officers, no matter their intentions, no matter their standing, and no matter their actions, are basically the scourge of the Earth. Officers, who by a large majority follow the rules and regulations of their profession, do not need such people having the ability to do so, without accountability or measure. My opponent's main argument and conclusion is simply as follows: because police officers have authority, and can abuse this authority, citizens should have means of holding to account police officers. Personal recording devices give citizens the means, and should therefore be legally allowed to record during police interactions. And you know what - I agree with her, or at least her sentiment that police officers must be held accountable. That is an obvious no-brainer, and one that is hard to argue against. But the caveat that recording technology is an acceptable means of achieving those ends is, simply put, wrong. My opponent cites cases, and how in the aftermath the evidence that was provided, photographic evidence of bruises, was not sufficient, and how if a recording device were present, and the user could record without any fear of punishment, the evidence would have been sufficient to win the case. However, not only does my opponent not know whether or not it would have made a difference, indeed it's an almost irrelevant point to bring up, as recording devices were not present anyways. Even in a hypothetical situation where devices could have been present, and recording was fully legal, would those recording still not fear some reprisal? If the police officer's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether it was legal or not? Indeed, when you get right down to it, the question isn't whether or not recording the will make a difference, but whether or not the police should have that kind of authority at all. Do not confuse my position with that of someone who is against First Amendment rights, as stipulated in your Constitution - I fully support your ability to think, do, and say what you please. But like any civil right, it is dependent upon your ability to do so without harmful consequences to other individuals and the public at-large. The ability to record police interactions, whether or not it is in a justified situation with clear-cut abuse, is not necessarily a neutral action; while you may be able to punish abusers, you will also punish those who do not. While you may hold police accountable, the police may not be able to hold those with malicious purposes accountable. And while you may think you're doing the community a service, you may in fact be undermining law enforcement's ability to connect and protect the community they're in. Thank you to Lwerd, and I hope to continue this debate further, as I have much more to say! Sources: 1. . http://bit.ly... 2. . http://bit.ly... 3. . http://bit.ly...", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7246863842010498}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras place security over civil liberties.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7241487503051758}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7236455678939819}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest \"power trips\" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops \"already have to worry about restrictions.\" To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the \"restrictions\" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why \"everyone has to be a journalist\" and report things like this \"whether they're justified or not.\" I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A \"he said, she said\" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a \"private conversation?\" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not \"eavesdropping\" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7236436009407043}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Too few crime cameras are working to fight/deter crime", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00018-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.723478376865387}, {"content": "Title: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Content: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?", "qid": 49, "docid": "95d32768-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7233238816261292}, {"content": "Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: \"Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual\" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.", "qid": 49, "docid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7215768098831177}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install \"Nanny Cams\" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have \"felt safe\" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, \"What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?\" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, \"Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment.\" Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the \"many regulations\" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes \"recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends.\" In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, \"If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?\" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7189462780952454}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help deter crime", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00033-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7175743579864502}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00026-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.716754138469696}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants\" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": 49, "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7157478332519531}, {"content": "Title: The philippines should continue the \"Kill on sight if armed\" law against criminals. Content: Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people\u2019s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.", "qid": 49, "docid": "1733c744-2019-04-18T12:03:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7154020071029663}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras produce additional benefits as improving technology allows them to be used for other p... Content: Speed cameras are a bad idea in their own right, but they present a wider assault on liberty if they can be used for other purposes. Allowing the government to track citizens' every move is a dangerous infringement on the right to privacy. Nor should we be confident in the technology, as recognition systems are very inaccurate and this will lead to may innocent citizens being harassed by the authorities.", "qid": 49, "docid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00019-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.714427649974823}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00011-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7098363637924194}, {"content": "Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.", "qid": 49, "docid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00017-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7086451053619385}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the \"nanny cam\" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found \"... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be \u2018more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable.\" The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being \"misrepresented,\" apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7081745266914368}, {"content": "Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b655ce20-2019-04-18T16:46:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7068762183189392}, {"content": "Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b655ce20-2019-04-18T16:46:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7062033414840698}, {"content": "Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: As a Brit, I'm always fascinated by the differences in cultural / political norms between America and Britain. One such difference, which is the focus of this debate, is that of CCTV cameras. Practical difficulties aside, they are by and large accepted by the British public as a given - clearly something worthwhile, if only they'd be used effectively - whereas the American public seems, as far as I can see, much more wary of the whole issue. That's why this debate is set up: I will argue that there is a moral case for CCTV cameras in public places, and that the moral arguments against CCTV are flawed; and my opponent, naturally, will argue the contrary. We will both have the burden of proof in these regards. I define \"public places\" as places where the general public are allowed access without any legal barriers. The most obvious example of this would be outdoors, on public-access streets and highways, but this would also apply to such places as state-funded schools, libraries and museums. Essentially, this is the state deciding to place CCTV cameras on its own property, in an attempt to have visual evidence of criminal activity and catch criminals accordingly. Hopefully this definition is clear and uncontroversial. I ask that prospective opponents seek any necessary clarifications in the comments section, rather than unnecessarily derail this debate on semantics. Note that I draw a general distinction between any practical arguments for/against CCTV (e.g. whether it deters crime, whether it, as currently constituted, catches criminals etc.) and any moral arguments for/against CCTV. My opponent will obviously be within his/her rights to argue that, in certain circumstances, this distinction is a false one...and dependent on the circumstances I may or may not concede the point...but I wanted to make the general distinction clear, just to avoid this debate being taken up on a false understanding of what will be argued. I ask that this first round be used only to accept this debate, and to define any suitable terms / make any definitional challenges as my opponent may deem necessary. A three-round debate would then proceed as per usual.", "qid": 49, "docid": "59422196-2019-04-18T19:09:19Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7059825658798218}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00017-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.703740119934082}, {"content": "Title: administrative efficiency; ensuring justice Content: This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.", "qid": 49, "docid": "d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00013-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7036932706832886}, {"content": "Title: Council misusing their power Content: Local councils are not using their powers of surveillance to stop the crimes which you or I would consider important. Instead, such instruments are being used as a profit making excuse. Local councils are using the cameras to catch people who do not clean up dog foul and fly tip. To discover whether rights are harmed a balancing exercise needs to take place. The minimal criminal protection which local governments are using the CCTV for is not enough to override our freedom of privacy. This freedom is being threatened for local government's financial benefit, clearly this is not a fair exchange.", "qid": 49, "docid": "d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00009-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7028519511222839}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!", "qid": 49, "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7014833688735962}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00031-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7012235522270203}, {"content": "Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: My opponent's argument is: \"CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified.\" I asked my opponent to specify what mode of morality he and I would be using as a parameter for the debate. He then wrote that we would not be using parameters regarding morality. I then wrote that based on my own morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. Therefore, CCTV cameras in public places are not morally justified. This is true based on the parameters that MY OPPONENT set up. My opponent needs to understand that you must set up some parameters for your debate. I rest my case.", "qid": 49, "docid": "59422196-2019-04-18T19:09:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7010090947151184}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Content: Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as \"extra crime-fighting eyes\". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00081-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7003806829452515}, {"content": "Title: The government should not bow to public pressure Content: There are, as this debate has shown, many perfectly logical reasons for abolishing speed cameras that have nothing to do with avoiding annoying fines. A democratic government should listen to public opinion about speed cameras, and take all the facts into account; they would find that the cameras are simply not an effective solution to the dangers of motoring.", "qid": 49, "docid": "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00018-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6994974613189697}, {"content": "Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: It is one\"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there\"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.", "qid": 49, "docid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6993415355682373}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks to Lwerd for broaching this interesting and controversial topic, and one that I'm sure will lead to a fantastic debate. I only have one thing to clarify: I've never stated that it should be completely illegal to record interactions, but that it can present a very dangerous and disruptive thing for law enforcement to handle. I take the position that restrictions are not unreasonable in order to protect both the officer's privacy and law enforcement's integrity, but that to make it completely illegal is more than a tad extreme. There are much easier ways of enforcing these restrictions while maintaining the ability for citizens to record any crimes committed by police officers and have that admitted as evidence in court or to the media. However, if need be, for this argument I will argue for full illegality. Possibly not important, but I certainly believe is, as knowing someone's motivations for arguing for a certain position. So if I seem not to be taking \"farging people taking picture of the cops\" to heart, you'll know why. Another thing to clarify is that I don't have a very large amount of time to devote to DDO during the afternoons this week, but hopefully we can wrap up this debate by Wednesday, when it'll matter. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6990657448768616}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00030-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6972574591636658}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sounds like a plan to me, Rich. I definitley think that there needs to be some sort of study done to determine whether the traffic cameras are actually effective or are they just a scare tactic and hazard to others. The fact that the cameras will hopefully be looked into further by the government sounds like it would work better that way to see if they are helping. I think we have come to a conclusion, making this the best, most cordial debate ever in the history of debates. Booyah.", "qid": 49, "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6957348585128784}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With citizen recordings, cops are subject to bias. A) Unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? ----> Knowing that they're being recorded acts as a deterrent against police brutality. If an officer knows he's going to be held accountable for his actions, he's far more likely to abide by the law. B) Recording violates privacy ----> There is no violation if they know they're being recorded. It would be obvious to gauge from the tape if they knew they were or not. I would even go so far as to say that hidden cams should be allowed, so long as cops realize they *can possibly* be recorded at any time. However, I don't have to defend that here -- just that recording in general should be permissible. 2. Re: Criminals are using technology to get around police. ----> To re-state exactly what I said in the last round, Con has not presented any evidence that recording cops has or could tamper with police investigations or have detrimental results. How would recording an officer interact with you or another aid criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. If I record a cop talking to me, how is that harming anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. Con has ignored this whole rebuttal and just repeats that people use the internet for crime, which as I said is nothing new, unusual, or even relevant to this discussion. However Con did elaborate (repeat) that police are going to be subject to: A) Bias ----> I've said in the last round, \"Simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. The actions of the officer speak for themselves. Watching a PO threaten someone is not bias; it's a true representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven.\" Instead of responding to these contentions, Con just repeats the fact that officers will be subject to bias completely ignoring my rebuttal explaining contrary. B) Stress caused by videos that misrepresent facts ----> Once again, there's no reason for police to be stressed about possibly being recorded -- especially if the law becomes such that they must know they're being recorded. I've explained how it's easy to prove whether or not a cop was aware of this. Why should they be stressed if they follow protocol, and the tape can verify them acting as such? I've explained that this could be HELPFUL to the cops. Moreover, I've explained in my last point how facts will not be misrepresented and in fact confirmed. C) Privacy concerns ----> I've already explained how this is BS. I notice Con never answered my question about how recording my conversation with a cop violates his right to privacy when in fact he is addressing me... hmm. Also, why is the cops's privacy paramount vs. our right to protect ourself against a monopoly (tyranny) of law enforcement which always favors another officer's word? 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they compromise the law or officer's safety. ----> Once again, I've explained how recording POs will probably not be harmful in any way! Remember that Con never gave us one example of how this could be a bad thing. His only contention, being subject to bias, has been negated and explained how in fact recording can eliminate any hostility toward cops in a questionable situation (unless, of course, they're actually guilty in which case recording would be a good thing!). If not, recording can validate a cop's story. In short though, Con's point about not being able to punish citizens has been negated, and that's probably why he changed the topic. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. ----> Con's source proves my point exactly. He quotes, \"Over 2/3 of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be \u2018more careful' when out on patrol.\" Great! That's exactly what I want! More careful does not equivocate to less safe or more timid. Again, if they accidentally shoot an unarmed man because they thought he was reaching for a gun while he was really reaching for his wallet, nobody's saying being recorded should stop them from acting on their instincts -- in fact, it would validate their reaction. If they believe they're prone to so many mistakes to the point where this would be a problem, then perhaps law enforcement is not for them (and their authority would not benefit society). If \"being more careful\" translates to being more appropriate, I'm all for it. Con's quote continues to note that some officers were scared because they heard other cops were being prosecuted for unlawful arrest. I think this is perfect! Police should NOT be arresting people unlawfully! This once again validates the point that cops would think twice before acting against society and abusing their power. Also, n00b cops being anxious about this proves absolutely nothing considering n00b cops are going to be anxious no matter what, just as we all are with new jobs and especially when we're being recorded regardless of what that job is. Cops saying things will be \"misrepresented\" is completely false as I've explained. Further, cops being against this is totally irrelevant considering ANYONE would vote against being recorded at a new job. 5A. ----> Con's source is comical. It's titled \"police regulations\" but details more about what being a cop entails (i.e. how to be promoted, maternity pay, issues of retirement, etc.) rather than what cops stress out over from the job. In short, being expected to follow the rules is not a negative added stress. It should be of utmost importance and concern and at the forefront of their conscious while working. 5B. ----> Extend my argument of no possible bias. 6. ----> Extend my point that recording can be used to prove that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7A. ----> First, Con admits that recording can protect people against cop abuse and notes \"those incidents should be protected under law.\" However, if recording is all-together illegal, how can this be protected under law? This is seemingly contradictory. 7B. ----> Con says if recording is illegal, but video survives, \"it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed.\" I'm not sure what he is talking about here; if recording is illegal than this would be considered inadmissible evidence in any court, meaning proof of police brutality via video is 100% irrelevant to the case. In any case, I asked Con to explain what a better way of achieving those ends (catching police) would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. Con never responded to this question and can't in the last round. 8. ----> Con says a dirty cop would simply dispose of recorded evidence. First, he may not know he was being recorded. Second, this is unlikely considering it'd probably be easy to prove and he'd get in even more trouble. 9. ----> In conclusion, I pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to assume innocent people would be hurt from this, and that indeed it's a minimal risk. Con simply repeats that if the cop is not acting wrongfully, there's no reason for recording him (which ignores my arguments regarding deterrence, protection and citizen's rights). He also restates that facts can be misrepresented (negated) and cops' privacy violated (also negated). If cops are given so much power, we have the right to protect ourself from tyranny of that power - especially if there is no evidence that recording is overtly harmful or unnecessarily hinders cops in any way. On balance, legalized recording provides us the best safety and protection of society's rights while emphasizing more trust and integrity regarding law enforcement and their relationship with society. Thank you.", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6955190896987915}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00040-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6949903964996338}, {"content": "Title: Absolutely! Content: I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.", "qid": 49, "docid": "dcd97b83-2019-04-19T12:44:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6945676803588867}, {"content": "Title: Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. Content: Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals.", "qid": 49, "docid": "591c4589-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.694318413734436}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Content: Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00078-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6941490173339844}, {"content": "Title: arm the police Content: Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves", "qid": 49, "docid": "2250950f-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6940369606018066}, {"content": "Title: Police officers should be more friendly Content: I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on \"community policing\". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.", "qid": 49, "docid": "e0dffbaa-2019-04-18T14:56:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6935998797416687}, {"content": "Title: Privacy is a Fundamental Right Content: I accept the amended resolution as mentioned in comments.I will argue that privacy is not a fundamental right and therefore road monitoring is within the legitimate business of government.I reject usage of the term 'unauthorised monitoring' as it is uneccessarily prejudicial. Such monitoring may have been sanctioned by the elected representatives of the people without the people being aware of its existence and can thus be authorised by the legitimate government (if we are to assume governmental legitimacy as my opponent suggests). I would instead prefer the term 'unadvertised monitoring' as it does not suffer from this connotation.I would also like my opponent to clarify what precisely he means by surveillance of pedestrians. Does this include surveillance of the sidewalk? Paths within parks that do not border roads? Does the system have the means to identify pedestrians or does it use number plate analysis to determine the registered owner of the vehicle? Presumably facial recognition software could determine the identity of pedestrians and cyclists but it may only be done after the fact, rather than routinely.Perhaps we should take the most extreme example of using biometrics to determine an individual's identity on leaving their place of residence and keeping track of every move they make since this would be where our positions have the most obvious differences. However, I would caution the audience that I do not believe that such a thing is currently possible or that it would be cost effective. I ask that they keep in mind that I am not arguing that such monitoring is the responsibility of government (in fact I would not support such a policy), just that I would not dismiss it for reasons of violation of privacy. I may support a more conservative monitoring programme, but that would depend on its aim and extent.I ask these questions not because they are particularly important to my argument, just that they will give the audience a better idea of what it is that I am actually asserting.A monitoring programme is not to be dismissed based on the right to privacy of citizens, but there may be other reasons to dismiss such a programme.", "qid": 49, "docid": "903add74-2019-04-18T17:24:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6935378909111023}, {"content": "Title: Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated Content: When new crime cameras are being considered and installed in a city, it is typical that the media, civil rights groups, and skeptical citizens exaggerate the claims regarding the implications for privacy, civil liberties, and for the role of Big Brother. Years after the successful implementation of cameras, and with no privacy incidence or abuses, these initial protests appear for what they are - exaggerations and fear mongering.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00072-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6924525499343872}, {"content": "Title: Hi-tech crime cameras help predict and prevent criminal acts Content: James Slack. \"Caught Before the Act\". Daily Mail. November 28, 2008 - \"CCTV cameras which can 'predict' if a crime is about to take place are being introduced on Britain's streets. The cameras can alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering and unusually slow walking. Anyone spotted could then have to explain their behaviour to a police officer.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00046-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.691947340965271}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00037-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.691224992275238}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00024-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6911382079124451}, {"content": "Title: Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy. Content: All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.", "qid": 49, "docid": "95d32768-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6909816861152649}, {"content": "Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: Thank you, Lwerd. 1. a) As my source in Round 2 had shown, the idea that officers are more likely to \"abide by the law\" also comes with side effects that hamper job performance. b) My opponent indeed does have to defend that here. Officers, while public servants, have a right to privacy as much as anyone else. Now, the right to privacy and laws surrounding that are not necessarily limited to just being recorded - it's also how that recording is used. If someone records a police interaction where no abuse occurs and officers are made out to be fools, as some people are prone to try and do, and officers are not aware of this, this is a violation of privacy laws. 2. My opponent seems to have skipped over a good part of my argument, then. The point has been that videos within the possession of the average citizen have no way of being tracked and stopped if they do indeed contain harmful bias, information, or what have you, until they're on the web. This is why it's important to stop it at the soure; if we can place restrictions on the ability to misrepresent or transmit harmful information at the outset, we can save a whole lot of pain occurring on all sides. I believe this is a valid, important point, and my opponent claiming I've done nothing to back it up is ludicrous. My opponent also asks why privacy is important versus protecting citizenry from the \"tyranny\" of law enforcement (obvious bias is bias). To make a point clear, officers are as much the citizenry as citizens are, they're simply those charged with enforcing state laws. While there is an argument to be made over the fact that officers are a \"special class\" of citizens, the fact remains that their privacy, much as the privacy of myself or my opponent, is protected under various legislation and laws. Just as recording someone while committing a crime is not a violation of privacy, recording a cop during any abuse of their power shouldn't be either; but other times, what is the need? 3. I addressed this before. I've also demonstrated several times how recording officers can indeed be harmful; my opponent has never countered any way for which to indeed keep citizens accountable for any actions they may take with recordings that aren't necessarily used to stop police abuse. Indeed, she never even addressed it. 4. If my opponent had read the entirety of the source, she would see it was a mixed blessing; the introduction of CCTV indeed did make officers \"more careful,\" but also ended up intimidating officers and keep them constantly worried about actions that could be misconstrued. It's pretty clear from the outside; officers are prone to be more careful and watch their actions, sure, but at what cost to their job performance? That is what the entire source, and this portion of the debate, has been about. 5a. Pro mocks my source (completely valid if going through all points, which I had to unfortunately and painstakingly do, because such a complete list has been hard to find on the net), and then claims that following the rules doesn't add stress. I'm not quite sure what she means by this, as my point simply was that officers are already subject to many, many rules and regulations on their actions. My opponent concedes that following the rules is of the utmost concern, and I agree - so what is the point of contention here? Indeed, my opponent simply concedes that there is an expectation to follow the rules, and by and large officers do - recording will not necessarily change that. 7. a) My opponen maybe doesn't know, but laws are often contradictory because they're full of exceptions, counter-exceptions, criteria, and judgements. It's not hard to see how a recording penalty should have exceptions, and how the evidence - namely, the recording - must be present at any trial to ensure that either side is simply not making up stories. b) Again, my opponent possibly doesn't understand how the law works. If an illegal gun is used to kill someone, that gun doesn't become inadmissable because its illegal to use. It's considered evidence, and indeed, the tool used to commit the crime. It's fully admissable in court. Even in brutality cases, exceptions can and are made for such evidence. As for my opponents other point, I've said time, and time, and time again - there are exceptions to every rule. If officers are recording committing abuse of their power, there should be exceptions to the law. But if not, then really, what is the point? What are the benefits that outweigh the drawback except for people's amusement? My opponent doesn't say, hm. 8. If the officer was unaware of being recorded, then the point is moot, no? Officers can only stop crimes they see. The second point is a little silly; if an officer is really bent on stopping you from recording, either with this law or not, they will. In conclusion, I'll just say this: I'm not defending a popular position, here. No doubt about it. But I believe I've presented some pretty serious points here, as Pro did as well. The entire, central point though, and my opponent has refused to admit this, is that police officers are people to; they feel the pressures of their job, and have rights under civil code just as the usual citizenry do. There is no doubt they hold a lot more authority than your average citizen, but there are ways to keep this accountable - recording interactions simply is not one of them. I've made and conceded that there should be obvious exceptions to the rule, but my opponent continues forward and says that, no matter what, record officers - even if they aren't doing anything wrong. Even if they're doing something sensitive. Indeed, she wants to sic papparrazzi on the police, more or less, in some valiant crusade against abuse, regardless of what it does to police performance and officer's lives. All well and fine, but if you prefer a more nuanced, balanced approach, that says brutality should be stopped but privacy and performance should not be put at risk, vote CON. Thank you.", "qid": 49, "docid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6900966763496399}, {"content": "Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: Let's look at your rebuttals. \"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.\" Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. \"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.\" 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. \"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.\" 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, \"I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\" This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance", "qid": 49, "docid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6893370747566223}, {"content": "Title: A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Content: The majority of people that try and record interactions with law enforcement are often times detained and told that they do not have the right to record the police. Whether or not it is illegal has been a heated topic in many debates but the point of this debate is whether or not a law should be enacted and the reasoning why.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b655ce20-2019-04-18T16:46:49Z-00006-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6892547607421875}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Content: Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: \"Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade.\"[8]", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00076-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6890180706977844}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras offer conclusive, unbiased evidence in court. Content: New Orleans Mayor Nagin said in 2005 when unveiling his crime camera program: \"These cameras not only record crime, they are witnesses that cannot be intimidated.\"[6] Indeed, when crime cameras capture a crime, they expose the reality of those involved and the details of their actions. They reveal the truth, upon which justice relies. This stands in stark contrast with less detailed testimonies and heresy, making cameras particularly valuable to the justice system.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00065-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6889402866363525}, {"content": "Title: Security scans of children are not pornographic Content: Arthur Weinreb. \"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \"Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren\u2019t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00059-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6888235211372375}, {"content": "Title: freedom of privacy is threatened Content: The House of Lords have expressed their view that privacy is an \"essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom\" (1). We can no longer say that we live private lives when every move is being watched by one out of the four million CCTV cameras in Britain. Our every move is being watched. Such surveillance renders our society as equivalent to a large scale big brother. Our every move can be traced and information can be gathered about our daily activities. If this information were to be misplaced, which central government seems to do frequently, then who knows what other breaches our freedoms will endure. (1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/06/surveillance-freedom-peers", "qid": 49, "docid": "d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00007-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6881319880485535}, {"content": "Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.", "qid": 49, "docid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6880500912666321}, {"content": "Title: Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Content: Round 2: PRO girr29 (vs) CON whitesoxfan450 I look forward to what should be a great debate and discussion about why surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Before we start this round I would assume my opponent would accept the United States as the governmental system in which we talk about in this debate round. If they would like to make this a bigger issue in his next speech then I will address the issue there. I will first start off by defining three key terms to this debate that come to us from the Unabridged dictionary, from dictionary. com. Surveillance \u2013 a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. Public \u2013 open to all persons. Substantially \u2013 something basic or essential; fundamental. I reserve the right to define these terms again and any other terms that might become important throughout the rest of the debate round. Let's move to some argumentation. I: To start things off let's go in depth in the true meaning of this resolution. A: Let's first start by talking about the public areas. Public is defined as open to all persons So therefore, there is no invasion of privacy if the government put up some more cameras in the public. So the government will not be hurting any fundamental or human rights by making more surveillance cameras in public. B: Let's look to the surveillance part of the resolution. Surveillance is defined as a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. So the whole point of surveillance cameras are to keep us safer from the ones in public who are suspicious and could potentially commit suspicious acts. So the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. C: Finally, let's look to the end of the resolution where it says should be substantially increased. That doesn't mean I have to do it, doesn't mean I need to make a plan, all it means is that I just have to agree that\u2026. yes\u2026we should make more surveillance cameras. But furthermore on this substantially is defined as something basic or essential; fundamental. I do believe that is something basic, that is essential, and that it is of course fundamental to improve the protection of the public and it can be done by making more surveillance cameras. II: The resolution affirmed improves the Safety, Security, and Stability of society. A: Safety, Security, and Stability, or as I like to call them, the three Ss, are inherent rights that a society deserves. By increasing the number of cameras in public areas, the three Ss have more potential to stand. That is why I do believe that the resolution should be affirmed because the three Ss should be upheld and that's why we should substantially increase the number of surveillance cameras in public. B: The fewer cameras there are, the higher chance of crime happening. If suspicious characters know there are less surveillance cameras watching them, they will be more willing to commit criminal acts. As a report in the csmonitor talked about in 2007 about surveillance cameras, \"a lot of the time people don't like the fact that big brother is watching them, but the matter of the fact is that big brother keeps us safe. Without someone watching us, this country would be a lot worse off. \" By having more surveillance cameras we truly do what is right for the public. III: A substantial increase SHOULD happen. A: Some arguments that might be brought up in this debate round are that I am trying to implement a plan or trying to make something happen. But that is not the burden of the pro in this round. I believe that all I have to prove is that it should happen. So I don't have to discuss how much money or man hours it would take to make more cameras go up or any real logistics of the situation, just that it should happen. B: The only argumentation that the con can really only bring up is that more surveillance means more watching over us like a big brother. But that shouldn't be a reason to not do something. Just because people don't liked being watched, doesn't mean we sacrifice our all together safety, security, and stability. So at the end of this debate round you have to look at the wording of the resolution. My first contention talks about the wording of the resolution and the importance of that. Then in my second and third I basically bring up the points about how the three Ss are protected on the pro, and that all I have to prove is that this should happen and I don't have to implement a plan.", "qid": 49, "docid": "8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.687041699886322}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns. Content: Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely. I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go. Rules: This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later. No forfeiture All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere No trolling My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions The BOP is shared First round is acceptance and definitions only. My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4. Good luck Con.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b97c1aa6-2019-04-18T14:22:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6869839429855347}, {"content": "Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.", "qid": 49, "docid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6847476959228516}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: I am affirmative for the Resolve: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised. I will wait for the negative/con to accept this debate and then following their post that ONLY accepts, I will post the 1AC speech and the debate shall begin. Thanks and good luck!", "qid": 49, "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6839433908462524}, {"content": "Title: administrative efficiency; ensuring justice Content: The Jean Charles Menezes case would not have been able investigated as thoroughly as it was were it not for the CCTV footage which was obtained at the Stockwell tube station where he was shot. A more recent example where CCTV has been used in the justice system is with the trial of the murderer of Rhys Jones. Such a heinous act would still be lingering and unsolved were it not for the ever watchful eye of the CCTV cameras. Such justice and peace of mind cannot be equated to \"freedom of privacy\".", "qid": 49, "docid": "d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00014-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.683802604675293}, {"content": "Title: yes yes yes check check check. Content: Yes let parents have the option to check someone to find out if someone is a pathetic peado. Save the children not the pathetic pervo. Anyone who objects to this have something to hide ?. And more street cameras will help society, that is if there is a real punishment for the offenders which unfortunately at the moment there is not.", "qid": 49, "docid": "bcb55956-2019-04-19T12:45:33Z-00011-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6833040714263916}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy. Content: Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that\u2019s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00071-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6828866600990295}, {"content": "Title: Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. Content: Good luck! ============================================== \"Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. \" ============================================== The resolution clearly states that \"Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. \". You are pro which means that you must show why security cameras are not invasions of privacy. All you have written is that they can stop crimes and identify criminals. This does not show why they are not an invasion of privacy. I could say that keeping every person under 18 in the U. S. in prison cell filled with security cameras and guarded by security personel woud stop murders by people inder 18 but that hardly proves that it would not be an invasion of privacy and a violation of rigts. I await my opponent's response.", "qid": 49, "docid": "591c4589-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6826947927474976}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Shift in crime means cameras are working, should be expanded", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00029-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6823316812515259}, {"content": "Title: Warning !.... Content: I believe that photo-radar cameras used to take pictures of drivers as a way of lay enforcement should be illegal. As a citizen of Arizona, our state recently tried to use these cameras set up in various areas to try to catch speeders. For about two years we had these cameras up and as of this last year they were taken down. I will explain why. They are ineffective! What happens when they set up these cameras is that people know where they are. They may be speeding, but if they know a camera is coming up they will slow down just for the camera and then speed back up. Sure, it may catch people every now and then, but then what? What happens once they take your picture of you speeding and your drivers license? Well, they send you a letter. That's it. Many people I know have disregarded these letters and gotten away just okay. But say on the slim chance an officer of the law delivers this letter to you, how does he prove it was you driving the vehicle? He can't! I let friends or family borrow my car all the time. It would be absurd to punish someone if they were not the one driving. I propose that these cameras be illegal because of their ineffectiveness.", "qid": 49, "docid": "b99bced-2019-04-18T18:57:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6821078062057495}, {"content": "Title: Burq/niqab ban preserves identification for fighting crime Content: Jean Francois-Cope. \"Tearing away the veil.\" New York Times. May 4th, 2010: \"This face covering poses a serious safety problem at a time when security cameras play an important role in the protection of public order. An armed robbery recently committed in the Paris suburbs by criminals dressed in burqas provided an unfortunate confirmation of this fact. As a mayor, I cannot guarantee the protection of the residents for whom I am responsible if masked people are allowed to run about. [...] The visibility of the face in the public sphere has always been a public safety requirement. It was so obvious that until now it did not need to be enshrined in law. But the increase in women wearing the niqab, like that of the ski mask favored by criminals, changes that. We must therefore adjust our law, without waiting for the phenomenon to spread.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "4bbb8c92-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00129-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6806517839431763}, {"content": "Title: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Content: Jenny Rees. \"City cameras 'don't cut crime'\". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - \"they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00047-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6804187297821045}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras Content: As my opponent stated, today\"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be \"fair\". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered \"legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of \"right\" and \"justice\" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of \"justice\". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their \"unjust\" (according to you) punishment.", "qid": 49, "docid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6801658868789673}, {"content": "Title: arm the police Content: Arming the police is a necessary step", "qid": 49, "docid": "2250950f-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6797476410865784}, {"content": "Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras are too costly for too few benefits", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6793420910835266}, {"content": "Title: Benefits of crime cameras may not be reflected in crime rates. Content: John Firman, the director of research at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said a 2007 ABC article: \"We know cameras enhance that capacity but saying for sure that they reduced crime by 20 percent, that's another thing. Anecdotally, we know that they have had an impact.\"[1]", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00049-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6780478954315186}, {"content": "Title: information gathered used to fight terrorism Content: Such examination is only utilised in a society if it is revealed to society. At present, we are not informed of any terrorist activity before it occurs, we are merely left to carry on with our daily lives. We receive no benefit. As with the Twin Towers, when it was held that there was intelligence as to the plane hi-jackers intentions, yet it was not given serious thought. To justify an encroachment upon our right, surely the CCTV cameras should provide some benefit for us individual members of society. Retroactive action is simply not good enough.", "qid": 49, "docid": "d7776593-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00011-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6777646541595459}, {"content": "Title: Recruitment will be adversely affected if the police are armed Content: The police themselves are calling for more routine arming in the United Kingdom, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. To the contrary, recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, as easy targets for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.", "qid": 49, "docid": "2250950f-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00019-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6777210235595703}, {"content": "Title: Spending on cameras for a \"sense of safety\" is wasteful Content: Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - \"not all city officials think it's wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents.\"", "qid": 49, "docid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00062-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6777073740959167}, {"content": "Title: The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community. Content: The argument that there is never a valid reason for a civilian police force to possess military technology is na\"ve. The problem lies not with the equipment but rather with judicious use thereof as well as with the quality of the our civic officers. I am not arguing that Keene, NH needs a tank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but not all militarization in the police force is bad or unwarranted.", "qid": 49, "docid": "e8129322-2019-04-18T15:46:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.677375078201294}, {"content": "Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Being generous, I'll ignore the problematic wording of the motion. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to assume the resolution to be functionally equivalent to: \"Cameras should be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be publicly televised.\" I await dasamster's arguments.", "qid": 49, "docid": "ee8b1d4c-2019-04-18T19:09:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6769075393676758}, {"content": "Title: CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified Content: It is unfortunate that my opponent hasn't engaged with the spirit of this debate. Nonetheless, I could understand his approach if I had actually made some semantic error in my resolution, allowing him to argue on some marginal case. I have, however, not done so - in his attempt to argue from semantics, my points have been misrepresented and misunderstood. My opponent said: \"How was it clear what mode of morality I was going to debate when I \"took the Con side of this debate\"? ? Can you read minds? I would be interested in how you perform such sorcery. \" Re-reading my statement, I said: \"Yes, he has chosen his own morality. That much was clear the moment that he took the CON side of this debate. \" This does not imply that I knew exactly how my opponent would argue his case. It only says that I knew he would take a position in this debate (i. e. that he would choose his own morality). How did I know that he would take a position in this debate? Because he accepted the debate, as CON. And, indeed, he has taken a position - namely, that, \"CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified\" - even if it is an unargued one. QED. My opponent further said: \"Your premise is that \"CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified\". You did not set up parameters for the argument. \" This is simply false, for the reasons that I painstakingly laid out in the last round, and the one before that. Furthermore, it is not a \"premise\" that CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified - that is the \"resolution\". There are multiple arguments that I have deployed in favour of this resolution, each of which have their own premises. For each of these multiple arguments, there are various ways that my opponent could have attacked them. I set out parameters for the debate, clearly showing my opponent how he could have argued against the resolution. He did not. My opponent finished his round by arguing that: \"All I needed to do was to show that based on some set of morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. I did this in the last round. \" No, that is not accurate. I have given arguments for my morality. I have set out a framework by which it is possible to argue against this morality. (Which, by the way, I shouldn't have needed to do, but I did anyway. ) Given the framework set out, and the arguments that I have given in accordance with this framework, he would need to actually GIVE arguments for his morality. As he has not done so, I win by default. Furthermore, were he to try and attack my arguments now, it would be grossly unfair: this being the last round of this debate, I would not have any reasonable chance to respond in kind. Even under this scenario, I urge a straight PRO win due to the circumstances; or, at the very least, a 4-3 vote for PRO, in alignment with the voting categories. I rest my case.", "qid": 49, "docid": "59422196-2019-04-18T19:09:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6762900352478027}, {"content": "Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. \"Cameras merely observe,\" no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?", "qid": 49, "docid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.676145613193512}]}
{"query": "Should everyone get a universal basic income?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8214011192321777}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8142110109329224}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).", "qid": 50, "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8033527135848999}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7952125072479248}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says \"And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government\" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled \"Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" And in this article they explain what negative income tax is \"The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate\"which is to say, the IRS would pay them.\" Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. \"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.\" The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress\"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. \"Automation Is Killing These Jobs.\" Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. \"1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future.\" CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. \"The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income.\" FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. \"Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?\" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. \"Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny.\" Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. \"\"Universal Basic Income\" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.", "qid": 50, "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7948977947235107}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "qid": 50, "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7948040962219238}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.", "qid": 50, "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7942863702774048}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis\"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can\"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don\"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual\"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The \"public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone\"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state \" and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into \"real freedom\" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals\" \"power to say no\", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that\" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that\" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor\"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, \"This unpaid work is valuable and\"UBI is recognition of that.\" Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. \"There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers\"\" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor\"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor\"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they\"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that\"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people\"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers\" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids\" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.", "qid": 50, "docid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7819099426269531}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI Content: I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.", "qid": 50, "docid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7800425291061401}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7753740549087524}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn\u2019t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they\u2019re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda\u2019s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that \u201crelative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%\u201d [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That\u2019s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you\u2019re eligible. This can lead to what some call the \u201ccliff effect\u201d: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, \u201c[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.\u201d [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can\u2019t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here\u2019s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn\u2019t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that\u2019s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7655377388000488}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: You have still failed to identify my main point... a UBI system is not a feasible replacement for welfare. The truth is, ordinary middle class, working citizens in their prime working age range DO NOT require the payment from a UBI system. It baffles me how you have failed to understand why currently, there is no country who has even begun to seriously consider this. The only country so far to pass a referendum is Switzerland, in which it was rejected 3 to 1. You claim to be Australian, I am as well. However, in your last argument, you failed to tell me how I was misinformed on the Aboriginal debate. Over the last 5 years, I have worked closely with a school foundation providing not financial funds, but things such as toiletries and access to health and nutritional education to a small town community with a large percentile of Aboriginal residents. We have seen that these provisions seem to have led to a greater improvement in the overall health of the community and we have even begun to get in close contact with some of the elders. But, back to the UBI point, I will once again enlighten you on reality. The truth is, many citizens in civilisation are born disadvantaged. Some children have parents with a bad influence, others have faced abused as young children and in many cases, these people end up broken mentally the homeless people on streets living off welfare. It is not that they are lazy and refuse to work. They were never taught the work ethic and never experienced a feeling of belonging to our society. These are the members of society who require the help of welfare. You seem to be overly confident that you have found a feasible UBI solution. However, you fail to realise that if you, genuinely, had found a practical, feasible UBI solution, you would not be on debate.org arguing. The popularity of a notion is directly correlated to how practical and real it is for the rest of society.", "qid": 50, "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7606010437011719}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: Well to that, I will simply reply... Your first point is actually a very reasonable and valid solution, however, proposing such a tax reform and welfare slash would definitely NOT be popular with the public. This is evident in Switzerland wherein 2016, a UBI referendum was rejected. Trials are being run in many countries in Africa along with Finland, however, countries such as Australia and America have yet to seriously consider this. In Australia, a $20 000 UBI was proposed. The cost of this would be twice the current cost of the current welfare system. Additionally, regarding your point on homeless people and their spending, in Australia, there is a huge cultural debate on Aboriginal welfare. In fact, in many towns, the government has begun to introduce an income card/ food voucher system. The reality is, disadvantaged members of society in both America and Australia receive generously from the welfare system. These provisions are enough to provide basic housing, food and water. However, despite this, these people still sleep on streets and beg for money for food. Alcohol and drugs are a huge reason behind this. There is debate trying to push a nation-wide income card system for welfare receivers, however, this is argued to be a breach of human rights with no supporting evidence. The main problem is, there is lack of public funding to support an investigation which would be both lengthy and costly. In fact, if the government would manage (somehow) to pass a tax reform on private industries, the money would be much better off refining the current welfare system instead of abolishing it completely and replacing it with an impractical UBI system. The main aim of welfare is to aid disadvantaged members of society, not to make government money distribution equal.", "qid": 50, "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7446761727333069}, {"content": "Title: That UBI should be implemented in the western world Content: As someone who lives in Australia and has personal experience with the Aboriginal debate, you are again misinformed. I will now lay out my rebuttal Rebuttal Popularity Difference between income card and UBI Abolish not refine Addressing your point on popularity. This debate is about whether they should do so, not how the government would get it through Parliament. Besides, your reason for the popularity was a $20,000 proposal. However, I am proposing a $10,000 UBI, which as logic entails is the correct amount of the budget. You pointed out that the income card doesn't work. This is true, but that is not what we are suggesting, isn't a card to control what you spend your welfare on, which is what an income card is, we are suggesting we give them money free for them to spend. You said that we should refine the welfare instead of replacing it with completely different system, however, the welfare program has been proven not to work as any amount above it's small benefit window and you lose the welfare leaving you with less. In conclusion, UBI is a better system, as opposed to normal welfare. This debate is not about getting it through Parliament, or what completely different systems do. This debate is about, what has already been proven as the better system, UBI.", "qid": 50, "docid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7442910075187683}, {"content": "Title: Poverty can and should be eradicated Content: I believe we can {and afford} to ensure the income of every adult is over the poverty line {be it through welfare payments or something else}. I believe we can also ensure that everyone has access to adequate amounts of what is commonly viewed as the necessities of life. Food, clothing and can provide adequate long-term shelter. I don't believe the statements that some people choose to be poor or do not take personal responsibility means we can't help them out of poverty. We still have in place mechanisms to ensure they don't live in poverty and have access to food, clothing and shelter.", "qid": 50, "docid": "bd279ebb-2019-04-18T15:00:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7438557744026184}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7432885766029358}, {"content": "Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: I thank you for your interesting response. I still believe you are incorrect in this matter. If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. That would make that worker's income actually less than those of the increased incomes of all of the welfare recipients in the house should he quit. This is not how we create a productive society; neither is welfare. But if people are going to need welfare, it shouldn't be taxed. And if it were taxed, what makes you think the amount given would increase to compensate? The only way this concept wouldn't just be fader for confusion is in the situation of a family. A household that has a sufficient income to support everyone yet some members of the household still receive welfare. I don't think this is a case for tax-reform but more a case for the government being more conservative with welfare in general.", "qid": 50, "docid": "279d25e7-2019-04-18T18:10:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7423964142799377}, {"content": "Title: Capitalism is better than socialism. Content: A \"everyone wins\" situation is indeed possible, they just need a large computer to find a average wealth and than tax and give money until that is reached, and every payday just enough is made to sustain that goal, and than the leftover is used to help those who used more money. Yes, there is a reason that the little man can't strive to elevate himself, if he is stuck in the projects of a bad city, and he nor his family can afford education, or their taxes, than they have a son who makes $7.50 an hour flipping burger at a McDonald's. yes there would be burger flippers, but they would get paid more and could live better. Yes benefits are available, but they don't cover everybody fully. I believe you said it \"Not everybody needs, or indeed deserves to live a life of luxury.\" If we don't need it the government can have it, and spread the wealth. One should be glad that they have worked hard to help others. Yes there would be those who are dragged down, but there also will be those who are brought up it is unfair to sum but fair to others. Yea the freedom of speech is a good thing, but few people listen. The government needs to take control because as I said before \"So many people are incompetent\" and can make the wrong choice, that is why a good ruler in important, if the ruler isn't good than eliminate him. No we don't like to be told what to do, but we need to be lead. We can take control of our lives under the government, there are just limits, and nothing could go wrong and life will be good. I didn't say spelling, I understand that in the UK though we all speak English we have different words, like you cay \"earnt\" we have words like \"hecka\" and \"borne,\" you don't use the word borne?", "qid": 50, "docid": "ca267606-2019-04-18T19:29:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7389626502990723}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals\"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? \"Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these \"welfare bums\" actually reenter the job market. ---\"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. \"Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. \"The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. \" [4]----\"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology\"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.", "qid": 50, "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.738930344581604}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I\u2019ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there\u2019s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That\u2019s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con\u2019s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI\u2019s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal\u2019s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples\u2019 financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con\u2019s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI\u2019s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there\u2019s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because \u201cnone are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States\u201d, but no explanation is given as to how those countries\u2019 markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn\u2019t the basic principle I\u2019ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con\u2019s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it\u2019s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they\u2019re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are \u201cbetter\u201d, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn\u2019t imply that it isn\u2019t in need of reform, or that it doesn\u2019t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn\u2019t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I\u2019ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7371844053268433}, {"content": "Title: Is a Flat Tax Fair Content: Everyone paying the same percentage in taxes would be fair if everyone worked about as hard as each other. If everyone works equally hard, then I agree a flat tax should be used. However, this is far from reality. Those in the top percentages of incomes consistently have to do very little work to maintain their same income. Those who are poor, however, often expend a great deal of effort just trying to find a job. While big business tycoons can relax in their corporate headquarters knowing they're making dollars per second, the poor may have to work all day or all night just to make less than enough money to live on. It's not fair that these two incredibly different groups of people should have to pay the same percentages. The rich can afford to pay significantly higher taxes, as it doesn't affect them nearly as much since they have such high incomes. The poor can't, since they have so little.", "qid": 50, "docid": "f4d27813-2019-04-18T13:28:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.730949878692627}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wages Laws Having Economic Effect Should Be Abolished Content: There are two ways to determine \"what people deserve.\" On way is to let the free market decide. In that case, the resolution is affirmed. Another way is for a democratic society to determine some arbitrary standard. If an arbitrary amount is determined by society, then the population as a whole should make the payment, and no attempt should be made to transfer society's burden to an individual employer. Society should provide welfare benefits, if that is to be done. All other arguments in favor of the resolution stand unrefuted.", "qid": 50, "docid": "c20f07e-2019-04-18T19:27:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7290650010108948}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income is a good thing Content: I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach \"climax\" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a \"bad thing\" for the moment.", "qid": 50, "docid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7288455963134766}, {"content": "Title: welfare promotes laziness Content: The basis of my argument is that by giving people the option to welfare by human nature they will rely on government aid as long as it is offered. Let us first look at the number of people drawing welfare which in 1994 was around 15 million people, and is obviously risen a significant amount since that time. During my extensive research of this topic one thing has became aware to me, that if given the option people will allow others to do the work for them without themselves doing anything. Lets use logic for a moment, if someone offered you the chance to have everything you need payed by another person, who would decline? There are no circumstances that someone would not decline to that proposition. There are a several ways in today's age that people can obtain some sort of government help. Out of all these options there are \"loop holes\" in everyone that would allow some one to get away from having to work. That is my opening argument, its not in depth but i will wait for my opponent to argue his view of the topic.", "qid": 50, "docid": "9892d9e8-2019-04-18T18:46:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7283976078033447}, {"content": "Title: Money is killing us Content: Thank you for the response \ud83d\ude00 reading your response it is clear that you are prioritising money in your arguments, I agree with a few things you said, people should work hard and earn to support their family, but my topic is not on this subject, it is on prioritising basic human rights (water, food, shelter, clothing) first, over anything, then the rest can fall into place. It has now been almost half a century since we put man on the moon just think of how advanced we are now, has poverty advanced? We are responsible for this planet and its growth not money.", "qid": 50, "docid": "41134dbf-2019-04-18T13:55:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7281482815742493}, {"content": "Title: Laws supporting certain individual groups shouldn't be implemented permanently. Content: Let's start things off with the basic factor that I should get out of the way, I don't disagree with the idea that individuals should be receiving equal treatment, Along with equal opportunities, But what I do disagree with is that every individual, No matter the background, Should be equal to everyone else. In theory, Many would like to assume that this idea is pushing towards the pinnacle achievement of supporting minorities and the ones in peril as many people in the world don't have the fortunes that some have acquired through the means of family benefit or heritage. It's important to implement the necessary means in helping these people but to allow some individual groups to acquire certain benefits that are easily abusable to certain people I think is dangerous and should be taken down without much hesitation. Since this is the start I would like my views a bit broad since I do not wish to reveal my strong arguments yet, Along with the reason of allowing open opportunities for plausible arguments. Thank you. The floor may go to the Opposition.", "qid": 50, "docid": "bc8970dc-2019-04-18T11:07:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7275492548942566}, {"content": "Title: The Negative Income Tax Content: I accept your challenge over this very interesting subject.I've been following with interest the Swiss debate over introducing a guaranteed minimum revenue. To be honest I'm still undecided myself over this issue. However I do have a bunch of rational arguments against it. Furthermore, as I currently live in a country, Belgium, where there is already a huge welfare coverage (guaranteed income for everyone (about 400 \u20ac pm), Generous child benefits or the state topping up revenue as an incentive for employment) I will not just list arguments why a country should not apply \"Negative Income Tax\". I will also try to analyze factual negative results of it being enforced (Socially and Economically) Having said that, good luck and may the best win", "qid": 50, "docid": "ac032197-2019-04-18T15:34:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7274643182754517}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be abolished. Content: I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage. Your response?", "qid": 50, "docid": "fdc31592-2019-04-18T19:40:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7268093824386597}, {"content": "Title: The US ought to provide an universal basic income. Content: I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.", "qid": 50, "docid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.724971354007721}, {"content": "Title: Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools Content: There's no reason to treat this any different from the other basic needs like housing, food, water etc. and we still have to pay for those as well. Instead we should just make sure that the situation where there are people with too little money to even pay for these basic needs cannot occur, for example by paying decent unemployment benefits.", "qid": 50, "docid": "f3984cdd-2019-04-18T12:39:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7245305180549622}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more \"buIIshit jobs\" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the \"negative incentives\" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These \"negative incentives\" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered \"below\" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7236409783363342}, {"content": "Title: Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society Content: There are many things we consume but can\u2019t be measured, healthcare, national defence and education, for example. How do we decide how much everyone should pay for them? To answer just one of the points raised, the childless should pay for other people's children to be educated because education does not just benefit the individual - the benefits a literate worker brings to the economy are such that everyone benefits. A direct tax is fair and progressive, because it demonstrates that we all have equal responsibility for the welfare of others. We live in a state where we believe in helping each other, rather than being selfish and helping only ourselves. That is why we have free public transport for the over-60s and the disabled, that's why we have state education, and why we formed the NHS sixty years ago. None of these would be possible without direct taxation.", "qid": 50, "docid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00041-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7235685586929321}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life. Content: Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.", "qid": 50, "docid": "c905620-2019-04-18T11:23:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.723556637763977}, {"content": "Title: disabled ppl must pay more taxes Content: You aren't giving much of an argument, So I don't have much to work with. If you could give me a clear argument, Then I can debate with you easier. I personally disagree because I believe everyone should have an equal opportunity, As you may be born into a life of such disabilities. Why do you believe the disabled should pay more taxes?", "qid": 50, "docid": "df93d9c6-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7231715321540833}, {"content": "Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: :If you're suggesting that a single income in a household should taint all of the welfare recipients in said household, then you are missing something obvious. Example: a husband's income, who cares for his stay-at-home wife and three adult children, will be the sole qualifying income of any of the five members of this household. If the husband makes more than the threshold, then NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD is eligible for welfare. This is how welfare works, currently.Furthermore, if Pro had his way, the welfare would only be taxable to the one who receives it, not to any other member of the household, regardless if they have income or not, thus one could still have zero taxable income. I must reiterate that HOUSEHOLD income is a factor for welfare, not just the individual's income. So, if I live with my parents, and they buy me food and whatnot, then our combined three incomes are used to qualify. However, if they let me live there, but they do not feed me, then only my income is used to qualify because we are not a household \"unit\", we just simply live together. So, Con's claim that I am missing something obvious is false, as one income does, in fact, taint all the welfare available to those in his household. Because expenses are the driving factor, not wealth, a wealthy man, living off his non-interest-bearing savings account, could receive welfare to buy his food. Are we to reward him for refusing to spend his money?None of my points have been refuted:1. The effect of taxing welfare is unknown, but we know that at worst, it has minimal effect. However, if the vast majority has no income, then they have a negative taxable income. So part, if not all of the welfare, would be not taxed.2. Welfare is paid due to choices (i.e. expenses), and if someone wants to retain their wealth or maintain their lifestyle, it is only fair that they potentially pay taxes on this benefit. Similarly, if they choose not to work as much as they could, choose to keep the children they can't afford, choose to drive the car they can't afford, or choose to maintain a residence they can't afford, they should potentially pay taxes on any welfare received.3. My opponent has refused to comment on why aid to the elderly (social security), divorced (alimony), children (child support), and unemployed (UI payments) are taxed, but aid to the poor is not. This is not equal treatment under the law.For these reasons, judges must vote Pro. The only counter-argument offered was one of emotion (the plight of the poor), but no evidence was offered to support this claim, only the generalization of the poor and the fallacious conclusions drawn from them.", "qid": 50, "docid": "279d25e7-2019-04-18T18:10:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7229714393615723}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7229612469673157}, {"content": "Title: There should be no incremental tax brackets, just one percentage for everyone Content: Right but you missed my point - I'm not saying there should be a set amount that everybody pays. I'm saying there should be one percentage. By the very nature of a percentage, the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less. If everybody pays 15% then someone who earns $20,000 a year is going to pay $3000 in tax and someone who earns $150,000 is going to pay $22,500. Therefore, I fail to see why gradually increasing the actual percentage someone pays is the only means by which the rich pay more and the poor pay less. The only fair system, where everybody pays their actual share of their actual wage, is that the same percentage applies to everybody. I didn't advocate for a flat tax. I advocated for one tax bracket.", "qid": 50, "docid": "1e94668a-2019-04-18T11:39:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7224138975143433}, {"content": "Title: Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed. Content: So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need", "qid": 50, "docid": "f1399828-2019-04-18T19:51:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7222344875335693}, {"content": "Title: The Welfare State is outdated and there are more efficient alternatives Content: I believe the Welfare state, the government rule giving benefits to those in need of support through benefit payments and services, is outdated and in need of a replacement. First of all the welfare state is about merit goods i.e. goods that give significant benefits to the individual consuming them and to society as a whole. However people undervalue these and what I mean by that is that if these goods/services cost they wouldn't be bought by everybody. A few examples come to mind for example, education. It is free but some people wouldn't buy it if it did cost. So, the costs to the government or the nation as a whole for that matter. The welfare state costs an awful lot of money to the government, peoples hard earned income is being distributed to some people who claim to have a disability or in desperate need of income but in actual fact are taking advantage of this badly formed concept and claiming benefits they don't need. Also I believe some people may be overlooked by the government when they do meet the criteria to gain these benefits because the background search of some people is not thorough enough. This has become a problem as a lot of people have discovered this 'loophole' and are taking advantage of it. The alternatives to the welfare state include increasing the role of the voluntary sector. This means making people responsible for other people and caring for each other as a community. This may not seem like it would work but I believe a system could be put in place so everyone has to contribute to the community. I also believe some adjustments could be made to the welfare state such as making it universal although this does have its drawbacks. In conclusion I think everyone should play a bigger role in shaping our community and caring for the elderly and the unable instead of just giving them a bit of money in which the government expect them to know what to use it for.", "qid": 50, "docid": "65aa6605-2019-04-18T17:01:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7206624150276184}, {"content": "Title: Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works Content: I believe that the second option is viable. The state should provide an income safety net for those who, through sickness (physical or mental), age, or disability, cannot work; and those who can, but for whom no jobs are available. There are many people in the current economy who cannot find work despite having the ability to do work; it is not their fault.The opponent's plan isn't feasible, because then the government would be artifically creating jobs and thereby dominate the job market. Such an action would allow the government to greatly influence the market. This would lead to a system that is far more socialist than our country strives to be, leaving the current market vulnerable to harsh government intervention.", "qid": 50, "docid": "228a1f7f-2019-04-18T18:15:41Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7202940583229065}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: I am not going to provide any definitive arguments until the second round after my opponent clarifies his premise.Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.Why does everyone need to be covered under a universal system, be it Medicare or single-payer? Once, my opponent answers this, I will offer all of my arguments in Round 2.", "qid": 50, "docid": "5fb07803-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7199740409851074}, {"content": "Title: Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the standard of living of all households. ... Content: Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the standard of living of all households. There is an absolute minimum quality of life, below which families should not fall. A minimum wage that had no effect on employment would be unnecessary, especially as the wage rate is not necessarily the main consideration of employers when hiring workers.", "qid": 50, "docid": "8852e5bc-2019-04-19T12:44:15Z-00010-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7199686765670776}, {"content": "Title: I Should Stop Working and Go on Welfare Content: I accept the above listed rules and round outline. In addition: I would like to note that I am pleased this topic was suggested in the private exchange Kescarte_DeJudica and I have been engaged in, and that he views me as the most suitable opponent for this debate. As we have both agreed, debating the topic of welfare as it specifically relates to one person will provide a unique and refreshing insight into the Pro and Con arguments. Rather than arguing for the collective, we will be arguing for the individual. This debate will not propose what is best for society, but what is best for Kescarte_DeJudica. Naturally, I intend to show that on balance, the detriments to him receiving welfare as opposed to earning an income through employment are greater than any assumed benefits. My arguments will follow in an orderly fashion, and will comprise of clear and well-presented points throughout. I ask that judges keep one primary question in mind whilst voting: who has the strongest arguments and counter-arguments? Similarly to my opponent, I expect this debate to be both entertaining and educational. I look forward to reading his arguments, and I wish him good luck!", "qid": 50, "docid": "5ca6a540-2019-04-18T11:32:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7189871668815613}, {"content": "Title: The Affordable Health Care Act Content: I refer you back to the point I made about very hard-working people that do fundamental jobs but are on a low income- even if you compare nurses, who I am sure you agree are more than essential in the very healthcare we are discussing, are on relatively low incomes compared to many other jobs, for example executive managers. The fact of the matter is that some career lines have higher potential incomes than others and there is no way for everybody to earn the same amount of money, even if every person in the world put in the same amount of effort, yet you are suggesting that they should be penalised for that. In truth, if every person were able to earn the same wage, then money would be useless. The tax system as it is, where you pay a proportion of your wage, is much fairer than to say that every person must pay the same amount- if you consider that 10% of the population holds 50% of the worlds wealth, I'm sure that you would end up paying more. As it stands, the higher your income, the more you pay in tax, but you also take home more than anybody with a lower income. You also appear to be implying that the only thing that encourages people to work is healthcare when in reality there are much bigger issues at hand such as paying for a roof over your head and food to fill your stomach. People that choose not to work are a whole separate matter; paying their healthcare will make a negligible difference to them deciding whether to work or not. However the issue lies with those that are stuck in low paying jobs, positions that every economy needs to be filled in order for the country to continue to run smoothly, but that don't give much room for advancement as these people make up a significant proportion of the population whereas the higher tax for the richest of the population is not likely to make a significant difference to their income.", "qid": 50, "docid": "b9c4a66e-2019-04-18T17:05:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7184157967567444}, {"content": "Title: Captialism Is Good Content: What I am saying is the redistribution of wealth is tantamount to building a fairer society. Without going into my political and economic aspirations, the system is broken and the already wealthy are exploiting everyone below them creating an ever increasing inequality gap by doing the very thing your proposing we all should do. I have visions of a Dickensian style Distopian future were we all keep what we earn whilst the world around us falls into a decay of broken health services, street sweepers rusting in a ditch, and orphaned children roaming the streets in search of food all because you kept what you earned and did not give some to someone else. We all have to pay our way to maintain society. We all have to work together. Call it an all inclusive ticket to cohesion. It does not necessarily mean more government, although, if governments were what they are supposed to be and that is our servants and not try to be our rulers then i\"m sure more government would be fine. Actually the more people with power would mean the power is not centralized like it is now, making it much less corrupting. Why should the private sector grow to give more money to the government if we should all keep what we get? No more government jobs will create more jobs, i don\"t see which social and economic structures are at risk. Can you elaborate? More government in the conventional way does equal less freedom, i agree completely, however, imagine a world in which we were all part of the government, all with equal say in how the country should be run, now wouldn\"t that be better?", "qid": 50, "docid": "5b56519a-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.718156099319458}, {"content": "Title: All people should receive the same income Content: Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.", "qid": 50, "docid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.718091607093811}, {"content": "Title: Families with food stamps should get more money. Content: Has someone with many friends on welfare who can't survive off it and the rising of the prices of everything, I think we should raise the amount they earn from food stamps because there is heavy inflation and the amount they earn hasn't increased much at all. Welfare should keep people above the poverty line unconditionally.", "qid": 50, "docid": "8c8011f-2019-04-18T17:10:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7180222868919373}, {"content": "Title: Welfare/Redistribution is actually harmful for poor people Content: While i agree with my opponent that minimum wage can be harmful where small business is concerned i don't see how we cannot raise it $7.25 an hour is simply not livable anymore not with the cost of things. We have people barely able to make ends meet that with a higher minimum wage could make bills on time i also disagree about welfare welfare in it's current state has been misused welfare was intended as a temporary means to financial troubles. But instead you have people living off of it which i why i think there should be some kind of reform we need to make it so that welfare is not a lifetime endeavor. however i will argue that welfare is necessary and if done away with would lead a lot of people into poverty all you have to do is look at 3rd world countries to see that. Redistribution is absolutely necessary it ensures that the top 1% do not end up with all or most of the money and that the poor and middle class get a share in it the economy can only grow if everybody is playing their part and i fear if we didn't do it we would become like India or some other 3rd world area with virtually no middle class.", "qid": 50, "docid": "b907e2d0-2019-04-18T13:59:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.717988133430481}, {"content": "Title: Redistribution of Wealth Content: You know what? You're right. The foul, greedy, selfish, evil nature of human behavior would ensure that this redistribution would never happen. Now that I think about it, most billionaires WOULDN'T be satisfied with a mere billion dollars. They probably WOULD be greedy enough to want all the money to themselves rather than see it being used for the good of humanity. They probably WOULD be stubborn enough to \"go on strike\" if the government were to force them to use their money in a way that doesn't serve their own personal gain. I still believe that a redistribution SHOULD happen, since I don't give a crap about billionaires' rights when half the world has virtually no money, but you are right in saying that such a thing is not realistically possible. due to how twisted human nature is. I suppose this means I automatically lose the debate, since I got convinced by my opponents arguments.", "qid": 50, "docid": "9ef58e91-2019-04-18T16:53:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7177461385726929}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Content: Minimum wage should be passed because it would help people out of poverty. Try to debate me on it.", "qid": 50, "docid": "b2b9aa77-2019-04-18T15:20:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7177172899246216}, {"content": "Title: Universal healthcare Content: Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?", "qid": 50, "docid": "a76b7e0f-2019-04-18T19:48:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7175164222717285}, {"content": "Title: The Negative Income Tax Content: Thank you Olark for accepting, and as you said: may the best win. One of the main reasons why I support a negative income tax is that it's a very cheap and yet effective way to end poverty. My alibi is the \"Mincome\" project that was conducted back in the 70's in the 2 towns in Manitoba, Canada; the town of Dauphin and Winnipeg: http://america.aljazeera.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://basicincome.org.uk... Those below the fixed poverty line received a monthly cheque that allowed them to survive. In the beginning, the researchers predicted that this would encourage people to be lazy and that it would cost a lot of money. But in the end, none of the above turned out to be true. From those who benefited from this project, only pregnant mothers and students worked substantially less. This by the way, resulted in a higher number of students graduating. Also hospitalization and domestic abuse went down. The project started in 1975 but was ended in 1979, when a centre-right government came to power. For many years the results of this project have been forgotten, until a few years ago it caught the attention of Prof. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba. Now you might say that that these were small towns and that such a project couldn't work on a nation-wide level and that the people of Winnipeg and Dauphin feared that this project would end some day. Well for the nation-wide thing, I don't know to be honest. It has never been tested on such a large scale. But \"I don\"t find the \"temporary program\" argument very compelling. If people are irresponsible, will they really project four years into the future to decide how to behave?\" (quote from Prof. Evelyn Forget) Contrary to most basic income models, the negative income tax, would only give the amounted of money needed to the people who need it. That's why it would be a cheap way to de facto implement a basic income. There have also been other basic income (BI) experiments, like in Otjivero, Namibia and in Uganda, India and even In the US: http://www.spiegel.de... http://usbig.net... https://www.opendemocracy.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Namibian project also caught my attention for the following reasons: In 2 years, -the percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 76 to 36% -the percentage of under-nourished children went from +50% to less than 10% -the percentage of young adults graduating went from 60 to 90% -crime went down significantly Another interesting project is \"Bolsa familia\" in Brazil. Basically it's a negative income tax for poor families IF they send their kids to School: http://web.worldbank.org... As for the BI initiative in Switzerland, I'm crossing my fingers since I live there ;) It would be really useful for me since in a few years I will be going to University.", "qid": 50, "docid": "ac032197-2019-04-18T15:34:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7168644666671753}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Content: These days, the price of basic necessities is getting higher because of the economic recession. According to the National Poverty Center, \"In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty.\"(1) The only food that the poor can afford to buy is McDonald's, and is that building a better society? We need to support the poor so they don't have to life such a hard life. You say that you think charity should be the sole giver, but there are so many charities for so many different things. How do you expect charities to give to the poor alone. They need government assistance. Say a mother had a child and the father left. How would she be able to support herself without welfare? If welfare was not in place there would be even further economic disparity in the United States. In my hometown, you could see some extremely rich suburbs but if you go to the \"hood\" you just see a bunch of old dilapidated houses and closed down stores. That is where most of the crime happens. Why? Because you have uneducated poor people who have no way of getting real income except breaking into houses and selling the items at pawn shops. That's how people turn into career criminals and make money. Uneducated people might even have to start selling drugs to make their money and as we all know, that can turn a whole society upside-down. The bottom line is if we don't have welfare, the poor won't have a way to support themselves. I do believe that we can wean people off of welfare using other methods, but if welfare is cut off, severe repercussions will happen. I do understand that people might not want to pay for other's expenses, but, if we did not pay, my house would get broken into in the next five minutes. Pay the taxes, give the welfare, steer clear of the consequences. (1) http://www.npc.umich.edu...", "qid": 50, "docid": "d91795c8-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00008-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7162128686904907}, {"content": "Title: We should introduce a flat tax. Content: Scrapping all existing income tax and replacing them with a single \"flat tax\" is a very simple idea. But does it work? Anyone willing to participate will be taking the for side of this debate. I will let you make the first point.", "qid": 50, "docid": "a80a5cfa-2019-04-18T12:54:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7160387635231018}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Content: It would appear that Con has missed his opportunity to respond.In closing, I have contended that welfare serves a role in reducing poverty, creating mobility, and acting as a safety net. In my arguments, I have proven that welfare does reduce poverty, create mobility, and act as a safety net. Con and I are in agreement that reforms are direly needed. I believe that welfare, as it stands today, could and should be strengthened to allow a greater rebound for people who fall under economic hardships, instead of providing the bare minimum to keep them from poverty. Con has done little more than hurl attack at those who need these social safety nets. Fact is, we aren't all born the same. Some of us were born into different circumstances than others. Some of us came from wealth, or came from a great school. Some of us didn't. Some of us can do everything right in life and still live at poverty level. For the sake of society, we should all work to ensure nobody goes to bed hungry in what is the greatest nation on earth. We shouldn't stand for the high level of poverty in what is supposed to be the richest nation on earth. I'll end my debate with a quote from President Obama. \u201cLet\u2019s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.\u201d I agree. Vote Pro!Also, here's a fun song for everybody to enjoy. http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "d917958a-2019-04-18T17:49:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7156344652175903}, {"content": "Title: Make Income Tax Rates Flat Content: I believe that a flat income tax rate would help the overall economy and is fairer for everybody. Let's set some terms before we begin. Rules: 1) No trolling or insults. 2) If you forfeit, you automatically lose. 3) You don't have to cite sources for common knowledge, although it would be preferred. If something is not common knowledge, cite it. A general rule of thumb is that something is \"common knowledge\" if you can find it in three or more sources. Debate period: Round 1: Just greetings and acceptance. Round 2: Main arguments (no rebuttals yet). Round 3: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 4: More arguments, rebuttals, counterarguments. Round 5: Conclusion of argument.", "qid": 50, "docid": "80355a84-2019-04-18T13:09:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7154841423034668}, {"content": "Title: People on welfare and who have any financial government support should have to work for their money Content: All Citizens on Welfare, besides disability, should have to work to receive their checks. Everyone has heard stories of people exploiting the welfare system, or lazy people lounging around all day collecting checks. These people should have to work for this money. If they are on welfare, they cannot support themselves financial. This is most likely accounted for by the fact that they can't get jobs, or they have some sort of disability. If they are able to work, they should have to work for their money. They aren't doing anything important with their time, and taxpayer's money should not be given to an unjustifiable cause. If they can work picking up trash, or just doing simple jobs to improve communities, it would benefit the country substantially. Asking people on welfare to pick up trash is much more acceptable than asking criminals to pick it up!", "qid": 50, "docid": "8baeda0e-2019-04-18T16:58:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7147811651229858}, {"content": "Title: Social Security tax cap should be eliminated Content: I completely disagree with this. I beleive that we should have a system that allows social security to be used in a decent manner, such as better applications. Without this tax, the entire system would collapse, leaving many disabled without a source of income. Even though most people pay this tax, these same people pay for the roads we drive on, the education we, and our family, received. In addition to this, many people who have paid the tax will be unruly against the government due to the unfairness of inequality in taxation between generations.", "qid": 50, "docid": "94e0bca1-2019-04-18T18:41:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7143956422805786}, {"content": "Title: Welfare should be completely transformed. Content: I'm not saying it should be abolished. I just believe that it showed be reformed. There is no encouragement to make your life better if you're getting free money, free food, free health insurance. With a job, you have to work to afford all that. Also, it may be true that people with jobs spend more than people on welfare, but that's because they have more money. Do you know of the percentages of spending for people with a job versus without? All of that assistance together makes for one easy living, especially since none of it is taxed. With the combined public assistance, it's easier to have money given to you, rather than work for it. Con, your first source is an extremely skewed to the left. This YouTube source is a first hand documentation of how people can consistently live off of the government's aid. She even said she has no desire to work because she gets everything for free. http://nypost.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "59150c43-2019-04-18T14:14:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7141997814178467}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wages Laws Having Economic Effect Should Be Abolished Content: i think people should get payed what they deserve. if you are not working then you need to get payed what you deserve.", "qid": 50, "docid": "c20f07e-2019-04-18T19:27:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7137916684150696}, {"content": "Title: It would be too complex and radical to instate Content: The welfare system as it stands is currently quite wide reaching and complex. The negative income tax system would only work if all other benefits are removed or if they are set against the subsidy that people receive. In this transition, some people will inevitably lose out or be lost in the cracks of the system. It will also require an enormous amount of bureaucracy to check that everyone is receiving the correct amount of money.", "qid": 50, "docid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00015-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7137680053710938}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Content: Individuals should rise and fall to their own accord regardless of wealth status. Minimum wage wrongfully obstructs and makes someone else pay for another's consequences.", "qid": 50, "docid": "5c3ec97-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7133435606956482}, {"content": "Title: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System Content: Again: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.I will await my opponent to reply one more time before I go and post my arguments.", "qid": 50, "docid": "5fb07803-2019-04-18T15:26:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.713026762008667}, {"content": "Title: Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else! Content: \"You honestly expect the readers in here to agree with you that it's okay that most employees who make less than $15/hour do not get offered benefits?\" The definition I provided states that entry level employment relates to a low-level job where the employee gains experience (http://www.dictionary.com...). It is not fair that someone with no initial experience and no initial skill, who is not YET seen as a valuable asset to the company should be given higher pay and the same benefits. What I'm saying is that employees should prove themselves to their employers and EARN the benefits and the higher pay. \"Also what \"false\" information do you claim that I made? that statement I just made is common and every poll ever taken will agree with me!!!\" Well then SHOW me ONE poll, that's all I want, ONE CURRENT POLL from a source with equal to greater credibility to my own that proves your point. You haven't provided any sources for the entire debate! \"EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY physical exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE!\" I KNOW, I said that too!!! \"Americans do need healthcare.\" -me in Round 2, first paragraph. It's not like I'm arguing that employers should not offer healthcare, I'm arguing that entry level employees should prove themselves to their employers before receiving benefits. And I'm not hostile or selfish to the poor; I just think they should earn employee benefits just as everyone else does. \"EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars. HOW do someone making MINIMUM WAGE afford healthcare WITHOUT government assistance? \" Actually, we're talking about wages and benefits of entry-level employees, not government programs like universal healthcare. I brought up the concept of Obamacare (it's not racist, it's the president's last name followed by the word 'care') and single-payer healthcare to show how unfavorable they have become overall after the Affordable Care Act was implemented. \"By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources.\" The information I provided from Cornell Law University (my first source) was a quote of the tenth amendment of the US Constitution and a little bit of information as to what it means; I highly doubt they're conservative, and even if they are, I only took non-biased facts. My second source is literally called Physicians for a National Health Program, that's the exact OPPOSITE of Conservative. MOST of they're articles are in support of a universal healthcare program, the one I found was about how support for universal healthcare drastically declined in recent years.", "qid": 50, "docid": "7b6c6a75-2019-04-18T13:01:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7127805352210999}, {"content": "Title: A Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would be a good idea Content: I will be arguing for the position that a single Government payout of 2000 GBP to every UK citizen each year would make good economic sense and resolve a whole host of social and economic problems. I would also extend this idea to possible application in other countries. Some opening clarifications: The 2000 GBP payment per year would replace standard jobseeker-style benefits (disability/childcare etc benefits would remain intact) and public pensions. From the ages of 1 to 18, 2000 GBP per year would be held in a locked account. By the age of 18, this fund would have grown to 36,000 GBP. From the ages of 18 to 36, the recipient would receive 2000 GBP per year from this fund, PLUS the 2000 GBP per year that he or she is entitled to as a matter of course. Thus, from the ages of 1 to 18, citizens recieve no direct payments. From the ages of 18 to 36, citizens recieve 4000 GBP per year. From the age of 36 until death, citizens recieve the basic 2000 GBP per year.", "qid": 50, "docid": "eaceea31-2019-04-18T18:10:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7118134498596191}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal \"Workfare\" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of \"roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today\" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- \"The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds\" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries \"overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates\" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7115513682365417}, {"content": "Title: We Should Create a New Tax Code Content: Okay, my opponent didn't show again. Listen up, voters: Please read my arguments. I think I make a sensible argument against the income tax that even liberals could agree to. Heck, even socialists. Thanks.", "qid": 50, "docid": "cf92897e-2019-04-18T20:01:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.711188554763794}, {"content": "Title: There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more Content: There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more. I saw this comment from Spartan9876, so I copied and pasted here to start a debate. Are you up challenge? In your comment you state: I argue that it is not just to have a society that has such inequalities (I am looking at you USA); there is no justification whatsoever for people to be left destitute while others have billions. There are two ways to correct such an issue: 1) a complete nationalisation of all property and wealthy and the State equally distributes the benefits; or 2) a progressive tax whereby the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less. The income from the rich is then redistributed to the poor, which would then create a healthy middle class. I will prove that your theory is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better.", "qid": 50, "docid": "84505c6d-2019-04-18T13:41:11Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7109307050704956}, {"content": "Title: Neoliberalism is the answer for international development. Content: Yes, we can be satisfied with the lesser of two evils. In the end, not everybody would get wealthy off of the system, but MORE people WOULD get wealthy off the system. And if it weren't for the multinational corporations in India, poverty would probably hover about 75% or more and 90% of the population couldn't read. And as you said before, there are not large pieces of pie for everyone. But with this system, MORE people get a LARGER piece of pie, instead of highly regulated economies where ONLY THE GOVERNMENT gets the large pieces of pie and the people suffer for it. Is THAT how you want it to be?", "qid": 50, "docid": "88b08649-2019-04-18T20:02:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7106992602348328}, {"content": "Title: Why a flat tax is fairer Content: In a welfare state such as the United Kingdom, everyone enjoys the same access to services provided by the government, and so it should stand to reason that everyone should also contribute equally to the funding of those services. As not all individuals are equal in their wealth and income, it is impossible to do this on the basis of everyone paying in the exact same numerical amount of money. However, this parity can be achieved by everyone paying the same percentage of their income in tax to the government, and this is exactly what a flat tax is, and so equality in contribution to government services (mirroring equality in access to government services) is achieved. This principle of equality is important for two reasons: firstly, if wealthier citizens feel they are being unfairly burdened by the current requirement that they pay higher percentages of their income to fund government services than those on lower incomes, they may feel a disincentive to work hard (which creates wealth for the whole economy), or may even be driven abroad to states with lower rates of taxation or to tax havens.[1] Secondly this removes the ability of the majority of a population to engage in what the French economist Bastiat called 'legalized plunder', where they (as the majority of voters) assign higher percentages of income tax to the wealthy in order that the state may appropriate and redistribute it to them for their own use.[2] With a flat tax in place, there would be no ability for anyone to vote for a tax rise simply on other people and not on themselves, and thus such policies would receive more consideration and not be used by the majority simply to appropriate the property of others through the law. Thus a flat tax is fairer as it equalized the basis on which everyone pays for access to equal services, and prevents a poorer majority from victimizing a wealthier minority through punitive rates of income tax for the wealthy, which may cause them to flee the country for other states with less taxation. [1] Ramos, Joanne \u201cPlaces in the Sun\u201d. The Economist. Feb 22nd 2007 http://www.economist.com/node/8695139?story_id=8695139 [2] Bastiat, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric. The Law. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2007", "qid": 50, "docid": "3669bd10-2019-04-15T20:22:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.710426926612854}, {"content": "Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: Regardless, there are three main points to consider.1. There is little or no effect for these individuals who are truly needy. Con actually made this point by stating that these people have no taxable income. If this is true, then there would be little to no additional taxes owed by these individuals by taxing their welfare. Additionally, there are tax credits that also help these people, so even if there is taxable income, these individuals will likely not pay the taxman one dime.2. \u201cSkin in the game\u201dIn case you did not know, welfare is based on a household\u2019s expenses, not their income per se. There are thresholds for income to qualify, but expenses affect the amount of welfare received (at least for EBT in MN). Because choices can be made that increase welfare AND quality of life, these funds should be considered income. So, the truly needy are living modestly off the government, while paying no taxes. However, we have people that choose to seek welfare instead of using their wealth or cutting their expenses [3]. If people want to keep their house and their possessions and go on welfare, they should pay taxes on it. Is it fair that if my cable bill rises, I may cancel because I can\u2019t afford it, but if one is on welfare, they may get MORE benefits? These benefits should be taxed as if they were ordinary income, because these people (and those that abuse/defraud welfare) are maintaining, possibly even improving, their quality of life. We also have people that live \u201chigh on the hog\u201d on welfare. Not to say these people live like kings, but they live comfortably given their financial situation, receiving thousands in benefits per month. Why is it too much to ask that they pay taxes to help others out too, and maintain the system that has helped them out so much? In short, those that are \u201cgetting by\u201d pay no taxes due to their circumstances, but those that are living like the rest of us should be paying taxes, like the rest of us. By having skin in the game, they may miraculously suddenly have an opinion on the amount of fraud that occurs, or waste in the government, or how that money is spent. 3. Fairness and equality under the law. It is unfair and unequal for income from the government to aid the needy to not be taxed, but if I give money to the needy directly, it is taxed. In fact, if I give more than the allowable annual gift, I also have to pay the gift tax for the donee, because a gift of that magnitude ($13,000) is considered income [1]. Either way, because there is no deduction for these direct payments, income taxes are paid on this \u201cwelfare\u201d, sometimes even twice. Furthermore, take medical expenses. If I am without insurance and go to the hospital and do not pay, they will (after quite some time) write off the debt. When they do this, I will receive a 1099-C, saying there was a cancelation of debt and this is considered taxable income. Why is it legal to tax me on medical services I could not afford, yet those who cannot afford their own bills are not taxed on those very same services? Other sources of income that are taxed (to be paid by someone) are: alimony, child support, gifts (like giving a bum some cash or buying a poor neighbor\u2019s kids presents for Christmas), gains from illegal activities, losses on hobbies, any cancellation of debt, Christmas bonuses, gambling winnings, charity raffle winnings, and various others [2]. Why is child support from an estranged father taxable (to the father), alimony is taxable to the spouse who receives it, but support from the state is not taxed? How is this equality under the law? Now, if Con is going to counter with \u201cGovernment is a non-profit, and thus an exception is made\u201d. Non-profit charities\u2019 payments to others are not taxed, and neither are any contributions. Let\u2019s explore that. The following government payments may be taxable: social security, interest from U. S. and municipal bonds, unemployment benefits, jury duty pay, and rewards (e. g. FBI or IRS whistleblower) [2]. These aid programs are taxed, so why not welfare? Furthermore, while a contribution to a charity is not taxed (but direct giving is\u2026), the following expenses may be considered taxable income to the recipient: scholarships, wages paid (some charities like Goodwill specifically hire \u201cundesirable\u201d people), prizes and \u201cthank-you gifts\u201d, and income from anything given that produces income. But since we are dealing with the government\u2019s welfare payments, this is food for thought.1. . http://www.irs.gov...2. . http://www.irs.gov...3. . http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": 50, "docid": "279d25e7-2019-04-18T18:10:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7096843719482422}, {"content": "Title: Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions Content: Thanks to my opponent for this opportunity for debate. I will be arguing that implementing universal healthcare is a good idea at this time, and my opponent will be arguing against me.", "qid": 50, "docid": "57d5f0e9-2019-04-18T13:28:54Z-00008-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7096601724624634}, {"content": "Title: The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea. Content: The Job Guarantee would guarantee everyone was offered a job. The government could do this by funding the expansion of the public sector, creating the jobs to do, expanding not for profit employment etc. I currently believe this would be better than things like Job-share, natural private market job creation and the current public system of helping people get work. It might also be cheaper than some other approaches. I am arguing that this should be included in the government's response to unemployment. It is not a silver bullet but I think it should be a major part of it. Happy to be convinced otherwise.", "qid": 50, "docid": "9d1d1e37-2019-04-18T12:18:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7093830704689026}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: His plan increases the \u201cincome effect\u201d compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent\u2019s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent\u2019s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con\u2019s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. \u201c[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers\u2019 desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010\u2026While the \u201cwelfare to work\u201d reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the \u201cweaker\u201d nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).\u201d[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con\u2019s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con\u2019s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a \u201ccrowd out\u201d effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn\u2019t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent\u2019s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its \u201ccut throat\u201d capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any \u201cpositive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.\u201d[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only \u201c15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.\u201d[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, \u201cmost are in poverty.\u201d[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent\u2019s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent\u2019s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found \u201cthat unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours\u2026 as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.\u201d[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7093748450279236}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System. Content: I affirm the resolution that the USFG should create a universal health care system similar to Britain's NHS. I believe that this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy. With this plan, people will not have to work as much to pay off outrages medical bills. Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs; \"A Happy employee is a good employee.\" Lastly, with less people in debt, the keynesian savings ratio of 90/10 (spend 90% of the income and save 10%) can find its way back into the fiscal society.", "qid": 50, "docid": "40cf458e-2019-04-18T20:00:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7090926766395569}, {"content": "Title: It would be much simpler and fairer Content: There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.", "qid": 50, "docid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00008-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7088032960891724}, {"content": "Title: A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. Content: I am for the statement that \u2018A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. \u2019 Prelude: Different countries and areas have different numerical values for a minimum wage. In this debate, we will not be arguing for a specific minimum wage value, as can be seen from the resolution, but from a mostly philosophical view that it is moral or right for all workers to receive a minimum living wage. This should clear up any issues both Con and or the audience may have had. As following the agreed-upon round structure, I shall make my points now and await my next round for rebuttals. Contentions: C1) Jobs Would a just society allow citizens, who are ready and willing to work but are without qualifications, to go by- without a salary, a way to provide for themselves? Jobs with less skills and qualifications necessary are usually minimum wage jobs. Although these workers don\u2019t earn much, they are able to get a job! Employers can afford to pay workers, who otherwise wouldn\u2019t be able to get a job because of a lack of a degree, connections, or advanced skills. Through these jobs, workers gain an opportunity to learn valuable skills and acquire hands on working experience, to compete for even better jobs, or advance within a company. C1B) Increase in jobs With these workers employed, there is a reduction in unemployment. Without minimum wage jobs, these people wouldn\u2019t have this opportunity. At least, with these workers employed, their labour can be used productively, instead of resorting to illegal methods to obtain living conditions or giving up completely. \u201cIn the monopsony model, employers are unlikely to pay higher wages in order to fill vacancies because they would then have to raise the pay of their existing workers to match the pay offered to their last hire. As a result, in monopsonistic settings, employers habitually operate with unfilled vacancies, rather than raising the wage for their entire workforce. In this context, raising the minimum wage can actually increase employment by raising the wages of the existing workforce to the \"competitive\" level (no existing jobs are lost because these workers were being paid below their \"marginal product\") and filling existing vacancies (which increases overall employment). \u201d[1] Therefore minimum living wages creates jobs, or fills job vacancies, thereby reducing the unemployment rate and raising the quality of life and standard of living. Would it then be just for workers to not be paid minimum living wages? C2) Character Growth As said before, people working for minimum living wages don\u2019t earn much, and usually have no other profession to resort to. Therefore, they value it a lot- they would work more, come in for extra time to try to make more money, and try to develop closer relationships with fellow workers. These people benefit from learning about the experience of hands-on work, independence, reliability, accountability, assiduous labour and responsibility. \u2018Today\u2019s job market is extremely competitive and demands the most from jobseekers. Particularly for students, a minimum wage job provides a great opportunity to prepare for the challenges they will face searching for their ideal career aftergraduation. To get ahead one has to be assertive and a minimum wage job provides a chance to do that. \u2019[2] Therefore, the jobs attained with a minimum wage offer character growth. Would it not be fair to allow workers to benefit from character growth attained by the minimum wage? C3) Narrowing the rich-poor gap - Helping low-income families Poor families have a way of making money, by minimum wage, though it may not be much. This wage, added on to the income that breadwinners may attain, may help provide for the family. Minimum wage alleviates poverty, worker are able to gain an income. Now the poor have a chance at obtaining an income, no matter how small it is. Moreover, more money is generated into the economy since low income families are able to spend more. Also, this shrinks government programs e. g. food stamps, thereby allowing the reallocation of resources elsewhere. If people work hard, should they not be paid at least the minimum wage to be able to provide for themselves, and maybe their family? C4) Egalitarianism and Utilarianism \u2018Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favours equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. \u2019[3] \u2018The principle of utility [Utilarianism] is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. \u2019[4] By the laws of egalitarianism- that all people are equal- these workers should be given a wage for their work. By Utilarianism, it is *just* that these people get paid, if they are going to put in their labour, working. If they are paid, they can afford the basic necessities and generate money into the economy to stimulate it. Why should we NOT allow these people to get an income? Why should we prevent someone who is WILLING to work to establish a way to support himself? C5) John Rawls- The Principles of Justice as Fairness (Rawls\u2019s name for the set of principles) \u201c[The veil of ignorance] assures that each party to the choice is equally or symmetrically situated, with none enjoying greater power (or \u201cthreat advantage\u201d) than any other . .. It also isolates the parties\u2019 choice from the contingencies\u2014the sheer luck\u2014underlying the variations in people\u2019s natural abilities and talents, their social backgrounds, and their particular society\u2019s historical circumstances. \u201d[5] -First Principle: Rights and Liberties \u2018Society must assure each citizen \u201can equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all. \u201d\u2019[5] -Difference Principle: Income and Wealth \u201cSocial and economic inequalities \u2026 are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. \u201d [5] From the First Principle, we can see that it is just for each citizen to gain their equal rights \u2013 the right to a job, of their choice. \u2018What you reap, you sew. \u2019 [6] If these workers are using their physical and mental capacities to provide a labour force for their employers, they should be paid for their efforts. \u201cThe \u2026 informal argument for the difference principle: because equality is an ideal fundamentally relevant to the idea of fair cooperation, the OP situates the parties symmetrically and deprives them of information that could distinguish them or allow one to gain bargaining advantage over another. Given this set-up, the parties will consider the situation of equal distribution a reasonable starting point in their deliberations. .. [Instituting] a system of social rules that differentially reward the especially productive, could achieve results that are better for everyone \u2026 This is the kind of inequality that the Difference Principle allows and requires: departures from full equality that make some better off and no one worse off. \u201d[5] In other words, The Difference Principle allows those who are less advantaged to become better off, but no one becomes worse off. In conclusion, it is of my firm belief that a just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. It is fair as the employees, employers, society and the economy benefit. Moreover, from a philosophical egalitarian view- using Utilarianism and John Rawls\u2019 Principles of Justice as Fairness. Sources: [1]- . http://www.cepr.net... [2]- . http://theundercurrent.org... [3]- . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4]- . http://caae.phil.cmu.edu... [5]- . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [6]- Proverb . http://papers.ssrn.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "a451fc52-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7087479829788208}, {"content": "Title: Able-bodied people should not receive welfare if they don't work Content: The whole point of working is to provide a service or produce something that benefits some group of people in some way. When people don't contribute to that system, they should not get to reap its benefits. I am referring to the welfare 'leeches' especially prominent in European countries like Sweden, aka \"Welfare Paradise\" If welfare were to be a thing, the recipients should be required to work for it in some way, like public services. Provided they are able-bodied, of course. If I spend my time working to improve society such as working in sanitation, real estate, or any other job, a part of my paycheck should not go to some lazy person who sits at home and is basically a leech to society. The system should be a \"I scratch your back, you scratch mine\" system, not \"it doesn't matter whether you work or not, you still get money\" If you accept, please provide a few reasons why my proposed system is wrong/bad.", "qid": 50, "docid": "c9cfdce-2019-04-18T13:51:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7086609601974487}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt a negative income tax. Content: This round was written by Shab, and I will write the next round. Contention 1 - Negative income tax would reduce the size of bureaucracy Are we willing to be optimistic enough to believe that, without specifying what welfare money must be spent on, the poor will choose wisely? (More in Contention 2) The issue is not \u201cthat people need money\u201d \u2013 or, at least, not the one the Government ought to try and solve. The issue is that people are going without certain necessities and are unable to live securely. To ensure that these needs are met, there is nothing wrong with complicated systems. The current system is elaborate, there is no question. It has to be. In order to ensure that welfare goes only to those who need it, and is spent only on those things that they need, there is no solution other than a complex series of rules, regulations, and agencies. This is not a bad thing. The aeroplane is not disadvantaged compared to the horse because it is more complex. Each part plays its purpose, and the whole is indisputably better at fulfilling its function. This point is, therefore, completely irrelevant; unless our opponents can show that NIT does what it sets out to do better than any other system, not just that it is simpler, they have not fulfilled their BOP. Contention 2 - A negative income tax is better for the economy Accountability is not \u201cshifted to individuals\u201d when a government imposes a NIT. In fact, the opposite happens: individuals are less accountable. Under a normal welfare system, there is no incentive to waste money, since the money is bound to particular necessities. One can\u2019t (easily) spend food stamps on televisions. When the government gives people money, however, that money is very easy to squander. What must be done when someone, after having blown their cheque on liquor, is in danger of starvation? Would the government not be obligated to help them further and make sure that they don\u2019t\u2026 die? If so, there would be no negative repercussions to spending the money in senseless ways, since there would always be a traditional welfare safety net underneath the people. Unless our opponents advocate eliminating such safety nets altogether, in which case I find it hard to believe that they\u2019re for any welfare whatsoever, then he must admit that granting people money with no strings attached and no accountability makes them more prone to act foolishly. On the topic of businesses, our opponents do not explain why it\u2019s better for a business to be paid by individuals who are paid by the government rather than by the government itself. This step is necessary. Contention 3- The negative income tax allows better working conditions Here, our opponents assume two things: 1.) That the NIT uniquely grants workers leverage; 2.) That granting workers such leverage is beneficial. 1.) is very hard for Pro to prove. It stands to reason that, under even as inefficient a system as our current one, most workers will not have to live in fear of starvation. The point of a welfare system is to provide workers with their basic needs, such that they will never go unfulfilled. What else would Pro want? 2.) is even more of a problem for our opponents. Having the ability to essentially quit at any time and not only survive (for anyone can survive under the current system, so Pro must have something more in mind) but live at a standard that is acceptable is exactly the kind of incentive that causes people to refuse to work. If a worker can just stop working and be fine, why work at all? Contention 4 - The negative income tax encoruages and rewards work This contention is flat-out false. Our opponents claim that someone who earns enough to no longer receive the benefits from NIT wouldn\u2019t \u201close any net money\u201d. This is absurd; even if the new income earned precisely covers the amount that would have otherwise been granted by the government, the person is still massively disadvantaged by losing said benefits, for now they also have to factor in labour. \u201cEarning more\u201d is not the same as \u201cbeing granted more money\u201d, for the former, in almost all cases, implies an incredible investment of time/capital. Note that we do not have to advocate for the current welfare system \u2013 in fact, we don\u2019t have to affirm the existence of welfare at all. All we must do here is show that the NIT would be, at best, equal to, or, at worst, more detrimental than, any alternatives. If equality is established, any additional arguments we win against NIT would be enough to fulfill our BOP. Therefore, our opponents must show how NIT is uniquely beneficial. Contention 5 - The current welfare system defies logic; the negative income tax embraces logic This is not a unique contention. It\u2019s essentially a wholesale combination of contentions 1 and 2. As such, we refer the readers to our responses to those points individually.", "qid": 50, "docid": "6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7080988883972168}, {"content": "Title: The rich should be taxed more than the poor. Content: People shouldn't be taxed because they have more money. If someone has earned their money, they shouldn't have to pay more than everyone else just because they are more successful, that is just wrong.", "qid": 50, "docid": "5535576a-2019-04-18T12:36:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7077175378799438}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Content: Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare? Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person in the USA if missing two paychecks could be homeless. Without welfare their would be a lot more homeless people and alot more empty houses, to put it short homeless people don't do well in job interviews. Maybe your argument is favorable to the tax paying citizens? The average tax payer in the US pays $13,000 dollars anually in tax, 1,820 of that goes to welfare. This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate. For example it happens 74 time a day in mexico and 91 times a day in Brazil, and if you make people desperate it will happen in the US aswell.", "qid": 50, "docid": "2476225d-2019-04-18T14:28:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.70769202709198}, {"content": "Title: Progressives assign too much value to money in individual welfare Content: Money is not the end all be all of success, welfare, and happiness. Attempting to equalize income through progressive taxation as a means to increasing [and possibly equalizing] welfare, therefore, is not a tenable position.", "qid": 50, "docid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00162-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7076855897903442}, {"content": "Title: National Sales Tax Content: I already mentioned how the states would make money. The poor would get richer if they didn't have an income tax on them in the first place. And no, businesses would not have to face financial hardships, if this were the only tax in place. We need to take steps in implementing the NRST, such as elimination of all the services the government does that the private sector can do better, and not to mention stopping corruption and cutting pork. States would not lose money with the use of the system I have proposed. So, it's a win-win situation: The government gets more revenue and the populace gets wealthier.", "qid": 50, "docid": "2e2049af-2019-04-18T20:01:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7073898315429688}, {"content": "Title: Flat Tax is Good for the Economy Content: \"Under this system that would mean that taxes for EVERYONE would be reduced and hence people would be freer to spend their money on the free market and stimulate the economy that way.\" Who is everyone since those who do not pay the actual tax rate of 28% would be probably not everyone who saves money? While avoiding a discussion on the income disparity as shown in a previous source the majority of households make beneath the 30% mark for taxation which again was shown in the real 2015 IRS percentage charts in the source by Forbes. Why do I make that point? The notion that everyone wins is completely false. As a matter of fact it's almost the direct opposite; all cash flows are eventually taxed at a flat rate meaning that the concept of everyone winning is at best a falsehood esp. for households that do not earn a lot of money and therefore do not have capital to save for the \"saving deduction\" in my opponent's source:\"Personal saving would be deducted immediately and would remain tax exempt until spent on consumption.\" This is nothing more than a pseudo Tradiational IRA system [1] and in turn has no real tax benefit as a deduction for low income workers who simply do not have the capacity to save 28% of their tax dollars due to basic cost of living without inclusion for unexpected events or damages.Also, let's redo the math under the 28% tax rule using the real rates of the IRS in 2015 tax season as shown prior for millionaires to accurately gauge the weight. 20,000 * .08 = 1,600, the increase in the liability from current tax rates for lower class working citizens and looking at our millionaire the difference between the actual 39.6% and 28% would be 116,000. So for one millionaire you need 72.5 worker's wages to make up for that tax. There are a real 10.1 millionaires so you need a real 732,500,000 lower class to compensate. Again that's just one tax class figure of only exactly a million and does not incorporate any other group which would get a fundamental tax cut including those who are say high earners 250,000-500,000 which could potentially include bankers, surgeons, lawyers, engineers, accountants and financial workers, etc.\"To further this, the flat taxation system would end up keeping the Earned Income Tax Credit system, or EITC, which both Liberals and Conservatives support as this reduces poverty rates, especially for single mothers and single parents.\"There are two problems here:1. The source doesn't explain how it works in the new tax system only what it is. All credits would have to modified since the credits themselves only work within current brackets and are based on income brackets themselves as well as number of dependents, specifically children in most cases, but the earned income credit tables [2] are extremely low. Ironically because the flat tax increases taxation for those who would normally not even pay tax by flattening it across the board the EIC would be probably rendered worthless under it's current model.2. The next problem is a simple math problem. In the first round I purposefully left out credits and deductions so that the reader could easily see the effects on collected taxes, which of course pay for social services, grants, and various other necessities that the government runs including state dispersments and budgeting. All systems suffer because credits and deductions lower taxes and in the case of say, millionaires, putting 28% of your income into savings to avoid paying taxes is really quite easy but on the next front we also have:\"The only remaining deductions are for higher education, gifts and charitable contributions, and an optional home mortgage interest deduction.\"Gifts to charity.\"More than 80 percent of those worth $25 million or more give at least $10,000 a year to charity, and 21 percent give more than $100,000 a year to charity.\" From the CNBC source in my first proposal over 21% of millionaires cut their taxes under this model by almost half. Regularly. So now it's just donate and save for the wealthy and never pay taxes again? Well compensating for the difference in one millionaire who does pay tax is one thing but compensating for one that simply uses elegant tax planning strategum and avoids taxation altogether is another. It would take 175 working class to compensate up from 72.5 for just one \"smart millionaire\" who took the saving's account deduction.\"The recent studdies have shown that this New Flat Tax system would create economic growth. They've shown that there will be 0.143 percentage points increase to our nations economy.\" If recent was 2003 and if it was using the same model as the Heritage plan which it isn't, and furthermore if one reads the conclusion's second paragraph, which cannot simply be copied and pasted due to the formatting of the document itself, it clearly states that it is an oversimplified plan that does not account for sudden income changes or contingencies. The source itself is hypothetical in a perfect world not accounting for many real-world issues including a major loss of financing or financial crisis related to certain economic principles that do occur in the real world. It also cites a previous paper from 1995 that had the same issues.Furthermore lowering the GDP is not equivalent to lowering the GPP [3] and my opponent read the source wrong. The value of investments would drop by 16.9% and with fewer taxes being collected the GDP of course drops but does the GPP drop? That's the real question relative to taxation.The graphic itself is just outright wrong. This is based likely on AGI before credits and deductions just like my own simplified model for understanding taxes and tax rate differentials. In 2011 46% didn't pay taxes but under normal circumstances about 40% of the population does not pay FIT [4] and there are a myriad of other factors that are not being taken into consideration; in essence you save nothing under the flat tax because it doesn't actually have a standard deduction anymore. Or would it work like that of Clinton's design eliminaing tax liabiliy for most of the population anyway? [5]3. The reality is that the taxation sysem has been complicated by the changing economic climate in the country adding over 75,000 articles since the major revision in 1987. The idea of a very simple taxation sysem in a governemntal climate based entirely on serving it's populace where a massive chunk of he citizenry do not pay taxes is, at best, whimsical. Tax planning and legal maters involving situations regarding flat tax are still massive even in Russia [6] it's not as simple as flicking a switch and understanding. Furthermore it's 13% flat for residents but a whopping 30% for EXPATs and non-residents [6] which effectively covers the rates of he citizenry and their low GDP is a result but Russia does no have the proposed economic growth promised [7] by flat tax. It is not that simple.It is criical to look at the whole situation of a country before using it as an example as with the Russian Tax Revenue including EXPATS at 30% and the increased accessibility to the country in general in the last few years there is more to this than it would seem.1.http://www.rothira.com...2. http://www.irs.gov...3.https://mises.org...4. http://www.cbpp.org...5. http://www.forbes.com...6.http://www.whitecase.com...6http://russia.angloinfo.com...7.http://www.economist.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "610acc43-2019-04-18T14:48:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7070403099060059}, {"content": "Title: Universal healthcare Content: The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens", "qid": 50, "docid": "a76b7e6c-2019-04-18T18:55:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7067679762840271}, {"content": "Title: while homestead exemptions should exist, property taxes should be our primary focus on tax revenue Content: Your argument that it would better help distribute property to everyone is more of a socialistic theory and would require more than a hike in property tax. Let the people work and earn their property. Most people don't want/need the property. People will pay to get what they want/need. If you wanted to really increase the progressive type tax on property taxes everybody would be selling and not buying. That can create a huge problem and we have already seen that. You also stated that property tax should be the main source of revenue, i again argued that it shouldn't and that the main source of revenue should be going to the federal government, regardless of whether or not everyone should have property. The circumstances of everyone getting property just doesn't fit the current fiscal situation this country is in. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.", "qid": 50, "docid": "edb5b041-2019-04-18T16:02:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7066545486450195}, {"content": "Title: seriusly important politics Content: I hope this debate will be interesting. Now, let's get the ball rolling! Contention 1: Everyone should uphold equality. No matter how ugly a person is, he still have to work and earn money. While you might say that they are born ugly and cannot help being ugly, it must be noted that ugly people have a choice to work unlike some disable people who wants to work but do not have a chance to do so. Besides, what about the less ugly people, isn't it unfair for them to work and earn lesser money than a ugly man who does not work at all? There is a saying that goes \" You reap what you sow \" We should credit a person based on his achievements, working attitudes and his hard work, not on his appearance. If what you have said was implemented, it would cause a lot of chaos and disagreement. This might even cause riots. Contention 2: If what you said was true, there would be a economic depression. As we all know, a person need to have some money for him or her to be elected as a government. If a ugly person who earns a lot of money without doing anything, was to be elected due to his wealth, it would cause a country to literally collapse! We should all earn money based on our qualification, thus, it is ridiculous to give money or important jobs to lazy and incapable ugly people who earns money by sitting all day. Contention 3: You are supposed to elaborate on who determines the ugliness of a person, however, you asked me the exact same question. Voters, this shows that my opponent is not sure about his claim. In conclusion, I find this claim rather ridiculous has this claim promotes inequality, laziness, and prejudice. Thus, with greater understanding of this topic, one would agree with me and find that this claim has more cons than pros and is ridiculous.", "qid": 50, "docid": "9d688e37-2019-04-18T15:10:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.706549882888794}, {"content": "Title: A good last ditch way of getting money. Content: Most people have organs, and there are much more people who can't get work, who are in serious poverty and don't have anything else they can sell. Organs go for thousands of pounds - easily enough to get someone enough food to last them for a few months and somewhere to sleep while they sort their lives out Regarding the \"no\" arguments: First, I agree that it is terrible that people live in poverty - but simply saying that they \"should be helped\" doesn't really cut the mustard - how do you plan to remove all poverty? Second - although illegal organ sales in countries such as India have demonstrated that the money received isn't enough to remove them from poverty (because the amounts received are around \u00a33-5k if that!), the amounts that could be paid in a developed country like the UK may indeed be enough to pay off debts, put down a deposit, rent a flat for a few months - \u00a315k can achieve a lot!", "qid": 50, "docid": "2e16f364-2019-04-19T12:46:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7064695954322815}, {"content": "Title: Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished Content: Hello daley, and hello everyone else. I will argue that welfare should be abolished, worldwide, and should not be introduced anywhere. 1.) I will argue that it (a)disincentives production, (b)incentives underemployment and unemployment, which (c)contribute to poverty 2.) I will argue that there is no negative causal relationship, direct or indirect, between welfare and crime. 3.)Furthermore I will argue that it cannot help people get a basic standard of living. If welfare can be achieved in any event, potential recipients would have been better off in a capitalist economy an an unregulated labor market. I hope to have a civil and productive debate, and hopefully we'll both learn something.", "qid": 50, "docid": "254b60a3-2019-04-18T18:41:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7061501741409302}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wages lead to unemployment Content: On the contrary, minimum wage does help to in improving the social mobility of those affected most in adverse conditions, in such, it would provide them a living wage enough not just to survive but to secure extra income to afford the much-needed provisions for their family and livelihoods. Examples such as obtaining a basic income of $2,000 per month which would be enough to pay for the rental, car fuel, child's education, income tax, and much more. Had there not been a minimum wage, and given the ample supply of labours in the market, the private sector being profit-driven would drive down the prices of wages to, say $1000, leaving the worker in the lurch. He would then be socially, physiologically, & physically drained from all the work that would be placed on him in the name of producing the firms' profit. According to the Socialist Labour Party website, \"(t)he richest 20% of the world's population receive each year 86% of the world's wealth - while the poorest 20% of the world's population exist on just 1% of the world's annual wealth.\" Is is not about time that society demands a fair share from these MNEs to distribute the wealth to the people? Without adequate laws or legislation, the people would be exposed of being egregiously exploited by top MNEs. By placing the right form of law, such as minimum wage, it would ensure that it would secure the livelihoods of the people and this, in turn, would secure a proper social foundation of an economy. This, in turn, would create a 'virtuous cycle of growth' needed to generate a bigger middle class, a stronger consumer market, a greater demand for products, and therefore bigger business opportunities for young firms to capitalise on. It is through these cycles that would help to generate greater economic activity in the form of the setting up of new businesses, and this, in turn, would create more employment. Minimum wage therefore does not lead to unemployment. Source(s): http://www.socialistparty.org.uk... http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk...", "qid": 50, "docid": "fda29737-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7060962915420532}, {"content": "Title: There should be a progressive tax system Content: I belive there should be a progressive tax rate becuase someone who is sucsseful in socitey should give more back to help others that are less sucsseful. It would also benifit the middle and working class, while lowering income inequility. This is especially true if taxation is used to fund progressive government spending such as transfer payments and social safety nets. Studys also show that countrys with a prpgresive tax system are happier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 50, "docid": "2f63b4e6-2019-04-18T15:30:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7060396671295166}, {"content": "Title: Welfare should be considered taxable income Content: While I am against welfare in general, if it's going to be provided it shouldn't be taxable income. The money comes from the government in the first place to provide for people who are unable or unwilling to work. To tax this money makes no sense as it comes from the government. To tax it, would just be effectively giving less welfare money as its source is the same as the place the tax revenue would end up at. Technically, these people's incomes are zero. There is nothing to tax. The money given is thought to be what they need, and nothing more. I support the notion that people on welfare should have to work or do something productive set-up by the government to collect their checks. That tax would actually contribute to society rather than money being circular. Taxing people who get their money from the tax collectors is pure sophism and should not be implemented.", "qid": 50, "docid": "279d25e7-2019-04-18T18:10:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7059106826782227}, {"content": "Title: welfare Content: Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov...", "qid": 50, "docid": "e671615f-2019-04-18T13:01:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7057662010192871}, {"content": "Title: Welfare is important to the economy Content: I just got back from a class debate on welfare, and my team won by two. I'll be using some of their arguments this time. 1 in 6 people are living in poverty, so that's a lot of people, that if they lose their jobs, must accept welfare from the government, if they want to legally eat. Also, we're human beings. We have dominated this planet, and are taking everything from it. Yet, we divide ourselves by how much money we have. If we can't pay money, for basically everything, we're expected to just leave. So, the person who thought it wasn't fair to do that, ran for mayor to try to make a change, but all it took was a dumb rumor, and nobody was on their side.", "qid": 50, "docid": "36935c1f-2019-04-18T17:03:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7055679559707642}, {"content": "Title: progressive tax is fairer than a flat tax Content: the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.", "qid": 50, "docid": "3704822a-2019-04-18T14:11:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7050832509994507}, {"content": "Title: progressive tax is fairer than flat tax Content: the rich should pay a luxory tax, which pays for all the spending that is done on the poor. why is it fair to make everyone pay it when most people are just able to take care of themselves and not taking such large amounts of resources?imagine if the earth was owned by a trillionaire who owned all the earth but a plot of land where everyone else resides. natural law would say they could branch out, plant crops etc on the other land, but the law of man has prevented that. this is not so far fetched..... half the worlds resources are owned by less than a percent of the population.", "qid": 50, "docid": "1e236996-2019-04-18T14:08:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7050832509994507}, {"content": "Title: The United States Needs to Discontinue Welfare Content: That's your argument? Ok... Well I know that there are thousands of people on welfare today. I predict the if the government suddenly said \"We're stopping welfare today\" everyone would actually start looking for jobs and would be quite successful. I don't think people would just sit around and wait to die! I also know that not everyone on welfare is lazy. There are many people who do work, but don't make enough. Still, though, it's not the government's responsibility if people can't afford to eat. If people die from starvation, it will be a wake up call for the rest of the country. People will suddenly realize \"Wow, I should really start working so that I don't die, too.\"", "qid": 50, "docid": "eec23b2f-2019-04-18T15:43:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7050759792327881}, {"content": "Title: If we have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage. Content: Every top has its bottom and if we are going to have a minimum wage we ought to have a maximum wage. If there is no maximum it leaves the question \"Is it okay for one person to obtain all the capital in the world. Surely that can't happen so a maximum must exist we just refuse to recognize it. Having a maximum wage should be put into place to allow fairness to what one person is allowed to take from the world in accordance to how many people there are and the limits that possesses on the plant.", "qid": 50, "docid": "224060ff-2019-04-18T15:44:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7048230171203613}, {"content": "Title: Capitalism. Content: Welfare Business owners earn more money than they need to survive. Giving some of that money to people who can't find jobs, can't survive on their minimum wage jobs, or are unable to work (disabled people, mostly,) is a good thing. Everyone deserves enough money to eat and pay rent, no matter how little they work. In a capitalist society, anyone who doesn't have a good job is left to die. Supporting Capitalism is only one step above suggesting that we just kill all the poor people since they're getting in the way. We need to give less money to people who already have more than enough and more money to people who are living in poverty. Capitalist Governments Only Care About The Rich I don't care if cutting taxes would be beneficial to the government. My problem with capitalism in the first place is that it's only set up to benefit politicians and the rich. The government is supposed to be there to represent the citizens. It may boost entrepreneurship and productivity but, again, that only benefits big business owners. What the majority of America needs is not for the richest 1% of society to have even more money. What the majority of America needs is to not have to worry about how they'll pay their rent this month or how they're going to feed their children. We need more money being given to the poor, not more money being given to the rich. If we stop taxing the rich, who do you think is going to suffer from that? The poor. Tax money goes towards health care, and yet there's still poor people dying because they can't afford hospital visits or treatment. We need more tax money going towards that, not less. It goes to food stamps and free school lunches, and yet there's still people who are barely scraping by on a few calories a day. We need more tax money going towards that, too. Sources: http://www.dailyfinance.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "b50e5709-2019-04-18T15:46:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7046879529953003}, {"content": "Title: Universal Basic Income Content: I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \" [8] \"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...", "qid": 50, "docid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7046393156051636}]}
{"query": "Should any vaccines be required for children?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Vaccines should be mandatory.", "qid": 10, "docid": "ef8842bc-2019-04-18T12:14:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8231239318847656}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7865419387817383}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on children having mandatory vaccination with the exception of children who cannot receive it for reasons such as (but not excluding) allergies or religious reasons. Definitions: Child: A young human below the age of 18. Vaccinate: treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate. [1] Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No outsourcing to other texts or images, except for sources. 3. Above are the terms and definitions that will be used throughout the entire debate. 4. Forfeiting one or two rounds is acceptable but will result in loss of conduct points. Forfeiting 3 or more rounds will result in a forfeit of the entire debate. 5. My opponent will provide his or her arguments in the end of round 1. For round 4, no new arguments or \"ideas\" are to be provided. The same goes for me in round 5.", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7822256684303284}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines should be mandatory Content: I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too.", "qid": 10, "docid": "cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7783240079879761}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact. I am on the Proposition, arguing that, \"Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. \" Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source. Refutation \"This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. \" This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick. Arguments 1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper. 2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations. I eagerly await for the response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com... 3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. \"Where a Child Dies Each Minute. \" UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.", "qid": 10, "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7737171649932861}, {"content": "Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: Pro says: I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily. My reply: Yes, vaccines did help to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). But in such rare cases like this where disease spread like wild fire, people them self would go and take a vaccine. There is no need to make it mandatory. I never told vaccines should be removed, they don't have to be mandatory. Pro says: Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk. As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used. My reply: I was just pointing out that they don't guarantee 100% safety from the disease, yea sure if you want it you can take it, i am saying it should not be forced on everyone. Speaking of mercury, yes i know there is a purpose for adding mercury, they don't add it simply. I was pointing out the dangers of mercury, and the fact that such things should not be injected in an individual without his/her permission. You did not show any proof of thimerosal being safe, thimerosal is 50% mercury by wieght http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.wanttoknow.info... http://drsircus.com... Pro says: Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim. My reply: I never said vaccines should be removed, i told that it should be the peoples choice. Yes, it says there is no 100 % proof that it is linked to the vaccines, but it is possible. Pro says: Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio. Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others. My reply: No, the one who does not take the vaccine is not putting others to risk, If those other people want to be protected they can take the vaccines, or they can risk getting infected by avoiding the vaccine. It should the individuals choice.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7e60a5d4-2019-04-18T15:49:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7734202146530151}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: It is true that some people can't be vaccinated due to allergies, BUT all other children should have to be vaccinated as it prevents awful diseases such as influenza and whooping cough which if a baby gets she/he will most likely die.", "qid": 10, "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.772300124168396}, {"content": "Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily. Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk. As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used. Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim. Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio. Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others. In my view, I see absolutely no point in refusing to take a vaccine. In choosing to not take one, you are condemning yourself and others to a disease that could be eradicated.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7e60a5d4-2019-04-18T15:49:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7706533074378967}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.", "qid": 10, "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7676697969436646}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: Well yeah, I couldn't rebuttal you without you making a point first. Duh. 1: Yes they do 2: As proven as humanly possible Yes. 3. I would be inclined to agree. 4. Never knew that was a thing, But sure, Why not. 5. They have side effects, What you mean is serious side effects, But I get the point. 6. Well I wouldn't care if they did per se, But sure. So these are all great arguments that people should use vaccines. Where's the evidence that they should be mandatory?", "qid": 10, "docid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7670062780380249}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of \"disease preventers\" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.", "qid": 10, "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7663816213607788}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.", "qid": 10, "docid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7657898664474487}, {"content": "Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory", "qid": 10, "docid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7615981101989746}, {"content": "Title: immunizations for babies Content: In conclusion, 1. Vaccinations help protect babies against deadly and destructive diseases, viruses, bacterium and other infections. In essence, they save millions upon millions of lives. 2. Vaccinations for babies (in particular) are necessary, because they eventually stop receiving antibodies from their mother (which they need for protection). 3. SOME vaccinations may cause MINOR complications, such as a rash or small fever, but in reality these \"side effects\" are infinitely better for a child than the threats that you are vaccinated for. 4. Most (sane) people feel a sense of moral obligation to vaccinate their children and protect them and their health/safety/well-being so long as they have the ability to do so. It helps that vaccinations are almost always covered by medical insurance or Medicare and Medicaid, etc. 5. On a final note, most if not all schools (and colleges) require their students to have vaccinations in order to attend. Although I can make many more arguments for my position, I don't feel a longer list is necessary; my opponent failed to engage me in any type of real debate thus far. I thank you for this challenge, though, and hope I have helped my opponent to understand just some of the many reasons why vaccinations are essential to a child's life.", "qid": 10, "docid": "5ce3f9aa-2019-04-18T19:47:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7609131932258606}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.", "qid": 10, "docid": "8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00008-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7589696645736694}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: Children must be vaccinated it is a fact! 6 million lives if children are saved each year due to vaccinations.", "qid": 10, "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7574579119682312}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.", "qid": 10, "docid": "e0e14c7d-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7573186755180359}, {"content": "Title: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Content: I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument. 1. Yes I was using necessary to mean \"required by public schools\" 2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40 I will now debunk all of you're contentions. -Contention 1 There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct. -Contention 2 Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be. However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of \" If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination. However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger. -Contention 3 You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment. - Contention 4 Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid. -Contention 5 I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed. So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.", "qid": 10, "docid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7543731927871704}, {"content": "Title: immunizations for babies Content: its been many of times that i recall kids not getting sick untill they got a vaccine. if this is true something must be done .", "qid": 10, "docid": "5ce3f9aa-2019-04-18T19:47:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7527891397476196}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations are necessary Content: I myself do not think vaccinations are necessary. Usually every time I get one I end up getting sick after. Also some may have the risk of cancer or actually do cause it. There have been many recalls on vaccines, and the people who were the first to get them were at risk for disease or were left sick. If people ate right and took care of their bodies we would not need them. Yes, there is bacteria and virus's but the healthier the person the less chance they are of getting sick.", "qid": 10, "docid": "954be27-2019-04-18T15:19:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7484349608421326}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: \"That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up.\" This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.", "qid": 10, "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7482576370239258}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice- 1. Disease eradication 2. Milder symptoms of a disease 3. Lives saved 4. And herd immunity I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.", "qid": 10, "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7472366094589233}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Voters, please don't vote solely for forfeiture. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying yes.", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7442806959152222}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00016-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7416743040084839}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Content: There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.", "qid": 10, "docid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.741382896900177}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: There is no need for vaccines. Our immune systems can fight most ailments. Not only that, but vaccines result in almost 30,000 adverse events each year, including death, according to the department of Health and Human Services. [1] Sources: 1. www.vaers.hhs.gov", "qid": 10, "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.739891767501831}, {"content": "Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's \"religious beliefs\" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.", "qid": 10, "docid": "3143d274-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7395460605621338}, {"content": "Title: A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Content: Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00025-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7383242845535278}, {"content": "Title: On balance, children should be vaccinated. Content: PrefaceI have worked in healthcare for a decade now and find that the anti-vaccination crowd has become a small but booming voice in the industry. I am genuinley interested in a cultered debate on the issue and would love an engaging and academic contest.There is a 48 hour response time on this debate. Please consider before accepting.Full TopicOn balance, children should be vaccinated.TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence.Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and humane atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case Thank you for your consideration", "qid": 10, "docid": "f36f640f-2019-04-18T12:25:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7378435730934143}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet) Content: Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural", "qid": 10, "docid": "8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7376127243041992}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.", "qid": 10, "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7374576330184937}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that \"without vaccinations diseases will spread. \" However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.", "qid": 10, "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7372972965240479}, {"content": "Title: vaccinations should be mandatory Content: Vaccines should not mandatory as: 1) They do not guarantee 100% protection from the disease. The efficiency of the vaccines can depend on various factors such age, health, sex etc, the efficiency of vaccines is usually between 60% to 80%. http://www.nvic.org... 2) Vaccines are not very safe, many vaccines contain mercury which is directly entered into our blood stream. That could lead to mercury poisoning. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Everyone is different, so a vaccine which might work for one individual may or may not work for the other. In some cases these vaccines can have a severe allergic reaction, which in rare cases lead to death. http://articles.mercola.com... Even after taking the vaccines the person may or may not get exposed to the disease, let us assume that at the very least the vaccines are 50% efficient, and from those people who are vaccinated 50% of them are exposed to the disease at the most, since the vaccine is only 50 % efficient half of those people will benefit. If you do the maths here, we can see that 75% of the people who take the vaccine do not benefit from it, they simply suffer the side effects. So it should be clearly the peoples choice, if they would want to risk taking the vaccine or leave it. Thus vaccines should never be made mandatory.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7e60a5d4-2019-04-18T15:49:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7368226647377014}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will keep this argument brief. Claim: Vaccines save lives. Warrant: \"Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.\" [1]. Warrant: \"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 2 million child deaths were prevented by vaccinations in 2003\"[2]. Impact: Vaccination saves lives therefore as many people as possible should receive vaccines. It is clear that the resolution would save many lives and the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Links 1. http://www.usatoday.com... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": 10, "docid": "c0f611bf-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7365149259567261}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: Judges ready? Opponent ready? CROSS EXAMINATION: - My opponent failed to present a negative constructive, there is no information to challenge. - Does the lack of a negative constructive by the CON/NEG imply concurence with the PRO/AFF? FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: The pros greatly outweigh any cons (none stated notwithstanding) in regard to immunization. FACT: Medical science proves that vaccine lots are routinely checked and deemed safe. FACT: Medical professionsals are in favor of immunization. FACT: Immunizations are a cost effective way to protect people and prevent many diseases. FACT: The CON/NEG has not presented any argument. Given the above, there is no reason whatsoever why people should not be vaccinated. It makes perfect sense to receive vaccinations. It is clearly in everyone's best interest to receive vaccinations. In concern for public health, compulsory immunizations are in fact justified. Thank you.", "qid": 10, "docid": "20191d05-2019-04-18T19:17:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7362958192825317}, {"content": "Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: Good LuckFirst off, I would like to remind my opponent of the topic- State Mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. We are argueing on the fact whether or not childhood vaccinations should be mandated or not. Not whether vaccines are good or bad. We want the parent to have a choice instead of it being mandated. This could go against religion, and beliefs. If parents want to believe that the vaccine causees autism, let them, as they must have a choice. Your first argument is the autism claim is false. My response is that since I have evidence that vaccines cause autism while you have no evidence proving me wrong. Thus that stands. Your second argument is that people will be blinded by measles because they didn't get the vaccine. Again, look at the topic and again I will state that the parents will have choices. Second, If almost everyone in the US takes the vaccine, and if one person doesn't because of beliefs/religion, then he/she will not get the disease since every one around he/she will be sterile.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f7360098-2019-04-18T18:14:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7354031801223755}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7342036366462708}, {"content": "Title: should kids be vaccinated Content: I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7322847843170166}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Content: I'd like to start right away. Refutations \"However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested.\" Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, \"benefit,\" are the vaccinated ones. \"Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly\" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Plagarized. The \"risk\" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine. \"Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders.\" Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! \"Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.\" Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. \"All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist.\" Plagarized. What's the argument here? \"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.\" Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, \"theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable.\" My opponent has listed several facts to \"support\" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. \"According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]\" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...", "qid": 10, "docid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7321771383285522}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: parents should immunized for the safety of community such as schools or any sorts of public place. if not it could cause a epidemic", "qid": 10, "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7315554618835449}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barr\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.", "qid": 10, "docid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7295870184898376}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: Pro's position is that vaccines should be compulsory for everyone except immunocompromised people. I will not be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory (I take no position on that issue here). Rather, I will be arguing that Pro's exception fails to exempt people with legitimate excuses. For this reason, Pro's position should be rejected. Pro's exception fails to exempt people who have a contraindication for a particular vaccine. In medicine, a contraindication is \"something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable\". [1 - http://goo.gl... ] For example, gastrointestinal problems are a contraindication for aspirin [2 - http://goo.gl... ], as \"aspirin causes gastrointestinal bleeding\". [3 - http://goo.gl... ] There are many different vaccines, and each vaccine has a specific list of contraindications and precautions. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] According to the CDC, contraindications for vaccines include severe allergic reactions after a previous dose to a vaccine component, pregnancy, intussusception, severe immunodeficiency, encephalopathy, etc. [4 - http://goo.gl... ][5 - http://goo.gl... ] If we were to adopt Pro's proposal, then we would be subjecting people to compulsory vaccination even though these vaccines would be injurious to their health. That's not a good idea. Sources: 1 - Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary - Entry for Contraindication - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 - WebMD - Contraindications for Aspirin - http://www.webmd.com... 3 - American Heart Association - Article on Aspirin - http://circ.ahajournals.org... 4 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Chart of Contraindications and Precautions to Commonly Used Vaccines For Childhood Vaccines - http://www.cdc.gov... 5 - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Vaccine Contraindications and Precautions for ADULTS Only - http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": 10, "docid": "8319c6c-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7295275330543518}, {"content": "Title: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Content: We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible \"Illness\" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS \"Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk.\" What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. \"Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard.\" No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. \"This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.\" What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child \"Reverses\" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. \" \"Those children should not be intergrated with others\" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)", "qid": 10, "docid": "1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.729195237159729}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!", "qid": 10, "docid": "d0c78d5a-2019-04-18T11:47:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7291712164878845}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7278926372528076}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified Content: I seem to be doing a lot of medical debates recently, but this one caught my attention. It is my firm belief that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations, as my opponent proposed it, is a complete waste of time. The key flaw in my opponent's model is the ability to opt out given ANY argument, no matter how unconvincing, so long as it is valid. For instance, \"I believe in the religion of nonvaccionism, so I don't want my kid getting a vaccination\" would be a valid excuse for somebody who doesn't understand the science of vaccinations. Also, \"I don't have the time\" would be permissable as a \"physical\" exemption, because of course if you don't have the time you can't physically get a vaccination. I'll demonstrate why this is a problem with reference to my opponent's own arguments. My first contention is that it's not up to us to decide if vaccinations are reasonable or justified. My opponent and I both agree that this should instead be left up to the individual, and thanks to my opponent's opt-out clause, it is. Since we're dealing with minors here, the consent process (in this case, consent not to have a vaccination) would not be given by the patient but by their legal caregivers. These are the people we trust to make the best decisions on the children's behalf in virtually every aspect of their lives, so we can reasonably trust that the vast majority of them will probably make a highly informed decision. They're making these kinds of decisions right now under the status quo. Parents aren't like \"here's my baby, stick whatever medicines into him you want to\", they seek out all the relevant information. They'll do that whether the model is accepted or not. So assume you're a parent who wants to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, your kids will be given a vaccination. So there's no difference there. Now assume you're a parent who doesn't want to give their kids a vaccination. Under the status quo, you'd not give your kids a vaccination. Under my opponent's model, you'd exempt them from giving them a vaccination. If my opponent's case is that herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily, then proposing a voluntary model definitely won't solve the problem. My second contention is that there is no right to mandated vaccinations. That's because no government in this world is, or can ever be, a John-Locke-utopia. Governments in reality enact policy until they are overthrown by people. The problem with a John-Locke-utopia is that, like Karl Marx's socialism, it implies a commonality or accepted philosophy among all the people in that society - everyone working for the common good, not their own. Karl Marx envisioned a neutral state in exactly the same way as Locke, but Marx actually tried to make it practically workable. Of course, anybody who knows the history of communism will know that it didn't practically work. Even if the world was so utopian, however, the fact that your own model has an opt-out clause implies that it isn't. If everyone agreed to one social contract - we'll all value our longetivity forevermore - then things would be different. With such a large proportion of the world smoking, however, I think you'll find that's not what happens - there is no social contract. Furthermore, non-vaccinated people pose no threat to vaccinated people, because they're vaccinated. Once you have a vaccine you can't get the desease, that's the whole point. So the whole idea is false that you're \"doing harm to others\" by not vaccinating. My third contention is that there is no justice in simply asking lawyers whether something is just or not. Seriously. Every single person pro cites in this paragraph was a lawyer at some stage. The fact is that with an opt-out clause, you're making all these opinions meaningless. You're telling them that the state cannot mandate vaccinations, only they can shift the burden of proof from one group of parents to the other. In law there's an idea called precedent - future laws should conform to past decisions. If my opponent is going to use the precedent of US case law and philosophy, why is his model inconsistant with it? I'm going to add another three contentions. Not everyone is as liberal as I am, and some people just resent being forced to do anything. If you force them to do something, instead of asking them nicely, they're likely to not co-operate. This is true even if you're not actually forcing them to do something, such as in this model. The perception that the government is using public policy to control people's personal lives won't jar well with this \"libertarian\" crowd, and you bet that they'll reduce the number of vaccinations they give their kids for precisely this reason. Less vaccinations is bad, even from a utilitarian perspective. The second contention is that there's no recourse. Pretend I flouted the law and didn't give up my kids for vaccination or give a proper excuse. What will the authorities do? There's two ways they can find out - if my child gets sick (in which case it's too late), or by checking every single child for every single vaccination. That's a mammoth administrative task. And if you take the parents to court, they'll simply say (through their lawyers) \"my children shouldn't have a vaccination, it's in their best interest, but I couldn't think of a reason why. I am obliged as a parent to do what's best for my children, and thus found this law irreconcilable with my legal obligations as this child's guardian\". That's thee sort of legal case that can only result in one of the two being struck down (or in systems where this is not allowed, in the judge making an arbritrary ruling, which doesn't help anyone) - and you bet parenthood will beat mandated vaccinations any day. This makes the law a total waste of time. The third contention is which vaccinations this law applies to. My opponent wasn't very specific, but he mentioned the 23 key illnesses. 23 vaccinations is actually a lot. Most of the vaccinations on the list have been around for less than a few decades. Scientists cannot even be sure that they are safe in the long term. When I was a child, I was given a minimum of vaccinations. By some strange coincidence, my preschool was hit by a spectacular outbreak of glue ear. It affected every single child except me. And every single other child had at least twice as many vaccinations as I did. I'm not saying vaccinations should be avoided outright - I'm saying that this law applies even to very new vaccinations that cannot reasonably have undergone sufficient long-term scientific testing.", "qid": 10, "docid": "4039843a-2019-04-18T18:21:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7275509238243103}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations. Content: I assume my opponent means all people in the USA will be subject to these mandatory vaccines. I mean what would be the point otherwise? I see no list of exceptions, so I expect an easy win. I made a similar debate and got nailed for this. 0. Medical contraindications. Sometimes for whatever reason a person is unable to receive medication. This is called a contraindication. This is true for vaccines. [1] By forcing everyone to take vaccines you are exposing them to unnecessary risk and harm. People with contraindications should not be forced to take vaccines. 1. Severely immunocompromised patients should not have vaccines. \"In general, these patients should not be administered live vaccines\" [2] At this point I think I've effectively destroyed my opponent's premise. Forcing people who have contraindications and are severely immunocompromised is dangerous and cruel. I see no good reason to force these people to have to go through mandatory vaccines. Note this could fall under \"6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)\" I don't think so, I think this was a vast oversight by my opponent. Assuming my above arguments fall into kritiks of the topic, I apologize and have therefore forfeited the debate. Thanks for your time. Sources. 0. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... 2. . http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": 10, "docid": "f351687c-2019-04-18T12:56:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.726834237575531}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1. Content: Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this debate. I will be going with option B, therefore I will be arguing that vaccines should not be compulsory.", "qid": 10, "docid": "a141ac32-2019-04-18T12:34:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7252626419067383}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.", "qid": 10, "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7251418828964233}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: My opponent cites vactruth. com, a lunatic fringe conspiracy website, in order to lend credence to his views. However, the claims of this site are entirely unsupported by science. In order to win all I must do is show that there is at least one scenario where compulsory immunizations would be justified. Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. In the case of an outbreak of dangerous viral infections, compulsory immunizations would be morally necessary. Even if I were to grant the fabricated claims of my opponent the negative effects of polio [1], smallpox [2], and SARS [3] would still warrant compulsory immunizations. People do not have a constitutional right to jeopardize the life of other people by refusing to get vaccinated any more than they have a right to murder someone. (Resolution affirmed) ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 10, "docid": "f083f25a-2019-04-18T19:14:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7248539924621582}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified Content: According to the Centers for Disease Control, \"Universal vaccination is a critical part of quality health care and should be accomplished through routine and intensive vaccination programs.\" We strongly affirm the resolution, \"Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.\" This is because of justice, righteousness, and reasonability. Before I begin, I would like to make one preliminary observation: the PRO is not obligated to prove that state mandated administration of childhood vaccinations should be implemented into any past, current, or future system of government, merely that they are justified. I would also like to define a few key terms. I would like to define state as a politically organized body of people, mandate as to formally order or command, and justified as an action that is shown to be just, right, or reasonable all according to Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Through these definitions, we still allow for society to keep its free will and allow for exemption. The government will mandate the vaccination program to ensure that those who wish to be vaccinated receive the vaccination while those opposed and provide reasonable grounds to be exempt, can be. This would include philosophical, religious, and physical exceptions. Our first contention is that mandated vaccinations are reasonable. Before I begin, I would like to introduce an important concept: utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory, which justifies actions or events based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Firstly, vaccinations themselves improve the safety of the individual and the public. According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. Next, mandated vaccinations are beneficial towards the safety of the individual and of the public. Without mandated vaccinations, it would be highly difficult or impossible to reach herd immunity, a situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population (roughly 85%) is immune to an infectious disease to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Currently, according to the most recent National Immunization Survey from the Centers for Disease Control, only 70.2% of children 19-35 months are vaccinated against 23 key illnesses. Clearly, herd immunity is not being reached voluntarily. Also, without mandated vaccinations, health and safety issues arise. Even if a disease does not severely harm an unvaccinated person, they still have the potential to pass the disease on to another, possibly killing them. The risks of not being vaccinated far outweigh the small risks associated with vaccination. Clearly, mandated vaccinations improve overall safety and health, and are therefore justified. Our second contention is that mandated vaccinations are right. Every government in the world has a moral obligation to protect the rights and safety of its citizens. However, every government must infringe upon the lives of the individual in order to maintain national security and freedom. This is known as a social contract, in which individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm. John Locke argued in Second Treatise of Government that \"\u2026individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a \"neutral judge\", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.\" He then postulated, \"the government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense.\" Since we have already proven that vaccinations are not only beneficial to society, but that not vaccinating is directly detrimental towards society, the government has an obligation to mandate vaccinations and is justified in doing so. Since not vaccinated citizens pose an immediate and dangerous threat to the remainder of the population, mandated vaccinations qualify as self-defense. According to the social contract, mandated vaccinations are justified because of a duty to the society. Our final contention is that mandated vaccinations are just. Courts have repeatedly upheld compulsory vaccination laws in the United States as a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, even in the absence of a disease outbreak. Such laws survive constitutional challenge even in cases where they conflict with the religious beliefs of individuals. In the first such case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled that: \"the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.\" John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote \"The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.\" Therefore, the government serves justice when preventing citizens from immediate threats (unvaccinated citizens). Clearly, mandated vaccinations are justified because of justice. In conclusion, since we have proven that mandated vaccinations are reasonable, right, and just, they are justified.", "qid": 10, "docid": "4039843a-2019-04-18T18:21:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7237993478775024}, {"content": "Title: DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits! Content: I repeat: There is no more thimerosal in vaccines for childhood viruses. Vaccination is a fairly simple process. I'm sure most of us understand how they work. Our immune systems recognize pathogens that it was dealt with before. Upon discovery, the proper antibodies are created and the pathogen is destroyed before any damage comes to the body. Getting sick once is still too much though. Weakened versions of the virus are injected into the bloodstream and the immune system attack it. Of course, there is no damage, but now the patient is immune to the disease and will never have to have it. Vaccination is one of the most important tools of public health. My opponent is trying to give a reason why the risks are *much* higher than the benefits. I have already eliminated his first argument. As it stands, I see no risks at all in vaccination and quite a few benefits. It is now up to my opponent to tip the scales.", "qid": 10, "docid": "6dd5c7bb-2019-04-18T19:48:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7234382629394531}, {"content": "Title: There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations Content: Pro makes the claim that there shouldn't be mandatory vaccinations on the premise that they cause autism, are a scam, and have other negative consequences. However they haven't provided any evidence this is the case. The claim that vaccinations cause autism isn't true. :The MMR vaccine controversy started with the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in The Lancet linking the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders.\" [1] The key word there is fraudulent. \"An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Andrew Wakefield, the author of the original research paper linking the vaccine to autism, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest,[9][10] had manipulated evidence,[11] and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004, and fully retracted in 2010, when Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton described it as \"utterly false\" and said that the journal had been \"deceived\" [2]. As we can see, basing the outlook that vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory because they cause autism is completely unfounded. Claims ought to be based on fact to be considered true. A scam can be defined as a dishonest scheme. It vaccinations are a scam, about what and why in particular? A case hasn't been provided. So with Pro not offering cant substance whatsoever, allow me to showcase why vaccinations are important. Immunizations can save your child's life. \"Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction\" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America\"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States [3]\" Immunizations protect the future generation. \" Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don\"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future [4]\". Humans have been able to live longer, flourish often, and progress society due to the lack of bubonic plagues and mystical diseases we previously died from before the research of science. Mandatory Vaccinations not only save lives, but allow the human race to be stronger than ever before. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.vaccines.gov... [4] https://www.vaccines.gov...", "qid": 10, "docid": "5a57223d-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7231701016426086}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory childhood vaccination Content: Extend. Also freedom of religion is expressed in the first amendment. Making it mandatory would be a violation of this. But justified by the risk of spreading disease? Vaccines don't actually help that much. It is healthy practices such as hand washing that get the job done.", "qid": 10, "docid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7224118709564209}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory vaccinations (for government services) Content: sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say \"you ought to do this or that\". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7212212085723877}, {"content": "Title: On balance, children should be vaccinated. Content: you shouldn't vaccinate children since it gives autism and it contains the virus if you get the choice of contracting non-deadly diseases that you are likely not to contract vs getting autism what would you rather have.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f36f640f-2019-04-18T12:25:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7205105423927307}, {"content": "Title: Children should receive vaccinations. Content: Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can\"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.", "qid": 10, "docid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7197791337966919}, {"content": "Title: State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified. Content: Topic: State-mandated administartion of childhood vaccines is justified. Rules:1. No Ad Hominem2. No plagiarism3. No semantics/abusive arguments4. Dropping = Conceding5. By accepting, my opponent accepts the given rules.5a. If not, post in comments. =/Definitions:1. State-mandatedMandated is defined as requirement, so this phrase means each state has requirements relating to medical and safety issues.2. Administartion Administration, in this case, relates to allowing the government to give permission and obligating to trained medical professionals to give a shot to you. 3. Childhood VaccinesA series of vaccines, biological preparation, given during childhood to prevent future diseases. 4. JustifiedFor debate purposes, it means that on balance, it does more good than harm to the people. Good luck to whoever accepts.", "qid": 10, "docid": "ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7196801900863647}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination is a natural way to stimulate our immune system to fight a disease. Through vaccination... Content: Some vaccines include toxic materials such as chemicals including mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and a variety of other known toxic materials. Vaccines might be capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. Parents should have the right to choose on behalf of their children whether they should be vaccinated at all, or to choose vaccination against some diseases but not others.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00008-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.719630241394043}, {"content": "Title: Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government Content: Firstly, you have said that \"parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.", "qid": 10, "docid": "10fc577b-2019-04-18T13:19:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7194795608520508}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1. Content: I'm still on the fence about vaccines. I am willing to argue for or against vaccines. This is because many of my real life friends are anti-vaxxers, yet I pride myself on being a rational person. Therefore, I am in conflict. Finally, depending on which side my opponent picks, I will argue the opposite. Just make sure to state which side you are on in round one. If you don't choose a side I assume we go with me as Pro and my opponent as Con. Sides to choose from: A. Compulsory Vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious beliefs, conspiracy theories, or moral objections. B. Compulsory Vaccines should not be enforced by law in the USA if the person has a religious, conspiracy theories, or moral objection. Exceptions, contraindications [0] and immunocompromised patients, or any other physical reason is it ill-advised patient for the patient to receive the vaccination treatment verified by a licensed medical doctor. Example one, person A receives a vaccination, then a rare reaction of some kind occurs. Then, the doctor would write a note that particular person shouldn't receive any booster shots for that vaccination. Example two, immunocompromised patients. Patient B has a condition, like receiving chemotherapy that hinders the immune system rendering the vaccine ineffective. Just to be clear, physical reasons that can be verified by a doctor would be excluded from the debate. Having moral, irrational fears, and/or religious objections to vaccines is the epicenter of the debate. Round one Pick sides and definitions Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's r2 Round four Defense, respond directly to opponent's r3. Burden of proof will be equally shared. Common definitions are assumed unless otherwise and agreed upon. Sources 0. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 10, "docid": "a141ac32-2019-04-18T12:34:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7191977500915527}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised. Content: Have fun. Vaccines save lives, its common knowledge. Therefore, everyone who can should get one. \"Vaccines given to infants and young children over the past two decades will prevent 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccines also will have saved $295 billion in direct costs, such as medical expenses, and a total of more than $1.3 trillion in societal costs over that time\" Liz Szabo, USA TODAY [4] The immunocompromised shouldn't be forced to receive vaccines because they are in too weak a state. \"Immunocompromised patients are a unique group with special issues regarding immunization. Pharmacists need to work closely with these patients' physicians in deciding whether and when immunization might be appropriate. \" [5] . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://www.medscape.com...", "qid": 10, "docid": "8319c6c-2019-04-18T14:13:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7168960571289062}, {"content": "Title: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified Content: I Negate. Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. My First Contention: Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Subpoint A: It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment in the Constitution to mandate the vaccination of any individual. It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment in the Constitution to mandate the vaccination of any individual if it is a direct violation of their religious belief. These religions include (but are not limited to): Christianity, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion, as it can be quoted as saying \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...\" My Second Contention: Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions. Subpoint A: These reactions can include anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can also trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Subpoint B: Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Subpoint C: About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome. My Third Contention: Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents. Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Extending the power of the Federal Government to this extent (ignoring it's violation of the Constitution) would be directly opposite of AT LEAST 31% of the populous. This would reflect poorly on the federal government. http://www.senate.gov...(1791) http://vaccines.procon.org... Moshe Tishler and Yehuda Shoenfeld, \"Vaccination May be Associated with Autoimmune Diseases,\" Isralie Medical Association Journal, July 2004 National Vaccine Information Center \"Autism: Introduction to Autism Information,\" www.nvic.org (accessed Jan. 8, 2010) Joseph Mercola, \"Vaccines and Immune Suppression,\" www.mercola.com (accessed Jan. 5, 2010) Richard Moskowitz, \"The Role of Vaccines in Chronic Disease,\" www.whale.to (accessed Jan. 13, 2010) Gary L. Freed, et al., \"Parental Vaccine Safety Concerns in 2009,\" Pediatrics, Mar. 1, 2009 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, \"About the VAERS Program,\" vaers.hhs.gov", "qid": 10, "docid": "3143d274-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.716845691204071}, {"content": "Title: Vaccination with the MMR vaccine should be mandatory Content: Alright, let\"s kick this thing off with the case. The U.S. Federal Government will require that all individuals before attending school receive the vaccination. All individuals who are beyond schooling age and under the age of 65 would have to get the vaccine within 5 years. These will be subsidized on an as-needed basis, ensuring that it is broadly affordable. Failure to vaccinate oneself or one's family results in a fine that scales with income. There would be other exclusions based on allergies, pregnancies, and those individuals who are immunocompromised. Before I transition into some contentions, I\"ll start with some general overview of this issue. This debate is fundamentally a comparison between individual choice and public good. I think both agree that vaccines are a public good, at least insofar as having vaccines available to the public is a net benefit to society. It is generally beneficial for people to be able to protect themselves against potentially deadly viruses and bacteria. These are infectious, so there is also a benefit to others around us. If Con wishes to argue that this is not the case, he\"s welcome to do so, but for now, I\"ll function under the assumption that we agree on the efficacy of vaccines. We know that there is also a fundamental level of value to individual choice, which I\"m certain Con will get into in his argument. So, how do we balance freedom vs. health? As a society, we do this quite often. Think about traffic laws. We require people to follow certain rules of the road because not doing so makes them a danger to both themselves and others. And this isn\"t the only instance where our government goes against basic beliefs in the general population. Despite widespread acrimony over drug tests, workplaces are still allowed to require them. We are taxed despite the protestations of individuals who don\"t like certain taxes. All of this is allowed not because the government is being overbearing, but because we\"ve accepted an aspect of shared responsibility for our actions. We accept that individual rights do not always trump that responsibility, particularly when doing so could cause harm to others. So, when is it justified to subvert individual choice to the public good? That requires that two conditions to be met. Whatever is being regulated or mandated must be safe and effective, and the risk of not participating in said behavior must outweigh any risk from the behavior itself. I would argue that vaccines meet these criteria. Vaccines are both safe and effective, and they have a track record of reducing illness and death from the diseases they prevent. Again, if my opponent wishes to challenge this, I will be more than happy to provide evidence to support this argument (some of the coming arguments will support this), though I believe it\"s a point on which we agree. All of this puts Con in a difficult position. He\"s going to try and argue that vaccines are markedly different from other issues that encounter the liberty vs. public good question, and he\"ll have to show that the personal freedoms lost outweigh the widely evidenced good that vaccines provide. To do that, he\"ll have to counter life and quality of life lost, which comes with numerical weight, with a vaguer conception of impact, as personal freedom isn\"t clearly quantifiable. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. With that, onto my contentions. 1. Disease Spread We must recognize that vaccination is not a choice that solely affects the individual being vaccinated. The decision to get the MMR vaccine affects everyone around you. Measles, mumps and rubella are all transmitted through droplets that are sprayed into the air, making them airborne pathogens with a high likelihood of transmission to those around the infected.[1, 2, 3] The mere fact that others are put at risk by people who refuse to take these vaccines creates a substantial societal harm in the status quo, as many are allowed to refuse to get the vaccine. We're living this harm today, seeing a resurgence in these entirely preventable diseases in the U.S. and abroad.[4] This resurgence is most marked with measles, a disease that the U.S. had eliminated by the year 2000, but which returned in 17 outbreaks among 222 people just in 2011.[5] Mumps has had 4 reported outbreaks this year alone, and has had several small and two large outbreaks in the last 5 years, encompassing thousands of people.[6] Rubella has also returned from a long absence, appearing in three cases in the U.S. in 2012 after being eliminated back in 2004.[7] This change resulted mainly from a false public perception that vaccines have been linked to autism.[8] In order to understand why vaccinating a large portion of the population is necessary, we have to understand the term \"herd immunity.\" This has been defined differently by different authors, but I will use the term in this fashion: \"a particular threshold proportion of immune individuals that should lead to a decline in the incidence of infection.\"[9] What that means is that if someone becomes sick with a given disease, herd immunity would ensure that that person is so much more likely to run into someone vaccinated against that disease than someone who is vulnerable that they would be extremely unlikely to infect other people. We cannot possibly vaccinate everyone and achieve absolute immunity because of the necessity of the exclusions I listed in my case, but we can seek to achieve herd immunity. What does that threshold look like for these diseases? For measles, this is 95%.[10] For mumps, it's at least 88%, though it \"may need to be higher\" than this previously established threshold.[11] For rubella, it sits at 90%.[12] Only through mandatory vaccination could we ever hope to reach those numbers. 2. Disease Impact My first contention established a threshold for harm in status quo, but I will now show that that threshold has a tremendous impact on society. In order to understand that, we have to know what the impact of these three diseases is. Measles: \"Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million people were infected in the U.S. each year, resulting in 48,000 hospitalizations, 400-500 deaths and approximately 1,000 who developed chronic disabilities. Even with modern medical care, the disease can lead to serious complications, including blindness, pneumonia, otitis media and severe diarrhea. Despite the availability of a vaccine it remains a leading cause of death among young children worldwide, with deaths mainly attributable to the complications of the disease... More than 90 percent of susceptible people, usually unvaccinated, develop the disease after being exposed. There is no treatment except to make the patient as comfortable as possible by keeping them hydrated and trying to control the fever. Unvaccinated young children and pregnant women are at the highest risk for measles and its complications, including death.\"[13] Mumps: \"Mumps is not normally a fatal disease, and up to 30% of mumps infections are asymptomatic. There can be serious complications, however, including aseptic meningitis, orchitis, oophoritis, mastitis, pancreatitis, and deafness. Meningitis occurs in up to 10% of mumps cases; it is usually subclinical and self-limiting. Symptoms of mumps-related meningitis include fever, headache, vomiting, and neck stiffness, which peak for a period of 48 hours before resolution and might appear up to 1 week before parotid swelling. More serious neurologic symptoms are rare and are due to encephalitis. Hearing loss following mumps infections is rare (1 in 2000 to 30,000 cases) and usually results in mild to moderate hearing loss. Orchitis [swelling of the testicles] occurs 4 to 8 days after the onset of parotitis and is a common complication, affecting 20% of men who develop mumps after puberty. Of those cases, 40% will develop testicular atrophy and 30% will have lasting changes in sperm count, sperm motility, and sperm morphology.\"[14] Rubella: While the disease usually only results in a light fever and small rash, this disease is mainly problematic for pregnant women. \"In 1964-65, America had a major rubella epidemic, with more than 12 million cases and 20,000 babies born with congenital rubella; of these, 13,000 were deaf, 3,500 were blinded by congenital cataracts, and 1,800 more suffered severe cognitive impairment.\"[7] Since pregnant mothers are among the few who cannot get the vaccine, every single person who decides not to get the vaccine is putting these mothers at risk. Taken together, this means these three viruses present as enduring, broad threats to public health that are made dramatically worse in the absence of herd immunity. As we have clearly not reached a level of herd immunity in the absence of a mandate to vaccinate with the MMR vaccine, my plan solves for this harm. With that, I await Con's argument. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://www.npr.org... 5. http://www.cdc.gov... 6. http://www.cdc.gov... 7. http://www.thedailybeast.com... 8. http://online.wsj.com... 9. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 10. http://www.theguardian.com... 11. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13. http://guardianlv.com... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": 10, "docid": "fd606b23-2019-04-18T11:34:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7158218622207642}, {"content": "Title: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Content: Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be \"best-care\" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create \"herd immunity.\" This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on \"herd immunity\" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be \"free riders\" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, \"Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school.\" BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...", "qid": 10, "docid": "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7157724499702454}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Content: ok so we should justify compulsory immunization because people can and will die from diseases.", "qid": 10, "docid": "800ca2c1-2019-04-18T19:17:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7155026197433472}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: My opponents said vactruth. com will not work as a source but he did not say why and has no proof there's no scientific reasoning. Onto my opponents case. My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating. Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights. He also used wikipedia which everyone knows is NOT to be used as a source for anything! !! !! Because it can be changed by the public so his contention is not legit so therefore to be thrown out.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f083f25a-2019-04-18T19:14:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7142904996871948}, {"content": "Title: THW: make vaccinations against deadly diseases mandatory unless there is a medical exemption Content: I'm glad to hear that my opponent agrees that vaccines are safe and effective. My opponent's points seem to be as follows: 1) Making vaccines mandatory will not convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines. 2) It is cruel to force someone to take something they get, even if it is good for them. 3) It could not be enforced. In response: 1) The point of this motion was never to convince antivaxers of the safety of vaccines (although of course such a goal is desirable). The point is to protect the health of those who cannot be vaccinated and of children whose parents are negligent by failing to vaccinate them. 2) Though it is preferable not to have to force someone through a moment of discomfort for their own health, their children's health, or the health of those around them, it is a so-called \"necessary evil\"; the alternative is to risk the health of that individual or of others. People have died- and will continue to die- as a result of antivaxers' reckless negligence and it should be made illegal to fail to vaccinate oneself and one's children as a result. Sometimes it is necessary to violate the consent of someone for the health of that person or those around them- we recognise, for instance, that it is necessary to force-feed someone with severe anorexia in order to protect them from starving themselves to death, or to place someone with an infection disease in quarantine in order to prevent them from infecting others. It is in a similar way that we must force people to vaccinate themselves and their children, even if they (falsely) believe that vaccines are harmful- there just simply isn't time to convince them- people are dying- and we will never be able to convince them all. 3) Though I recognise it would be impossible to identify- and therefore charge- the individual responsible for an outbreak, it would be considerably more practical to check everyone's medical records and to ensure everyone has had their vaccine, and to apply some kind of statutory penalty like a fine until they have had them. My opponent mentioned that this would be \"unconstitutional\", but: 1. This is a debate on an international forum, so the US constitution needn't apply; I'm speaking from the UK. 2. So, of we must obey the US constitution, then part of this motion would be to amend the US constitution such that a vaccine mandate is allowed. 3. People are still dying. We should therefore apply the \"Quod Est Necassarium Est Licitum\" principle (that which is necessary is legal*). So, to summarise my case: Making vaccines mandatory is necessary in order to save lives; vaccines are safe and effective, and do save lives both of those who are vaccinated and if those who cannot be vaccinated through herd immunity. Saving lives with a mandate in vaccines makes such a mandate necessary, and overrides the (false and irrational) fears of antivaxers, and any constitutional concerns. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 10, "docid": "5a0f171e-2019-04-18T12:19:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7142838835716248}, {"content": "Title: public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: Resolved: public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I negate the resolution with a VALUE of CHOICE. The value criterion that I will be using is FREEDOM. Contention1--for many people, vaccines are the right decision for them. And for many, whether from ethical or religious beliefs, they aren't. Christian scientists, for example, simple believe that if god wants to take their life's, then it must be the right thing, and refuse to put any barrier between them and that fate. And no matter what your views are regarding that belief, there is no denying that it is an important one for that certain group of people. And who is anybody to go in and tell them too bad so sad they'll have to stick to other beliefs because that one is getting flushed down the toilet? Of all of the decisions to be made in our lifetimes, what we put in our bodies should be high up there on the importance scale. Contention 2\u2014nothing so personal should be compulsory. The definition of compulsory is required, mandatory, or obligatory as an adjective. As a noun, however, it takes on a slightly different meaning. Something, as an athletic feat, that must be performed or completed as part of a contest or competition. While the resolution uses the word as an adjective, its full meaning isn't covered without all of its definitions. So if to get vaccinated is something that \"must be performed or completed as part of a contest or competition\", then what is this competition that we speak of? Is it life? And it is being stated that this is vital to our survival? Well I beg to differ. For thousands of years we have survived without immunization. So why is it now making such a dramatic appearance. Nothing that directly affects the health of one person should be a decision of another. Contention3\u2014adverse side effects are proven to exist. While some people may accept this as a minor setback, many people find it to outweigh any good that could come from the shots. Also, many people have allergic reactions to different vaccines. Pretussis, one of the most common vaccinations in babies has the following list of probable side effects: soreness, redness and swelling at the injection site, fussiness, mild fever, loss of appetite, tiredness and vomiting. And while these may seem to be minor side effects, there are other vaccines that cause much worse. In rare instances, administration of OPV has been associated with paralytic poliomyelitis in health recipients and their contacts. Contention4\u2014many are totally unnecessary for anyone. The chicken pox. Those lovely spots covering our body. Certainly not fun, and the older you get the worse you itch. In the state of Oregon this is a required immunization. How can something so natural and unharmful become something that each person in the state of Oregon HAS TO for. The chicken pox vaccine has a life span as well. It must be renewed every 6-10 years. Or you could get the chicken pox for a week or two and not have to worry about it at all anymore!! And another example. Hepititus b is a disease transferable only through bodily fluids. This means that we are giving BABIES a vaccine for a disease that they are most likely to get through sex. Contention5\u2014misinformation exists. It is a very common belief that polio was eradicated because of vaccines. This is not true. Polio was eradicated by increased sterilization and the end of open sewage systems. This is simple one example but there are numerous out there.", "qid": 10, "docid": "bdbc0180-2019-04-18T19:10:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7142308950424194}, {"content": "Title: You choose the topic Content: I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.", "qid": 10, "docid": "bb781d0c-2019-04-18T13:19:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7130304574966431}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory vaccines for everyone, except immunocompromised and contraindications. Content: Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised and/or patients with contraindications would be exempt from compulsory vaccines in the entire world. Regardless of faith or opinion. contraindication \": something (as a symptom or condition) that makes a particular treatment or procedure inadvisable \" [1]. immunocompromised \"having the immune system impaired or weakened (as by drugs or illness) \" [2]. Compulsory \"required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education. \" [3]. Vaccine \"Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. Vaccinations, or immunizations, work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body.\"[4]. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.medicinenet.com...", "qid": 10, "docid": "c0f611bf-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7127894163131714}, {"content": "Title: vaccinating children must be a law Content: I think that all children who CAN be vaccinated, many children and adults are immunocompromised, or undergoeing chemotherapy, etc., etc. But other than that, hear hear sir.", "qid": 10, "docid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7126507759094238}, {"content": "Title: Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids Content: If you dont immunize your kids your putting the children at risk of getting even more sick because if the child has already a weakened immune system; but not vaccinating them your putting other children at risk of exposure and they can even sicker and some rare cases the child could even die", "qid": 10, "docid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7121952176094055}, {"content": "Title: Not getting children vaccinated Content: Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating \"rings of immunity\" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!", "qid": 10, "docid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7121334671974182}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: OBSERVATIONS: My opponent has failed to present a quality argument. SUMMARY: One could say that making vaccinations compulsory is just more government interference in our personal lives. We're not talking about tickets for not wearing a seatbelt folks. We're talking about what is good for society. It makes perfect sense to make immunizations compulsory. Let's examine the PROs: - Prevents most illnesses - Cost effective - Higher immunity equals less disease - Less chance of disease spreading / epidemic - Less disease equals the potential for higher GDP - Fewer insurance claims - Healthier people - Creation, testing, marketing equals jobs Requoting statesman Benjamin Franklin, \"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure\". These are all facts of my case, and they remain undisputed. Thank you!", "qid": 10, "docid": "20191d05-2019-04-18T19:17:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7120289206504822}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Content: Rebuttals/Closing Arguments: Pro has contradicted himself in referring to a poll (which he has failed to link) in which the majority of people questioned have said that they are 'for' vaccines - on the basis that they 'protect everyone'. Pro then rather oddly states that the 707 people *for* vaccinations are of 'low intelligence' - which is an empty and bareless assertion as he hasn't provided any source(s) in support of it. That Pro can go from using statistics that show most people are in agreement with the vaccination process and then say that these people are all simply stupid, demonstrates what little understanding of the topic he has and how poor his ability to construct consistent arguments is. Pro asks if I think more diseases can be cured, to which the obvious answer is yes, as this is what's continually been happening within the last 100 or so years; more diseases have become identified, and more diseases have been treated and cured through vaccinations. Many of the vaccinations I listed are given to infants - and are very important. The rest, were primarily travel vaccinations and the flu jab. People who are going to travel to third-world or tropical countries are highly advised to get vaccinated. Infants and the elderly constitute the primary demographic for flu vaccinations - though they are beneficial to anyone. The reality is that as an infant, Pro would've been vaccinated against early-childhood diseases and other highly contagious ilnnesses that can be fatal if not life-impacting, and, these vaccinations naturally have been of benefit to him as they are to every other person who gets them. All babies within their first year are vaccinated against Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Haemophilus Influenzae type b, and Hepatitis b, in what is what is known as the 6-in-1 vaccine. So, my opponent has failed to fulfill his BoP and has completely dismissed most of my case, to the extent that not one source I used was addressed.", "qid": 10, "docid": "d0c78d5a-2019-04-18T11:47:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7117670774459839}, {"content": "Title: Make Vaccination Compulsory Content: It is a parental right to decide about vaccinations for a child", "qid": 10, "docid": "d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7115007042884827}, {"content": "Title: Vaccines can cause autism and other problems Content: So, there will be deaths from vaccines. But clearly, if we knew who would suffer from vaccines, we wouldn't give them the shot (Well, to a certain extent we do know some people who couldn't handle vaccines, but I'm talking about the ones we don't know). But, if we don't, then with all the vaccine-caution parents would be way to scared to give their children vaccines. That would be terrible. We need those that can get vaccines to get them. In a sense, it's like sacrificing one to save to save the rest. It isn't something we want, but it's needed to protect from the diseases.", "qid": 10, "docid": "e0e14c7d-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7114475965499878}, {"content": "Title: The state has a right to impose compulsory vaccination. If an age group is protected, that results ... Content: The state has a right to impose compulsory vaccination. If an age group is protected, that results in a better health conditions for the whole society. In an industrialised country such as the USA, those choosing exemption from statutorily compulsory vaccination were 35-times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated persons; in developing countries where these viruses are still endemic, the risk would be considerably higher. Those who wish to opt-out of vaccination (often on behalf of their children, who have no say in the matter) are classic free riders, hoping to benefit from the more responsible behaviour of the rest of society. Unfortunately, irresponsible behaviour soon spreads and diseases which were once under control become endemic again; this can be seen with outbreaks of measles in parts of London where childhood vaccination rates have dropped sharply in recent years, resulting in unnecessary suffering and some deaths or permanent disabilities.", "qid": 10, "docid": "7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00015-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7113973498344421}, {"content": "Title: Should people be forced to get vaccinated Content: Greetings. I thank my opponent for opening this debate. I will be arguing that people should not necessarily be forced to get vaccinated. I await my opponent's opening arguments.", "qid": 10, "docid": "4ec4605f-2019-04-18T13:47:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7109609842300415}, {"content": "Title: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization Content: Thank you NEG. Extending my case... My value \"Public Health\" is the basis of this resolution; the resolution is questioning whether public health should be considered in mandating immunizations. Thus without the value \"Public Health\", there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. My VC also is essential; as my contentions have proven, the ultimate goal of compulsory immunization is to protect the welfare of society as a whole, aka public health. Without public health, there would be no fully functioning society, and thus nothing else can exist without it. My second contention first establishes the fact that government is created in order to protect the welfare of society as a whole and ensure its well-being. Thus, rights of the individual citizen must be given up when it is against the interests of other citizens in the same community. A government is obligated to choose and implement policies that are considered the best for society as a whole; if it does not accomplish this (in which negative is suggesting) then what would be the point in establishing a government in the first place? Alas, my second contention leads and proves my first contention which is critical to this debate; that vaccinations are effective in protecting the human population. Vaccines have been proven to protect the welfare of humans, and if required for all citizens, would protect the whole society. An individual might resist against the vaccine, but then he would be seen as a potential threat to society; that particular individual would have the risk of carrying the disease and infecting those around him. Under these circumstances, the individual must be required to be immunized so to protect other people; his individual rights cannot be considered. Now responding to my opponents case and rebuttal: My opponent's value is morality. What is morality based on? an individual's perspective, or society's perspective? my opponent's value is too vague, and thus cannot be considered. My opponent's criterion is human agency, defined as \"the capacity of humans to make rational decisions.\" Obviously \"rational\" would be influenced by an individual's moral conscience, but what if this indivudal had corrupt or aboslutely no sense of moral righteousness. Then he is free to do whatever he may please, because he considers it to be rational. If this rationality was to be judged by other people in the same given society, then thus he would be restricted by others for his particular actions. In a sense my opponent's criterion is agreeing with the affirmative; if society considers this individual's rationality to be not justified, then it have the right to restrict it. In the same way as my case, an indivudal can not freely roam in this society; they give up some of their individual rights in exchange for protection and security as a whole. My opponent advocates that humans are always unpredictable and we would have to respect that. He criticizes that compulsory immunization would dennounce individualism; Yet compulsory immunziation does not take away all rights and identity of people; it only does so under the circumstance of public health. Also, there is no proof or direct link that a government would abuse its power and create \"horrors such as slavery, eugenics, or holocaust.\" This arguement is extremely flawed, and I would like to point out my opponent does not give any sort of warrant or proof of this. Thus my opponent's criterion is invalid. His whole arguement, and case would thus not make any sense. Responding to my opponent's rebuttals, my case is built on protecting public health, because the resolution is asking whether compulsory immunization can be justified through public health; public health thus is the determining factor, not compulsory. For the given reasons, vote for affirmative. The main arguement is that government is established to insure the welfare of society, and when vaccines have been proven to benefit society, government has to mandate vaccinations so to ensure this beneficiary. thus, public health concerns justify immunization.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f891265b-2019-04-18T19:14:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7108310461044312}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Content: \"Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.\" Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. \"Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion.\" Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. \"Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory.\" Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. \"All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections.\" You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. \"Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis.\" When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. \"Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.\" Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations", "qid": 10, "docid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7101945877075195}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective Content: I have done this debate a few times, with less-than-challenging opponents. This debate is open to anyone, however please only accept if you are of the opinion that vaccines are bad or you consider yourself to be an 'anti-vaxxer'. I will borrow from my previous debates in my opening round, and from then on any responses will be driven entirely by this debate. - 10k characters- 4 rounds- 72-hour argumentation- 10-day votingThe resolution is as follows: On balance, vaccination is both safe and effective. I will contend that it amounts to criminal negligence not to vaccinate your children, and that the anti-vaccination movement should be held accountable for murder and crimes against humanity.", "qid": 10, "docid": "fd54e53a-2019-04-18T15:45:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7098562717437744}, {"content": "Title: Pick your topic : Team Debate Content: Many thanks to Mikal and Whiteflame for their opening arguments! This round, we will be putting forth our own case against the resolution. Our burden of proof is to demonstrate that the US government should *not* make the MMR vaccine mandatory. C1) Bioethics In Western medicine, the personal autonomy of patients is of paramount importance, and rightfully so. When a patient undergoes a treatment or procedure from a medical professional, he has to place absolute trust in the competence and character of that professional, as the fate of his well-being and sometimes even his life is completely dependent on the outcome of the treatment/procedure. Given that, it is only fair that the patient be allowed to *choose* whether or not he wishes to place that kind of trust in somebody else\"s hands; he has the right to know every detail of what is going to be done to his body, and subsequently choose whether or not he is okay with it being done. Vaccination is no different; it is a medical procedure which involves the purposeful injection of pathogens into a person\"s body, and if they do not feel safe having such a procedure done, then they should have the right to abstain from it. Furthermore, there is ample ethical justification for granting people an absolute right to bodily autonomy. The only factor which truly distinguishes human beings from the rest of the amoral universe is their characteristic of self-ownership -- in other words, their ability to exert conscious and deliberate control over their own actions and have complete jurisdiction over their own bodies. Without self-ownership, human beings would more or less be inanimate objects, functioning like highly advanced computers and moving about only by virtue of the deterministic processes governing the rest of the universe. Such a mechanistic view of reality leaves no room for prescriptive claims about what \"should\" or \"should not\" be done, and thus the resolution presumes that all human beings posses self-ownership -- which, in turn, necessarily entails that all humans also have a right to bodily autonomy. The implications of all this on a policy like mandatory vaccination are clear. The government simply does not have the right to force a person to undergo a medical procedure, which is enough to negate the resolution all on its own. Not only that, but violations of autonomy by the government and the medical community are also harmful in that they create an endless pretext for *further* violations down the road for the sake of the \"greater good\" -- mandatory organ donation, childbirth limitations, and eugenics programs, for example. All things considered, allowing the government to violate peoples\" bodily autonomy through policies like mandatory vaccination is untenable. C2) Counter-Plan We propose that rather than violate the fundamental tenets of bioethics and make the MMR mandatory, the US government should instead opt to educate people to voluntarily vaccinate themselves and their families. There are a variety of ways in which this could be accomplished, some of which barely even involve the government. The American Medical Association could create an initiative among physicians to specifically target and inform patients who are averse to getting vaccinated, or the CDC could launch a publicity campaign encouraging vaccination (as it has already done a few times before for different causes). The government could even just force people who opted out of vaccination to take a class debunking the myths surrounding vaccination. This sort of targeted public education *does* work, as can be seen from previous public health campaigns [1] and efforts to boost recycling rates [2]. Obviously, our CP wouldn't produce 100% immunization rates, but it would certainly boost rates up to the optimal threshold for herd immunity. With the means and efficacy of the education approach established, we can go on to demonstrate that there are numerous advantages which our counter-plan has over mandatory vaccination. First and foremost, our plan costs less. Pro says that their mandatory vaccination plan will subsidize vaccinations on an \"as-needed basis\", which means only low income people can get vaccinations for free. However, there are about 160 million people in the US who fall into that category [3][4], and an MMR vaccine costs about $19 [5], which amounts to a total of $3 billion in expenses. Meanwhile, out of the potential methods of education listed, two of them don't actually cost the government *any* extra money because they either aren\"t government organizations (AMA) or they would simply be using funds which are already allocated to them by the government in the status quo (CDC). Only the required-class option would really cost any money, and not much of it either, considering that just 7% of children in the US aren\"t vaccinated against MMR [6]. Since the total number of households in the US is 115,000,000, and the percentage of households with children is 46% (and assuming that only one parent per household needs to be educated), we're looking at 3.7 million people who would need to be educated. If it costs $200 to send each person to class, then the total expense of our proposal would be a bit less than $750 million. Obviously, these are very rough estimates, but it is nonetheless quite apparent that our CP is much cheaper. Secondly, whereas Pro's plan can only force people to vaccinate themselves against MMR, our plan educates people on why *all* vaccines are safe. In other words, people who are convinced through education are likely to go ahead and vaccinate themselves against other diseases as well, such as influenza, tetanus, pertussis, pneumonia, hepatitis A, and diphtheria. Most of these diseases have even higher mortality rates than MMR and drastically lower rates of vaccination [7]. Therefore, educating people on vaccines in general has far greater, more all-encompassing benefits for public health than just making MMR vaccines mandatory does. Our plan is also far better than mandatory vaccinations in terms of public relations between the government and the populace. Most of the people who avoid vaccination avoid it because they genuinely fear the supposed side-effects of vaccines. Violating their bodily autonomy and forcing them and their children to undergo the very procedures they so desperately fear is simply going to be perceived as tyranny; it will only generate embitterment, resentment, and mistrust in the long run. Considering that we're talking about at least 3.7 million people here, that is rather concerning. Fostering anti-government sentiments among a significant portion of the population is dangerous and socially unhealthy, hence making our CP the safer long-term strategy. . == Conclusion == The resolution is negated: (1) Mandatory vaccinations are a violation of a fundamental tenet of bioethics, which have defined the doctor-patient relationship for centuries; depriving individuals of their right to bodily autonomy is immoral, and a grave over-extension of government power. (2) Educating people to voluntarily vaccinate is a viable and sufficiently effective alternative approach to containing disease spread; it is preferable to Pro's proposed policy because (i) it is more than 3 times cheaper, (ii) it provides the additional benefit of encouraging other more important types of vaccinations, and (iii) it is sounder in the long-term due to the inevitable minority backlash and socio-political tension in response to mandatory vaccinations. With that, we hand the debate back over to our opponents! . [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://americancityandcounty.com... [3] http://www.census.gov... [4] http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] http://www.cdc.gov... [6] http://www.cdc.gov... [7] http://www.foxnews.com...", "qid": 10, "docid": "c71cc267-2019-04-18T14:57:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7096782922744751}, {"content": "Title: Modified LD - Resolved:Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Content: 1. Liberty vs. liberty: though my opponent attempts to call this argument a wash at last, I will extend all of my responses in RD 4 which sought to validate my analysis on the concept of liberty as the only valid conceptualization of it in the round. Not only did I warrant the heck out of that argument, but I invalidated his definition legally and logically, since his provided \"freedictionary. com\" definition leads to a state of nature existence. Hence, you are going to prefer my analysis here. If you do, then compulsory immunizations are justified, as being able to immunize everyone in the population (excepting those with medical exemptions) from a given disease will achieve herd immunity, which will in turn maximize natural rights. 2. In reference to my opponent's RD 5 voter #2: both my evidence and I have readily stipulated that some very rare and minute health risks are involved in vaccinating human beings. It would be unrealistic not to. No institution or product in existence is without its flaws, but that doesn't give a valid reason to call those things categorically unjust. Hence, at the end of the day, I've still proven that the medical benefits far outweigh the costs of immunizations. 3. In reference to my opponent's crystallization: my opponent has, unfortunately, forwarded an entirely new argument in his final rebuttal stating that we already have enough people voluntarily vaccinating to create herd immunity. Though I'm not obligated to answer the argument, I would like to since I have the opportunity: *First of all, as my card stated, only 75% of US school children are being mandatorily vaccinated to enter the public school system. This piece of evidence is meant to prove that large, diverse populations aren't negatively affected (health-wise) by receiving a vaccine. Not every country in the world uses mandatory pediatric vaccination models. We wouldn't be having this debate if herd immunity were working on a worldwide level, as there would be no \"public health concern\" over pandemics. *Second of all, as Dr. Pazos states in my original case, some diseases require up to 95% of the total population to be immunized before herd immunity is successful. In the US, only 75% of children entering school are vaccinated against certain diseases. Even if those specific diseases only require a 75% immunization rate to protect a population, that only covers a few diseases and doesn't include adult populations who weren't vaccinated as children or who didn't keep up with necessary boosters. Hence, since I'm winning standards on both sides of the debate and case, I encourage readers to cast their vote in favor of compulsory immunization.", "qid": 10, "docid": "ba2a46d0-2019-04-18T19:17:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7095038890838623}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations do not cause Autism, Homosexuality, Or any serious illness (unless you are allergic) Content: Hi there con! Thanks for responding so quickly! I'm sorry you feel that this was a debate about how I wrote my argument, I thought the statement in my opening argument \"I've yet to see a reputable source show me anything in support of these mind numbing opinions\" would be enough for you to realize that this argument was geared towards anti-vaccinators! You keep claiming that my statement is contradicting itself. . . But you fail to realize that my statement \"(unless you are allergic)\" was only meant to relate to the \"Serious Illness\" section. While i'm sorry you interpreted it in an unintended way, Your argument of me implying \"Vaccinations do not cause, But vaccinations might cause. \" is just invalid. Let me put it in simpler terms; the statement of my title is more of a \"Vaccinations do not cause unless this very rare thing that impacts less than. 5% of people\" (https://vaccine-safety-training. Org/rates-of-adverse-vaccine-reactions. Html) Now that we have that out of the way, Your other argument is just absurd Of course I agree with you that a miniscule amount of cases may be impacted by allergies, Because I made that statement! You can't argue that my title is poorly constructed, And then agree with me with no other points of argument, That's just you being a grammar nazi! You mention that some vaccines are not necessary, I ask, Please provide those vaccines names and why you do not think they are important to further this argument away from my title, Since it has nothing to do with what I want to debate, And your initial theory is debunked. Thanks! <3", "qid": 10, "docid": "b960d89d-2019-04-18T11:10:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7091740965843201}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: I think I understand your case. However, you did write a few things that caught my eye. \"My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating.\" The poliovirus can spread back into a society if everyone isn't vaccinated. Even if only a small number of people don't get treated it can become resurgent. Therefore, compulsory vaccinations would most certainly be justified. The fact of the matter is that there is no other way to stop certain viruses apart from mass vaccinations. \"Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights.\" It is now obvious that my opponent's case rests on nothing more than the unsubstantiated claim that vaccinations are useless at preventing disease. This claim is demonstrably false, vaccinations are an effective method to prevent disease. For example, the polio vaccine was largely responsible for the eradication of polio in the 20th century. [1] \u2013[2] Wikipedia isn't the greatest source in the world, but it is largely useful in many occasions. Moreover, the disastrous affects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are quite well known even if I didn't use sources. ---References--- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.accessexcellence.org...", "qid": 10, "docid": "f083f25a-2019-04-18T19:14:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7091137766838074}, {"content": "Title: mandatory vaccination Content: My opponent has dropped all points in this debate and I extend them across the table. My opponent's last round is irrelivant in the scope of this debate as we are debating the merrits of mandatory vaccinations, not the punishments against them. There would likely be fines attatched to it or having things like how unvaccinated children cannot atttend schools. Stuff like this would be how the situation would likely be gone about. Not litterally force them or jail them. I agree that would be over the top that's why these things would have to be more realistic such as the example that I have brought up.", "qid": 10, "docid": "1638c88b-2019-04-18T11:51:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7083241939544678}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children Content: Thanks to Miguel for accepting. I will now construct my case. I apologize for keeping my arguments rather short; I am running low on time.MY CASEParents have basic societal obligations to their children. By choosing to engage in actions that would lead to pregnancy, parents must accept the consequences of those actions, i.e. custodianship of a child or of children. It is a parent's job to act in the best interests of their child to ensure that he or she is healthy and capable of handling themselves in the broader world. I will contend that vaccinations are an essential part of meeting these parental obligations, inasmuch as they are in the best interests of the child. If that's true, then the resolution is affirmed.\"Vaccines have historically been the most effective means to fight and eradicate infectious diseases.\" [1] For example, \"In 1958, there were 763,094 cases of measles in the United States; 552 deaths resulted. After the introduction of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. Fifty-four of those infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside the United States; 63 of the 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated.\" [1]\"[I]mmunization currently averts more than 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from [diseases like] diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and measles.\" [2] By failing to immunize individuals in disease-prone areas, 2.1 million innocent people die every year from otherwise preventable ailments. Requiring immunizations will drastically reduce that staggering number. [2] Past experience confirms that vaccinations have reduced the amount of serious illnesses. Tetanus was reduced by 98.5% by using vaccines, Pertussis 92.1%, and the same with Diphtheria at 99.9%, and HIB 98.8%, as well as Polio with 100% eradication. [2] \u201c[I]f countries could raise vaccine coverage to a global average of 90%, by 2015 an additional two million deaths a year could be prevented among children under five years old. This would have a major impact on meeting the global goal to reduce child deaths by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. It would also greatly reduce the burden of illness and disability from vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to improving child health and welfare, as well as reducing hospitalization costs.\u201d [3] \u201cWith the exception of safe water, no other modality [treatment], not even antibiotics, has had such a major effect on mortality reduction.\u201d [3]In fact, a lack of immunization has led to outbreaks here in the U.S., which lacks the kind of unsanitary conditions of many developing countries. What this shows is that when you control for things like hygiene or even in environments are clean and otherwise healthy, vaccinations are still key components of warding off disease. \"California\u2019s worst episode of whooping cough, or pertussis, in 2010, likely spread among unvaccinated children to infect 9,210 youngsters...[N]ew research published in the journal Pediatrics reports that the high number of children who were intentionally unvaccinated also contributed to the rapid spread of the infection...The researchers of the Pediatrics study compared the number of intentionally unvaccinated children who entered kindergarten from 2005 to 2010 to the onset of the whooping cough outbreak in 2010. They were able to identify 39 regional clusters of kids with non-medical reasons for being unvaccinated, and two clusters that were significantly related to rapid spread of whooping cough. Children who are intentionally not vaccinated and become infected with diseases like measles or pertussis, can pass the illness on to those who can\u2019t be immunized, such as babies under six months and those with compromised immune systems, such as cancer patients.\" [4]Another example of this kind of contagion caused through failure to vaccinate can be found in Texas. \"In August, the Texas megachurch Eagle Mountain International Church made headlines after 21 members of its congregation contracted measles...The church...advocated abstaining from vaccinations over fears that they can cause autism. The outbreak was traced back to a church member who had traveled abroad on a mission trip and then spread measles among the unvaccinated congregation.\" [5]Therefore, it is clear the vaccinating children is in their best interest, to not only prevent a society where disease resistance is low, but to immunize the child against disease-carriers even in a largely vaccinated society such as the U.S. It is a simple, common sense precaution that parents are clearly obliged to undertake.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.who.int...3 - http://www.vaccine-safety-training.org...4 - http://healthland.time.com...5 - http://www.healthline.com...", "qid": 10, "docid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7082967758178711}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Immunizations are necessary to protect the right's of others. Content: If the majority of the people get the vaccination then the disease could almost completely be eliminated from the society. Then why in the world do we need compulsory immunization? Since most of the people are smart enough to get immunization, why does every one need to get it? There is no reason to that therefore this \"Yes\" argunment is just plain dumb. Also, by herding everyone into one group, you are regarding the human race as one giant population of animals, stupid and brainless. On the contrary, we are quite intelligent and most of us do posses a brain. Therefore, we must also remember to protect the rights of each individual to freedom of thought and to choices. We already have a brain, so why shouldn't we be allowed to use it and make the smart decisions for ourselves? The only answer I can think of is that you want the human race to turn into giant vegetables that cannot think for themselves. That does not sound pleasant at all to me. So, protect the individual right to choose our own courses in life, because I do not want to become a vegetable.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00029-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7082106471061707}, {"content": "Title: Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization Content: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE I. INTRODUCTION: I concur with the stated resolution. In my presentation I will demonstrate that compulsory immunizations not are not only justified, but are also necessary as deemed by respected medical professionals. II. STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. III. DEFINITIONS: I respectfully request that my opponent stipulate the terms: vaccination, immunization, and innoculation are synonymous. PUBLIC HEALTH - Public health: The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (source: www.medterms.com) CONCERNS - 3 : to be a care, trouble, or distress to (source: www.merriam-webster.com) JUSTIFY - 1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable (source: www.merriam-webster.com) COMPULSORY - 1 : mandatory, enforced (source: www.merriam-webster.com) IMMUNIZATIONS - : Vaccination. Immunizations work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use only a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or \"boosters.\" (source: www.medterms.com) IV. VALUE PREMISE: Sensibility V. VALUE CRITERION: The expert opinion of medical professionals is often sought not only in matters relating to health, but also to testify in legal matters. Therefore, it is sensible to value the expert opinions of medical professionals in this discussion. VI. CONTENTIONS: CONTENTION ONE: Three of the most respected \"go-to\" professional organizations not only endorse, but also encourage immunizations. A. The Center for Disease Control states: \"Vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or near record lows. However, we cannot take high immunization coverage levels for granted. To continue to protect America's children and adults, we must obtain maximum immunization coverage in all populations, establish effective partnerships, conduct reliable scientific research, implement immunization systems, and ensure vaccine safety\". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The American Medical Association states: \"Immunization has been one of the most successful public health advances of the century\". \"The physician's role in providing education and advocacy on important issues regarding vaccination is critical\". (source: www.ama-assn.org) C. The World Health Organization states: \"Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and eliminating life-threatening infectious diseases and is estimated to avert over 2 million deaths each year\". (source: www.who.int) CONTENTION TWO: It is quite sensible to prevent illness and disease by the the most cost effective measure available. It is clear that when a person is healthy, they are much more capable, in regard to physical ability, to work. When people are ill, they are either forced to miss work, or work at an often reduced capacity. Further, it stands to reason that the same illness could potentionally be passed on to other people, causing further illness and reduced productivity. Visits to physicians and pharmacies incur costs to insurance companies, people, or both. While it is somewhat beneficial to the GDP, it is both reasonable and sensible to avoid or prevent illness when possible. To immunize simply passes the common sense test. A. The World Health Organization states: \"It (vaccination) is one of the most cost-effective health investments, with proven strategies that make it accessible to even the most hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations\". (source: www.who.int) B. To quote respected statesman Benjamin Franklin, \"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure\". (source: www.ushistory.org) CONTENTION THREE: Despite claims to the contrary, vaccinations are virtually safe. With anything comes a certain degree of risk, yet where the rubber meets the road immunizations are worth the risk. By definition, vaccinations are certainly reasonable, right, and just. If there is a virtually safe way to protect against many illnesses, it is in fact just. Further, those who are able, cannot justify failing to receive immunization. False alarms issued by uniformed people cause undue panic and doubt. This is where the compulsory piece fits into the equation. Due to misinformation, people may elect to not get immunized. This should not be a choice, but a duty as a member of the human race. A. The Center for Disease Control states: \"Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Years of testing are required by law before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy\". (source: www.cdc.gov) B. The Center for Disease Control states: \"Evaluating Information on the Web Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Is there any regulation or standardization of info on web? Sources Are you confused by the amount of information on immunizations on the Internet? Concerned about the rumors linking vaccines and diseases like diabetes and autism? Below are some tips to help you navigate your way through all of the information available and determine its accuracy. Is the vaccine info found on the web accurate? Consider the source of information. A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster. Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased\". (source: www.cdc.gov) CONCLUSION: I have demonstrated that getting immunized makes sense from a variety of viewpoints. I have quoted from the some of the most respected medical authorities. If people will not choose to make the right, justifiable, and sensible choice to get vaccinated, then the choice will be made for them. Thank you.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f89125a1-2019-04-18T19:16:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7080020308494568}, {"content": "Title: THW make vaccines mandatory Content: All around the world, human lives are being lost due to preventable diseases whose spread could be slowed through immunization. As such, I am proud to, as Pro, support legislation that would make immunization mandatory. Model For this debate, \u201cthis house\u201d refers to first world nations such as the United States or Canada, where the infrastructure necessary for creating and distributing vaccines is already present and well-maintained; this means that issues such as the economical burden vaccination places on health care systems will not be discussed in much detail. I believe that all people should be legally obligated to be vaccinated, except for those who can have severe allergic reactions to vaccines. The possible consequences of refusing vaccination include fines and forced vaccination. Signpost For this round, I will be making three points: firstly, that vaccines are safe and effective, and secondly, that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens\u2014even if it may result in less opportunities for people to choose personally, and finally, that vaccination should not be a choice since herd immunity means that one\u2019s decision not to vaccinate can affect others as well. Safety and effectiveness of vaccines Scientific research has shown vaccines to be safe and effective. As this debate has limited space, I will not list all of the vaccines that exist, and talk about the effectiveness of each one; instead, I will provide examples of safe and effective vaccines. Flu vaccines are an example of an effective vaccine. In a 1998 study involving children published by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the intranasal flu vaccine increased antibodies in the bodies of its recipients, and decreased the likelihood of flu. Results showed that the vaccine was more effective than placebo. (1) A 2012 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed that flu vaccines \u201cwas associated with a three-quarters reduction in the risk of life-threatening influenza illness in children.\u201d (2)For older adults, however, flu vaccines may have a lower efficacy\u2014but they still prevent 61.2% of flu hospitalizations. (3) At the same time, the flu vaccine is safe. Side effects are usually mild and short-lasting; they are generally limited to mild, flu-like symptoms, and may involve mild pain around the injection site. Severe reactions may, however, rarely occur. (4) MMR vaccines are also safe and effective. It has an efficacy of around 85-95% with one dose and 100% with two. In addition, the risk of getting hurt by the vaccine is low: there is a 0.65 to 1.8/1000000 chance of getting anaphylaxis from a shot.(6)(7)(8) Compare this to the dangers of the actual diseases: measles has a 2000/1000000 chance of causing death, and the rubella virus\u2014but not the vaccine\u2014has a chance of causing autism. (8) As you can see from above, scientific evidence has shown vaccines to be safe and effective in preventing diseases; as such, they provide a net benefit to society as a whole. Governmental responsibility One way someone can object to mandatory vaccinations is freedom of choice: people have the right to choose what they\u2019d like to do with their bodies, don\u2019t they? However, this objection falls apart as soon as one considers the issue of governmental responsibility. The government has the responsibility to keep us safe; this is why they us the law to require seat belts to be worn, and why we aren\u2019t allowed to drink and drive. Since vaccines keep us safe, the government ought to make them mandatory, just like how seat belts are mandatory. Why Vaccination should not be a choice When you drive without a seatbelt on, you are only compromising your own safety. However, when you refuse to be vaccinated, you are also harming those around you. Vaccines help protect us from disease, but that can only be the case if enough people get vaccinated; this is called herd immunity. With the MMR vaccine, for instance, 95% of a population needs to be vaccinated for it to have any effect. (5) Since one should not legally get the right to choose when one\u2019s choices can harm others, and choosing not to be vaccinated harms others, vaccination ought to be legally obligated. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that firstly, vaccines are safe and effective, that secondly, the government has the right to protect people from themselves, and vaccines do just that; and finally, that the government has the right to protect people from eachother, and vaccines do that also. As such, I have shown that we ought to make vaccination mandatory. Thank you. References http://www.nejm.org... http://jid.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://rationalwiki.org...", "qid": 10, "docid": "f6ae05dd-2019-04-18T14:09:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7076579332351685}, {"content": "Title: It's time to put pompous parents in their place Content: One of the big issues being discussed at middle-class, 30-something house parties today is the matter of the combined MMR jab. (1) There is a suggestion that this vaccination of children should be made compulsory. It is a suggestion that I happen to agree with and I said so at a dinner party last night. On hearing this, one of the guests (who I know has a couple of young children) turned round to me and asked in a very aggressive tone \"Do you have kids?\" To which I replied \"Well, no...\" But before I could continue he very rudely interrupted me and said \"Right! Well you don't know what you are talking about then.\" This is a phrase I hear time and again, and not just in relation to childcare issues. Recently, some friends and I were discussing the role gravity plays in sub-atomic particle physics and I suggested that, being a relatively weak force, gravity's influence on the interaction of nuclei, protons and electrons was so slight as to be considered insignificant. At this point a yummy mummy piped up and told me that her young Timmy had to be rushed to hospital after having an accident at an adventure playground. \"Gravity 'a weak force'?\" she scoffed, \"If your son fell off a climbing frame and cracked his head open you wouldn't think so. But of course, you don't have kids so you don't know what you're talking about.\" Was she right or was she being pompous? I think the latter which is why, if I am curious about scientific matters, I tend not not approach mental retards such as Karen Matthews (2) for their expert opinion. But perhaps I should. After all, by the yummy mummy's reasoning, being childless* I am must be a blithering idiot. On the other hand Karen Matthews, with an IQ of 74 and the mother of seven children by six different fathers, must a be a veritable fountain of knowledge. However, I think not. In conclusion, being a parent doesn't make that person in any way intellectually superior to those individuals who decide to delay having kids until they are older. Thank you. (1) http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... * Don't worry ladies, it's by choice and only until I meet the right girl!", "qid": 10, "docid": "94f30e76-2019-04-18T19:22:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7074896097183228}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinating your Child Content: I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.", "qid": 10, "docid": "d9814b0e-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7074493169784546}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations Content: I will address my opponent's rebuttals to my case, move on to my opponent's case, and finally move on to voting issues. Observation: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations are needed to eradicate diseases. However, he fails to note that polio was eradicated through voluntary immunizations. My opponent also claims that people value a good quality of life, and therefore wouldn't object to voluntary immunizations. Just because people value a good quality of life doesn't mean that people aren't going to remain true to their religious beliefs and personal values. Value Premise: My opponent claims that when voluntary immunizations are issued, you are not giving other their due quality of life, and states that voluntary immunizations do not reach herd immunity. However, he gives no examples or evidence to prove this and fails to address the fact that when you do not allow people to honor their own religion, you are not acting justly. Furthermore, wouldn't a good quality of life be the pursuit of happiness? If one wants to worship their own religion, they have that right. Value Criterion: My opponents claims that, by not issuing compulsory immunizations, one is infringing upon other people's right to safety. He then gives the example of small pox being eradicated through compulsory immunizations. However, voluntary immunization rates regularly achieve the Herd Immunity Threshold. This has been proven through the eradication of polio. Contention 1: My opponent claims that disease is so rare, and that you can get an exemption if you have an underlying health condition. This does not explain why everyone got sick and three people died when the people in the nursing home were vaccinated, according to my Jordan card (quote). When my opponent tries to explain my Jordan card, he claims that it wasn't the flu shots themselves. He says \"only a couple people would take the flu shots\". This is completely incorrect. If you look at the quote, it says \"other years, no shots\", so no shots were issued to the people in the facility. My opponent also contradicts him/herself here. S/he claims that the people who died from the shots had an underlying medical condition. However, according to my opponent, they should've gotten an exemption. Now, I ask my opponent: Why didn't they? Contention 2: My opponent claims that, because compulsory immunizations allow for exemptions, you can disregard my second contention. This is untrue. The examples I discussed in my second contention were compulsory immunizations programs that allowed for exemptions, and yet these things still happened. Therefore, you can extend my subpoint b in my second contention that compulsory immunizations can cause violence and lower the immunization rate. Because my opponent did not respond to this, we hold this true for the round. This is really important, because my opponent is admitting that compulsory immunizations do not achieve justice (violence is unjust) or quality of life (violence and the lowering of immunization rates leads to a poor quality of life). So, no matter whose value premise you look to, you must negate because compulsory immunizations do not achieve either value premise. Rebuttal Value Premise: My opponent claims that compulsory immunizations prevent deadly diseases from out breaking. However, so do voluntary immunizations, as I've shown with my polio example. Value Criterion: My opponent states three reasons why his criterion is preferable over mine, I will rebut them in the same order. First - \u2018Protecting individual rights' includes the right to life. So if a deadly disease breaks out, the government would protect the citizens' right to life. Second \u2013 Governments can protect their citizens right to life by issuing voluntary immunizations, which it has done in the past with the outbreak of polio. Third \u2013 I don't really understand what he's trying to say here. \"and cannot herd immunity\" doesn't really make a coherent statement. Not trying to be mean, but I actually don't know what he's trying to say. C1: I've agreed to the fact that vaccines don't cause autism. I've also already responded to my opponent's defense of this. Look above, under \"contention 1\" C2: My opponent claims that voluntary immunizations are expensive. While vaccines can be relatively expensive in first-world countries where people actually have the money to afford them, this is not the case in third-world countries. What kind of businessman would try to sell $20 vaccines to people who don't have $20? The businessman wouldn't make any money. So, while vaccines can be $20 in the United States, vaccines in third-world countries cost roughly 40 cents. http://wow.gm... <- an article proving my claim that vaccines in third-world countries cost 40 cents. My opponent also asks me to warrant my claim that compulsory immunizations do not reach illegal immigrants. First, they can't reach illegal immigrants because the government does not have any records of them. Therefore, they won't be issued any vaccines. Second, I have another article that proves my claim that voluntary immunizations DO reach illegal immigrants. http://www.alipac.us... Example: My opponent now shows an example of voluntary immunizations not reaching the herd immunity threshold. I could put up a bunch of examples of voluntary immunizations achieving the herd immunity threshold (Finland, Colorado, Sweden, just to name a few), but it doesn't really matter. My opponent and I can trade examples back and forth all day long. However, my opponent AGREED that compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates. So you must look to voluntary immunizations in this debate. =========== Voting Issues =========== 1) My first voting issue is my second contention, which I extended. Because, my opponent failed to respond to this, we must hold the following true for the round: a. compulsory immunizations lower immunization rates b. compulsory immunizations cause violence Neither of these achieve justice or quality of life; nor do they protect human rights or \u2018human beings from themselves'. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. 2) My second voting issue is that voluntary immunizations do regularly achieve the herd immunity threshold, without the controversy and the injustice of compulsory immunizations. By achieving the herd immunity threshold, voluntary immunizations preserve a good \u2018quality of life' and \u2018protect human beings'. By allowing people to practice their own religion, and giving people a choice, voluntary immunizations also achieve justice and protect human rights. Therefore, no matter whose value premise or value criterion you look to, you must negate. ======== Conclusion: ======== 1)My opponent, with his argument for compulsory immunizations, doesn't achieve ANY of the value premises or value criterions in this debate (voting issue #1) 2)I, with my argument for voluntary immunizations, achieve ALL the value premises and value criterions in this debate (voting issue #2) Because of this you must negate. Thank you.", "qid": 10, "docid": "20191d81-2019-04-18T19:12:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7062492370605469}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective Content: You mentioned that not vaccinating your children is a criminal act, however vaccinating children that our too young can be incredibly dangerous for there health. In 1975, Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to 2 years old, The country\"s infant mortality subsequently plummeted to such low levels that Japan now enjoys one of the lowest level in the Western world (#3 at last look). In comparison, the United States\" infant mortality rate is #33. This shows that vaccinations pose a problem for babies in particular. If you mention that vaccinations are safe and effective then this contradicts your argument making me right. Consequently there are always things going wrong with vaccinations and for many vaccines are unethical. Moreover before vaccines are made they are tested on innocent animals who usually suffer prolonged amounts of pain. Consequently vaccines are irreversible and usually half the time made to look urgent by cheating pharmaceutical companies when they are actually unsecured. Moreover vaccines are also excessively used. Bacteria start to grow immune to vaccines, because vaccines are in many cases overused and the bacteria mutates and changes its pathogen. When this happens people can get affected from the same disease twice. My final point is that vaccines are also overloaded with many unneccasary chemicals and although I do acknowledge the fact that vaccines in some cases are very useful and can save lives, they can also do the contrary and kill people due to all the damaging ingredients that our used.", "qid": 10, "docid": "fd54e53a-2019-04-18T15:45:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7060093879699707}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Content: It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.", "qid": 10, "docid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7058612108230591}, {"content": "Title: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization Content: I affirm, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. I would like to offer the following definitions to clarify the topic. Justify: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable. The Value for today's round must be: Maximization of the Principle of Safety of Person. Safety of Person is the freedom from a risk, a risk can be an infected person with a disease that will infect you with the disease at some time. The Criterion for today's round must be: Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity is the epidemiological principle that the more people we immunize against a disease, the better protected an entire society is. However, by having up to 95% immunized, we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community. Contention 1 The principle of safety of person, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization. Sub point A Safety of person is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other public concern legislation. Since those that I come into contact with are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, I am violating the principle of safety of person. Sub point B Violations of the principle of safety of person with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human life. Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak were caused directly by the violation of this principle of safety of person and entirely preventable. She states: \"That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30- fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been polio-free.\" Contention 2 Compulsory immunizations save more lives than it puts at risk. Based on the latest World health organization estimates for 2008, trends related to Global vaccination coverage continue to be positive, Compulsory immunization currently averts an estimated 2.5 million deaths every year in all age groups from many different diseases. More children than ever before are being reached with immunization. In 2008, an estimated 106 million children under the age of one were vaccinated with three doses of DTP3 vaccine and the estimated number of deaths that year of kids less than 1 due to DTP3 was roughly 150,000 children. Due to this amazing result in 2008 more nations have been making more vaccinations compulsory. Three regions the Americas, Europe and Western Pacific maintained over 90% immunization coverage. Number of countries reaching 90% or more immunization coverage with DTP3 vaccine in 2009: 120 countries compared to 117 in 2008. Number of countries reaching over 80% DTP3 coverage in 2009: 151 countries in 2009 compared to 150 in 2008. Contention 3 Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial. Sub point A Vaccines' benefits to both the individual and society clearly outweigh any harm, real or perceived. As Dr.Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Besides the individual protection that vaccines provide, the real impact of vaccines was discussed previously by Alice Parks and her analysis of the Nigeria polio outbreak. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity: \"...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as \"herd immunity.\" Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent\u2014very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted.\" If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. Hence, with vaccines presenting no general medical dangers and with people's lives resting on whether herd immunity can be achieved, the only just action is compulsory immunization. For these reasons I urge you to affirm, I now stand for cross examination.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f083f1de-2019-04-18T19:16:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7053720951080322}, {"content": "Title: It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning Content: In countries where there is compulsory vaccination of children, the argument presented by governments is that the mass vaccination of children from birth will help to eradicate and prevent various diseases from existing in the country. There is certainly strong evidence from the United States to suggest that compulsory immunization is justified, and is perhaps better demonstrated by looking at several examples of how diseases have been significantly reduced as a result of compulsory immunization. Firstly, prior to a vaccine for polio, between 13,000 and 20,000 cases were reported in the USA annually. In 1988, the World Health Organisation decided to try and eradicate polio worldwide, and as of today the disease has been removed from the USA, Western Pacific and Europe. Only four countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, India and Pakistan) are endemic, and there are just 2000 cases reported worldwide annually as of 2009. But by stopping vaccination before the disease is widely eradicated leaves countries susceptible to future unexpected outbreaks. Another common disease \u2013 measles, affected nearly everyone in the United States prior to the vaccination being introduced. Between 1953 and 1963, there were 450 deaths each year from the disease. Currently in the US, three of every 1000 people who contract measles will die, whilst in the developing world, one in 100 will die. It is estimated that 90% of people who are exposed to the virus will get infected if not vaccinated against it. In 1999 according to the WHO, there were 900,000 measles related deaths worldwide. Measles can spread rapidly amongst unvaccinated populations, and if vaccinations were stopped, the WHO estimate there could be 2.7 million measles related deaths worldwide annually. Type B meningitis was prior to the vaccine the most common form of bacterial meningitis in US infants, with 20,000 annual cases, with one in 600 proving either fatal or leaving the child with some form of disability. Since the vaccine became available in1987, the number of cases has reduced by 98%, with fewer than ten fatalities a year. These are just a few examples of how vaccines can prevent and eradicate diseases that have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths throughout the past century. Although some may argue that with diseases such as Polio wiped out in most of the world a vaccine is not necessary. However any reduction in the number of people vaccinated against the disease would leave a window of opportunity for the disease to rear its head up once again. In many ways vaccinations have become victims of their own success. People under estimate the dangers of disease as they have not experienced the effects.", "qid": 10, "docid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00022-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7052775025367737}, {"content": "Title: Vaccinations are necessary Content: I would first like to apologize for any misspellings in the previous round. I am typing on an older laptop and my keys keep sticking so please bear with me. As my opponent has forfeited the previous round I would like to restate that vaccinations are 100% necessary to make sure disease like polio do not see a comeback. No matter how healthy a person is, no matter how much they take care of themselves they cannot change the strength of disease. They cannot prevent measles by eating salad, or run from hepatitis. It's the disease that decides who lives and who dies, who's sick and who's well. Do you think that every life that was taken by small pox didn't take care of themselves? Do you think that everyone who died of influenza was already sick or weak? No. Do you think that everyone who doesn't get the flu now takes care of themselves? Do you think everyone who has never been in contact with the chicken pox is healthy? No. They aren't sick because we have a vaccinations. What you may see as pointless is one of the most world changing discoveries in history. As you have forfeited the last round I would like to say I hope everything is well and you just forgot. I sincerely hope everything is well and if not I would like to say I hope it gets better. Goodnight:)", "qid": 10, "docid": "954be27-2019-04-18T15:19:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7033365964889526}]}
{"query": "Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment Content: Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs", "qid": 11, "docid": "dfa0f2e4-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8305435180664062}, {"content": "Title: Doping should be allowed Content: I will accept your challenge, and I will argue on the pro side: doping should be allowed in sports. While it may be unfair currently, where athletes are strictly forbidden to athletes and only those who are willing to win by cheating will dope, if the practice is open for everyone, it will create a fair, level playing field since every athlete will have the ability to use the substances. Sporting events are spectator events, meant to showcase the most athletic individuals in the world for the entertainment of the viewers. If there is a substance that is able to enhance the performance of an individual and therefore make the spectacle more impressive, and the athlete consents to using it after being educated on any possible ill side effects, then they should absolutely be allowed.", "qid": 11, "docid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8238729238510132}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \" They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe.\" Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \" Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \" \"Have to?\" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports.\" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.\" This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) \" Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons.\" That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. \"and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point.\" Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8232693672180176}, {"content": "Title: Should MLB baseball players be banned from baseball for doing drugs Content: This truly depends on this drugs being used in my opinion. If it's not performance enhancing, it shouldn't even be an issue as it doesn't effect the outcome of a game. Recreational drug use, while illegal depending on the drug and the state, shouldn't result in a punishment in the sports world. I've stated my point and you have yourself, let's begin the arguments!", "qid": 11, "docid": "fd2a6336-2019-04-18T16:18:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.813428521156311}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8113719820976257}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.", "qid": 11, "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8049606680870056}, {"content": "Title: HOF Players that used Steroids Content: Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ad998274-2019-04-18T12:30:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8029831647872925}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, \"A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2).\" This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.800820529460907}, {"content": "Title: Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs Content: In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. \"Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance\" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly\" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. \"Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition\"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. \"Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game.\"Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way\"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited \"Fitness.\" Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball.\" Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA.\" US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. .", "qid": 11, "docid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7989873290061951}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7950595617294312}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: I would like to address the debate, however my opponent ask me to clarify the side I will support and it's quite simply the literal opposite of yours. My side is apparent simply based on the title of the debate and our positions, I will be arguing that performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be legal in every major sporting league. Also it seems you have taken care of the basic definition needed to begin the debate and I see no need for additional definitions atleast while the debate is still somewhat simple. Onto my argument 1. Equality As these drugs became allowed in sporting leagues, they would increase player production meaning in order to compete you would have to take drugs in order to win. One great example of this would be in cycling many cyclists's resorted to doping to boost their production in order to win the tour de france. So in order to stay equal to the competition Lance Armstrong took drugs alongside them, all may appear equal but in truth the drugs are expensive and discriminate on players on the league who are too poor to acquire the quantity needed to stay on par with opponents. [1] 2. Health Concerns Their are many bad health effects of anabolic steroids such as[2]: 1. Changes in liver function 2. Infertility 3. Growth of male breasts 4. Retardation in fetus's 5. Death 6. Increased aggressiveness 7. Sleeping disorders 8. Confusion 9. Paranoia 10. Hallucinations 11. A weaker immune system 12. Hair loss 3. The league's rights The league has the right to determine how the sport is played, for example in the NBA only 5 players may on the court at a time. The league itself should be able to determine drug limitations, as the league determines the game rules. [3] Sources: [1] http://www.cyclingnews.com... [2] http://www.sportsci.org... [3] http://www.nba.com...", "qid": 11, "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7946038246154785}, {"content": "Title: Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport Content: Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands \u201chigher, faster, stronger\u201d from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them? The criterion that athletes should only be applying their \u2018natural abilities\u2019 runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00016-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.793025016784668}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can\"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970\"s and 1980\"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : \"Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions.\" Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago \"Doping in Sports,\" Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !", "qid": 11, "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7916829586029053}, {"content": "Title: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport Content: Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00012-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7916436195373535}, {"content": "Title: As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban Content: Short debate with 2000 characters max. The nominated judges are: Romanii, tejretics, Mikal and airmax1227 Please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. Do not forfeit rounds. Doping ban: Currently, athletes in professional sports are tested periodically and randomly to check if they have taken banned substances which can boost their performance hence allowing them to have an unfair advantage. Guilty athletes may be banned from future events and/or stripped off previous achievements. We would dissolve this ruling, hence all athletes will be allowed to use whatever substances they want to prior to competing. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE. Looking forward to a good debate. Thank you!", "qid": 11, "docid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7892211675643921}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: As am I, thank you for accepting Pro! PEDs should not be permitted for use in professional sports (or sports at any level) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, PEDs present an enormous health risk for athletes that use them. They lead to many severe health problems, including but not limited to heart and circulatory problems, psychiatric disorders and inhibited growth and development (http://www.mayoclinic.org... and http://www.livestrong.com...). The law, in the broader view of things, aims to generally protect people from making poor decisions. If all people are treated as equals under the law, it is the duty of the law to aim to protect athletes just as it aims to protect drug users. It is therefore the responsibility of the law to warn athletes away from taking performance enhancing drugs. In the broader scope of sport, it can be appreciated that teenage athletes who train among adult ones or share the same coaches would also turn to PEDs used by the people around them (were PEDs legalized and accessible), which would not only pose even more serious health concerns but also set trends about drug culture in general, spreading the reach of recreational drug use even further. Sports are enjoyed by people because they are a visual demonstration of what human beings can achieve, individually or collectively. They are designed to amaze and put on a show, and we watch them to celebrate this human achievement. If athletes took PEDs, we would be celebrating chemical achievement, instead. Thus, PEDs could be appreciated to undermine the central philosophy of sport. Finally, a counterargument could be that not all athletes would need to take PEDs and some may choose not to without consequence- however, this is not true. Even if some athletes uphold moral or health standards to not take PEDs, they have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to be successful, they will also have to take drugs. Allowing any athletes to take PEDs means no longer protecting any athletes, even ones that don't want to use dangerous drugs, from these things. This is exemplified in the American Scientific Magazine: \"Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a \"clean\" rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team\" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Two more websites consulted: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org... http://www.usada.org... Your move! :)", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.787018895149231}, {"content": "Title: Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s... Content: Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7859203815460205}, {"content": "Title: That doping should be permitted in all sports Content: Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted. Since the topic is normative (\u201cshould\u201d), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows. HealthIt is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team. Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don\u2019t, and thus those who don\u2019t will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry. From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope. The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous. The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the \"bad\" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the \"good\" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2]. Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them. \u201cBrenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous.\"But Barry Bonds does it,\" his parents remember Efrain saying.\"That doesn't make it right,\" his father responded.To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19.\u201d [4]There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it. Unfair AdvantageEveryone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.Ruins Purpose of SportThe meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.evolutionary.org...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7848767638206482}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \"Your \"Part one arguments,\" to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution \"Should you use steroids? \" Or \"Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? \"\" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. \"Your part two arguments apply to \"Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \"Your part three argument applies to \"Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \"The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. \" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.782421886920929}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: PED (Performance-Enhancing Drug) gives disadvantages for the sportsman. PED should not be legalized by everyone for the sportman. PED gives disdvantages, specially in terms of health!", "qid": 11, "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7823627591133118}, {"content": "Title: Steroids should be legalized in sports. Content: I guess you are giving me BoP then? That seems quite ridiculous to me, to be honest, since changing a basis rule of sports would give you BoP I would think, but I'll go with it. I will provide a simple argument for now.Sports are supposed to be a judge of someone's athletic prowess. That is, how much they practice and how much of an affinity they have for the sport. If external enhancements like steroids are allowed, this falls apart. What's the point, then? People will just try to use the newest and best drugs, and competitions would have little meaning beyond who screwed up their body more to win. That is obviously not the point of sports.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6a9cc0cb-2019-04-18T16:29:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.781767725944519}, {"content": "Title: Drugs in Sport Content: Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s...", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7807868719100952}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: My last round arguments was seen mostly jokes, But however in this round I will get more serious. DRUGS IN SPORT The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, When Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. 1 The first official ban on \"stimulating substances\" by a sporting organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. 2 Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, But it is becoming more effective. In 1976, The East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, And later sued the government for giving them anabolic steroids. 3 Yet despite the health risks, And despite the regulating bodies\" attempts to eliminate drugs from sport, The use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test. In 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, In general, Believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances. 4 Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There is very little rigorous, Objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo, Illegal, And sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, We need an analytical argument to determine what we should do. CONDEMNED TO CHEATING? We are far from the days of amateur sporting competition. Elite athletes can earn tens of millions of dollars every year in prize money alone, And millions more in sponsorships and endorsements. The lure of success is great. But the penalties for cheating are small. A six month or one year ban from competition is a small penalty to pay for further years of multimillion dollar success. Drugs are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep\"s testicles. Studies involving the anabolic steroid androgen showed that, Even in doses much lower than those used by athletes, Muscular strength could be improved by 5\"20%. 5 Most athletes are also relatively unlikely to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10\"15% of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. 6 The enormous rewards for the winner, The effectiveness of the drugs, And the low rate of testing all combine to create a cheating \"game\" that is irresistible to athletes. Kjetil Haugen7 investigated the suggestion that athletes face a kind of prisoner\"s dilemma regarding drugs. His game theoretic model shows that, Unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, Or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, Athletes could all be predicted to cheat. The current situation for athletes ensures that this is likely, Even though they are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, Than if nobody takes drugs. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body. As technology advances, Drugs have become harder to detect because they mimic natural processes. In a few years, There will be many undetectable drugs. Haugen\"s analysis predicts the obvious: that when the risk of being caught is zero, Athletes will all choose to cheat. The recent Olympic games in Athens were the first to follow the introduction of a global anti-doping code. From the lead up to the games to the end of competition, 3000 drug tests were carried out: 2600 urine tests and 400 blood tests for the endurance enhancing drug EPO. 8 From these, 23 athletes were found to have taken a banned substance\"the most ever in an Olympic games. 9 Ten of the men\"s weightlifting competitors were excluded. The goal of \"cleaning\" up the sport is unattainable. Further down the track the spectre of genetic enhancement looms dark and large. UNFAIR? People do well at sport as a result of the genetic lottery that happened to deal them a winning hand. Genetic tests are available to identify those with the greatest potential. If you have one version of the ACE gene, You will be better at long distance events. If you have another, You will be better at short distance events. Black Africans do better at short distance events because of biologically superior muscle type and bone structure. Sport discriminates against the genetically unfit. Sport is the province of the genetic elite (or freak). The starkest example is the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta. In 1964, He won three gold medals. Subsequently it was found he had a genetic mutation that meant that he \"naturally\" had 40\"50% more red blood cells than average. 15 Was it fair that he had significant advantage given to him by chance? The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, The more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete\"s performance in aerobic exercise. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, Raising the packed cell volume (PCV)\"the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anaemia, Haemorrhage, Pregnancy, Or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, And it was officially banned in 1985. 16 At sea level, The average person has a PCV of 0. 4\"0. 5. It naturally varies; 5% of people have a packed cell volume above 0. 5, 17 and that of elite athletes is more likely to exceed 0. 5, Either because their high packed cell volume has led them to success in sport or because of their training. 18 Raising the PCV too high can cause health problems. The risk of harm rapidly rises as PCV gets above 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0. 51 or more, Risk of stroke was significantly raised (relative risk R02;=R02; 2. 5), After adjustment for other causes of stroke. 19 At these levels, Raised PCV combined with hypertension would cause a ninefold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, Dehydration causes an athlete\"s blood to thicken, Further raising blood viscosity and pressure. 20 What begins as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can rise acutely during exercise. In the early 1990s, After EPO doping gained popularity but before tests for its presence were available, Several Dutch cyclists died in their sleep due to inexplicable cardiac arrest. This has been attributed to high levels of EPO doping. 21 The risks from raising an athlete\"s PCV too high are real and serious. Use of EPO is endemic in cycling and many other sports. In 1998, The Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France after trainer Willy Voet was caught with 400 vials of performance enhancing drugs. 22 The following year, The World Anti-Doping Agency was established as a result of the scandal. However, EPO is extremely hard to detect and its use has continued. Italy\"s Olympic anti-doping director observed in 2003 that the amount of EPO sold in Italy outweighed the amount needed for sick people by a factor of six. 23 In addition to trying to detect EPO directly, The International Cycling Union requires athletes to have a PCV no higher than 0. 5. But 5% of people naturally have a PCV higher than 0. 5. Athletes with a naturally high PCV cannot race unless doctors do a number of tests to show that their PCV is natural. Charles Wegelius was a British rider who was banned and then cleared in 2003. He had had his spleen removed in 1998 after an accident, And as the spleen removes red blood cells, Its absence resulted in an increased PCV. 24 There are other ways to increase the number of red blood cells that are legal. Altitude training can push the PCV to dangerous, Even fatal, Levels. More recently, Hypoxic air machines have been used to simulate altitude training. The body responds by releasing natural EPO and growing more blood cells, So that it can absorb more oxygen with every breath. The Hypoxico promotional material quotes Tim Seaman, A US athlete, Who claims that the hypoxic air tent has \"given my blood the legal \"boost\" that it needs to be competitive at the world level. \"25 There is one way to boost an athlete\"s number of red blood cells that is completely undetectable:26 autologous blood doping. In this process, Athletes remove some blood, And reinject it after their body has made new blood to replace it. This method was popular before recombinant human EPO became available. \"By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. \" There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, By using a hypoxic air machine, Or by taking EPO. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, No matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, And some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, We level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, Allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.", "qid": 11, "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7792925238609314}, {"content": "Title: Drugs in sports Content: with that being said, drugs should be allowed in sports because it is just another means of trying to get ahead. Over training can be unhealthy and result in death but that isn't being stopped. Simply think of it this way, every athlete (to my knowledge) wants to do the best that they can in their particular sporting event/ field so why shouldn't they be allowed to make their own choices as to how they get to where they want to be?", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb7b9e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7792269587516785}, {"content": "Title: steriods in sports Content: i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7791162729263306}, {"content": "Title: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on... Content: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far more than is needed for performance-enhancement, running needless health risks as a result, simply because of ignorance and the need for secrecy. Legalisation allows more information to become available and open medical supervision will avoid many of the health problems currently associated with performance-enhancing drugs.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00020-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7771242260932922}, {"content": "Title: Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports Content: I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7766611576080322}, {"content": "Title: Steroids should be banned in all sports. Content: Steroids should be allowed in SOME sports. All of the below scenarios negate all arguments my opponent has placed 1Steriods should be allowed in any sport that steroids will not have an impact on performance, such as the sport of darts or billiards. 2Steriods should be allowed in sports that nearly every participant already uses steroids, such as body building (not the same as weight lifting) 3Steriods should be allowed in sports that are simply played for fun and not professional, such as a game of touch football with family. Further every private sports association should have the right to determine their own stance on steroid use, whether that be banned or not. My opponent says\"...It is against the law to participate in sterood use.\" Not all steroids are illegal in all countries. I assume my opponent means the United States of America. Even in the United States of America human growth hormone is Legal.", "qid": 11, "docid": "e9b63a9a-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.776028037071228}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: Oh, than simply, sir, LOL. I disagree with what I accepted to, but it is their own damn fault for using performance enhancing drugs, if they know the effects, both long and short term, than I guess it should be legal because they are stupid, the end.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.775528073310852}, {"content": "Title: permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports Content: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7754312753677368}, {"content": "Title: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success... Content: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those competitors who don\u2019t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can\u2019t be tested for, and in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00012-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7739995121955872}, {"content": "Title: Steroids in sports. Content: To clarify, I use 'advanced training' to denote the accepted methods and measures that pro athletes take to reach the top of the sport. I'll go point by point here, with some responses. You make a couple of key arguments. 1) Purity You argue that steroids would taint the pure nature of professional sports and allowing external 'alterations' would skew human performance. This argument would work great, if it hadn't already happened. It would only be true if regular people, who were athletically talented, were our pro atheletes. This is obviously not the case. Gone are the days when guys like Babe Ruth could rely on natural human ability. Todays pro athletes already use extensive, extra-human workout routines and get their hands on any kind of herbal substance, protein formula, or other legal aid that might give them a boost. Do you think that a guy who has been hardcore training since adolescence, takes dozens of supplements a day, and is paid ridiculous amounts of money to do nothing but find some kind of edge that will make him a better player is a 'pure' representation of human ability? You can not find one single professional athlete that is free from outside alteration, legal or not. If pros were pure human beings I would agree, but anymore, they are just engineered muscle. Any notion of purity went out the window decades ago. 2) Allowing Steroids is not fair to those who don't want to use them. You argue that, if we allow steroids, players who don't elect to risk their health would be unfairly ostricized from the sport, because of lower performance. Again, isn't this already true? Players who do not choose to adopt the newest and most performance beneficial supplements and training techniques are left in the perverbial dust as well. If an athlete elects not to train intensely or receive the legal aid available, his skills are not on par with others and he/she is not able to compete. Now, it seems I am avoiding the obvious. \"Training isn't harmful to their health, steroids are harmful. We shouldn't make people harm themselves in order to compete professionally.\" This seems like a reasonable objection, but in reality, again, this is already true. It seems like common sense that being in good physical condition would be good for you. But, new studies and literature show that living the life of a professional athelete leads to more severe injuries, a shorter lifespan, and worse health sooner(http://www.eric.ed.gov...) (http://www.informaworld.com...). Professional athletes may seem like they are in peak physical condition, but the risk they assume with 'natural' and 'traditional' training regiments are harmful to their health as well. Again, I would agree with you here if we were not already to this point. As professional athletics stands now, the effects that steroids has on the body, are a drop in the pond compared to the risks and trials that it faces now. Those athletes who do not want to take steroids are free to choose not to, if that renders them obsolete (which is arguable), then professionalism will leave them behind, just as your 'natural' methods have done to so many athletes before them in the past. 3) Fairness and being a good-role model You argue that allowing steroids would eliminate fairness and poorly influence kids. This however, as I stated in my first round, is merely a consequence of steroid's current illegality. No one looks down on A-Rod for drinking protein shakes, even though high-protein diets have been shown to increase risks on bone cancer and osteoporosis (http://manbir-online.com...) (http://www.futurepundit.com...). If protein supplements were banned, we would have the same terrible view of them as we do steroids. But, since they are legal, and widely accepted, we are cool with them. The same goes for numerous other legal aids. The only reason steroid use has a bad connotation is because of its illegality. Steroid users are looked at as cheaters because they used an illegal substance. If steroids were legal, these athletes would no longer be cheaters as everyone would be on a sanctioned, level playing field. I'm not saying this would happen immediately, but as time grew on and steroids were more accepted, the bad label would fall away. The message to kids has already been molested, and steroids would not send a 'do drugs' message. If kids model athletes that closely, why do we allow ball players to chew tobacco? Why are people like Ricky Williams, Michael Vick, and Tank Johnson still allowed to play, despite numerous arrests, prison sentences and admitted use of narcotics? Its not like proffessional sports has some kind of role-model clause. This argument would only hold weight if the image of the professional athlete hadn't already been skewed beyond recognition. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to send the right message, I agree. The fact is, kids DO look up to athletes. But again, where is the line here? With proper understanding and parenting, kids are already told that some things are strictly for professionals. Do we tell kids to spend eight hours in the gym and dedicate their entire lives to training, or do we tell them that its a game and that they should have fun with it? Do we tell little kids who like to ride horses that jockeys need to be bulimic in order to get a job, or that track stars use a 'puke index' to measure how hard they should train? Or, do we tell them to try hard, but have fun? Obviously, steroids would function in the same way. It is already understood and told to kids, that pros take measures that they should not. Steroids would just be lumped into this existing category. We obviously don't tell kids to use testosterone enhancers and synergistic muscle volumizers, which are legal. Why would steroids be an exception here? Again, I think this loops back to the negative connotation that steroids carry, rather than the differences they have with already legal training methods. In short, steroids ARE just the next step in professional sports. There is no denying the health risk involved, but that hasn't stopped us from legalizing other extreme training methods. We shouldn't force steroids on our athletes by any means, but that avenue should be open to those who seek it, just as other extreme avenues are open to those who are willing to use them. Athletes would remain the terrible role models they are, or at least sports would handle this advance as it has handled every other one, with caution and responsibility. Any notion of purity or fairness is all relative. Athletes of the past could, in no way, compete with the legal ones of today because of the progression sports has taken. Our athletes are more athletic because of the then taboo methods that are now legal. Sports needs to take the obvious next step. I realize that this position seems terrible, but that is only because of the bad rap steroids have gotten as a result of their illegality. We need to get past this media-painted image of steroids and realize that science has allowed athletes to progress before and is doing it again. Barry Bond's wouldn't be such a terrible guy if steroids were legal, then again, maybe we would have more guys putting up his numbers too.", "qid": 11, "docid": "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7710895538330078}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: Drug use in sports poses a negative effect on the user's health. Enacting the legalization of drug use in sports seeks an unfair advantage towards other athletes and sets a bad perception on how athletes should compete in sports. Drugs I am talking about are: stimulants, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin, And 'blood doping' (practice of increasing the number of red blood cells in one's circulatory system). But I'm open to HGH (human growth hormone) ONLY if it is prescribed to them and they do not use it with anabolic steroids or testosterone.", "qid": 11, "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7707820534706116}, {"content": "Title: Steroids in sports. Content: I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It would maximize the skills of most players and is the next step in advanced training. The primary reason steroids get a bad rap is because they are against the rules and viewed as cheating. Players who don't want to take steroids can be free to make that choice, just as some players don't choose certain training methods now. Players who want to take the health risks associated with steroids should be able to do so.", "qid": 11, "docid": "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7699337005615234}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens Content: I personally do not condone the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs and/or Supplements whether they are illegal or not. But, I believe that in small quantities they are not harmful to teenagers. I look forward to further informing you on this topic.", "qid": 11, "docid": "98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7685526609420776}, {"content": "Title: Natural/unnatural distinction untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exe... Content: It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. First, to protect athletes from harmful drugs. Secondly, to preserve the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00009-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7680267095565796}, {"content": "Title: As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban Content: My opponent started with \"What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping\". To me, this is entirely subjective. What kind of message would we be sending if we allowed guns on the streets? If we banned marijuana but allow smoking? If we spied on people to prevent terrorism? \"A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams.\" It really depends on the level of competition. If it was an amateur competition and most people join for the satisfaction and fun of it then there is nothing wrong with allowing contestants to take drugs or not since the main motivation for these people is not to win, but to challenge themselves. At the highest levels, where athletes already receive a lot of funding from governments and sponsors, there is nothing wrong with allowing them to take drugs AS LONG AS everyone is allowed to, openly and without secrets. \"And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body.\" If you have an issue against chemicals, I suggest you wake up. We are surrounded by carcinogens on a daily basis which we use to improve ourselves. Deodorants, anti-pesticides for vegetables, injections on poultry to become fatter produce more eggs to feed an every increasing population. \"We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible.\" It is up to them whether or not they choose to take in extremely harmful substances. As long as it is an act of free choice, surely they have a right to consume what they want. Here, I would also like to highlight that these drugs are seldom extremely dangerous substances. With correct application and suitable doses, they can be used in a healthy manner to stimulate the muscles and organs. If athletes fail to follow the prescription, it's just like an obese person who chooses to consume too much foods. My opponent also never rebutted my arguments.", "qid": 11, "docid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7677547931671143}, {"content": "Title: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th... Content: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.", "qid": 11, "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7673746943473816}, {"content": "Title: Protecting young and vulnerable athletes Content: Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of \u201crecreational drugs\u201d with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00023-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7663125991821289}, {"content": "Title: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use Content: Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years\u2019 time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: \u201cGame theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a \u201cclean\u201d rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.\u201d (1) Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00019-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7662343978881836}, {"content": "Title: Olympic Dream Is Dead Content: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...", "qid": 11, "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7658032178878784}, {"content": "Title: Steroids in sports. Content: It seems to me that using the term \"advanced training\" is quite vague, please can you elaborate. Secondly, I believe that there are a plethora of reasons why steroids should not be allowed in sports. for one, the sake of purity is at risk. How can you measure the skill of a human (one of the main reasons for sport) when that individual is affected by an outside alteration such as steroids? also, if you allow all players to use steroids in sports, yet all are free not to as you put it \"take the health risks\", aren't you not putting the people who don't want to use steroids potentially out of the game. that does not seem fair, and fairness the one of the principles guiding sports. The reason we have rules, referees and instant replay are all for the sake of pure sport, and steroids fit into that realm as well. Also, athletes are seen as heroes in the world of children. Can't you name one person that you looked up to that played sports-mine was Alex Rodriguez, and I can't imagine how my life would be changed as a kid if I had found out he had taken steroids. What kind of message does that send children; that its ok to take drugs as long as you see positive benefits? Not to mention the idea that although steroids have long term effects to the human body as well. so no, steroids should not be allowed in sports.", "qid": 11, "docid": "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7652868032455444}, {"content": "Title: Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes Content: It is unfair for athletes to take drugs. It is like getting a free 48 hour workout by just taking a pill. You get into professional baseball or any other sport because you practiced hard, and that you are good. Protein shakes are like eating healthy. That's what people have to do to stay fit. In steroids there are many chemicals to boost what ever it boosts. It is just unreasonable to have steroids legal in professional sports.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7643193006515503}, {"content": "Title: Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes Content: Well, I would certainly like to see a match with people at their maximum potential. It would basically be seeing the best of the best in the match of the century. It would be amazing to watch. The game would not be like watching robots play, either. Considering the fact that sports players have brains that they use on the field, the match would be very different than what you propose. I'm surprised that you haven't made the argument that 'steroids are dangerous for athletes so they shouldn't use them'. Well, just so you don't use that in this final round, I am going to clear this up. If steroids were legalized, then they would actually be safer. Why? Because it would be done under the guidance of a doctor who can monitor how the athlete is doing with the steroids. The reason it is so dangerous now is because athletes don't know the right amount to take, so they overdose and die. Thank you for being my first opponent. I really enjoyed this debate.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7632039785385132}, {"content": "Title: Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport Content: The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years. The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it. Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/, accessed 05/20/2011", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00013-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7625951170921326}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: To refute my opponent's arguments and his responses to my own, one by one: 1. \"Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing\" Response: Not only should they not be legalized, there should be more enforcement to keep them out of sports. It's not a strong argument to say \"some people are doing it anyway, we might as well make it legal so everyone can\". Some people do cocaine! Furthermore, rich athletes from wealthier countries will have access to the latest, highest-quality PEDs while poorer athletes from poorer countries which don't have the same medical or scientific advances will not be able to keep up. As long as PEDs are available (or even legal), the playing field won't ever be level. PEDs are one of the largest factors that make the playing field not be level, because they give a foothold to wealth and country of origin as deciders of athletic performance. 2. \"One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports.\" Response: Allowing PEDs would raise the level of competition in an extremely uneven manner, and we would showcase chemical achievement instead of human achievement (as outlined in my first argument). 3. \"My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs.\" Response: I would call it an invalid argument to say that, because what they do is dangerous already, it doesn't matter that PEDs could make their lives more dangerous. All people are under the law and the law should protect all people. Welders have a more dangerous career than teachers, but it isn't any less against the law for them to use cocaine. 4. \"My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. [...] Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision.\" Response: I agree that there is a side of sports not affected by PEDs, but I think that this argues my side of the debate more than it does yours- we will celebrate the same skills, changed or unchanged by PEDs, as human achievement. The use of PEDs therefore does not increase this human achievement and should not be celebrated, it only adds chemical achievement to what is already amazing. This is not something we want to celebrate, as it is outside of the central philosophy of sport, and it is certainly not worth the health risks or other disparities (as outlined above) the PEDs would bring to sport at any level.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7611696720123291}, {"content": "Title: Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports. Content: Said drugs should not be used in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.", "qid": 11, "docid": "e8bee87e-2019-04-18T19:38:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7610169053077698}, {"content": "Title: Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies denied to athletes, even in sports wh... Content: What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of \u201crecreational drugs\u201d with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00015-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7603806257247925}, {"content": "Title: There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement Content: It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00010-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7602168917655945}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: Responding to C1: Just because drugs like stimulant and muscle/hormone growth are common practices does not justify or prove that it is not harmful or promotes a good perception on how athletes should compete in sports. They have a negative effect on long-term health. Athletes would be proned to use those substances to relieve many stressors like pressure to perform, Physical pain, Injuries, And retirement for the sport. Growth hormone are banned by the WADA because it increases muscle mass and decrease adipose tissue. Athletes use those because of their anabolic effect on muscles. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Half of all recently surveyed athletes admitted they would be willing to take a drug even if it would kill them eventually. They would only focus or care about winning events and makes athletes feeling coerced to use those drugs in order to compete or win. Just because on average the athletes want to use these drugs or do use those drugs does not make it okay. For example (hypothetical) if on average or majority of people support slavery that does not make it okay or provide any proof of it \"goodness. \" The WADA, USADA, And I. O. C. All work collaboratively in sharing information to keep an eye on doping agents, Retains ownership of blood and urine samples, And work together efficiently to enhance testing effectiveness. Abusing drug to increase athletic abilities is definitely an unfair advantage. Not to mention the \"blood doping\" they use, It increases the risk for heart disease, Stroke, And blood clot in the brain or lungs because it boosts the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream. The other PEDs, Increase the risk for high blood pressure, An enlarged heart, Heart attack, Stroke, Irregular heart rate, High blood temperature, And paranoia. Moreover on C2: [USADA] --- Anabolic-steroids effects on health; - (physiological) liver damage, Premature closure of the growth centers of long bones (adolescents) which result in stunted growth, And disruption of puberty. - (psychological) increased aggressiveness and sexual desire. Sometimes resulting in abnormal sexual or criminal behavior. - (males) breast tissue development, Shrinking of the testicles, Impotence, And reducing sperm production. - (females) deep voice, Cessation of breast development, Growth of hair on face etc, Abnormal menstrual cycles. --- HGH (human growth hormones) - (physiological) hypertension, Blood cancers/leukemia, Anemia, Heart attacks, Thyroid problems, Severe headaches, Loss of vision, High blood pressure and heart failure, Tumors and diabetes. --- Stimulants - (physiological) insomnia, Anxiety, Dependence and addiction, Weight loss, Dehydration, Tremors, Increased heart rate and blood pressure, And increased risk of stroke and heart attack. --- Blood doping - (physiological) increased stress on the heart, Blood clotting, And stroke. Responding to C2: Yes the technology is very expensive and doesn't produce the same effects for performance as drugs. Again that does not justify or prove that it's healthy or promotes a \"good\" perception on athletes competing. You mostly use quotes, I don't really see how this one was an actual argument.", "qid": 11, "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7596406936645508}, {"content": "Title: Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s... Content: Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults, capable of making rational decisions upon the basis of widely-available information. Even if there are adverse health effects in the long-term, this is also true of both tobacco and boxing, which remain legal.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00008-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7571990489959717}, {"content": "Title: Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success... Content: Very bad for athletes. The use of performance-enhancing drugs leads to serious health problems, including \u201csteroid rage\u201d, the development of male characteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also addictive.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00011-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7568541765213013}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports. Content: In this debate, as the Con I will be arguing that steroids should not be allowed in sports. I would primarily like to point out that according to the wording of the resolution, in order for the Con to win, I need only prove that steroids should not be allowed in one sport. This said, I will not only prove why steroids should not be allowed in several sports, but I will also show steroids in general should not be allowed. Contention 1: Athletes who choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged. Due to the fact that steroids can have serious side effects such as kdney failure, liver failure, heart risks, depression, risk for infections and many others, the athletes that choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged which means that athletes will be pressured into using steroids which means they will have a few good years of performance but after that severe health problems will greatly lowers life expectancy. (1) Contention 2: Athletes should be role models. If all or most professional athletes are taking steroids, they are having a negative influence on the youth and society in general. Younger athletes will then start taking steroids at younger ages which will result in those teens having severe health problems, even before they make it to the professionals. http://www.peelregion.ca... (1)", "qid": 11, "docid": "1df2fccf-2019-04-18T18:34:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7565388679504395}, {"content": "Title: Steroids should be banned in all pro sports Content: My opponent is making his case based on the effects of anabolic steroids. This is only one type of steroid whereas the resolution calls for the ban of steroids in general. In my argument I contend that if steroids were completely banned from use in all professional sports then athletes that use corticosteroids to treat their conditions would be barred from competition. I will state again that corticosteroids are used to treat skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis and allergies. They also are used to treat hay fever, many autoimmune disorders such rheumatoid arthritis, asthma and polymyalgia rheumatica. Corticosteroids are also used to prevent organ rejection in transplant patients. Sometimes they are injected into joints to reduce joint pain and swelling. If these facts are not enough to convince the voters I will also provide an argument as to why Anabolic steroids do not need to be banned from _all_ professional sports. Anabolic steroids are used to improve and accelerate muscle growth. This gives these athletes an unfair strength advantage and is the main reason that they are banned. There are many professional sports where strength means nothing. These sports include [2]: * Auto-Racing * Curling * Motorcycle Racing * Speedway * Radio-controlled model * Video Games My opponent may also argue that since aggression is a side-effect of steroid use that they should be banned. I contend that this is not the case as aggression alone does not pose a threat. It is only when a person actually causes harm to another that is a problem. This is a crime in and of itself and would possibly lead to jail time for the aggressor and legitimate ejection from a sporting league. I look forward to my opponent's response. [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 11, "docid": "d1edcf12-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7552940845489502}, {"content": "Title: As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban Content: What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping. A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams. We as a society should not promote the use of drugs. And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body. We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible. Just because it is hard to screen every athlete for PEDs and the results havn't been perfect doesn't mean we should give up.", "qid": 11, "docid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7552409768104553}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7544103264808655}, {"content": "Title: That doping should be permitted in all sports Content: In light of recent events in all sports, I believe that there is an easy solution. Allow doping.DefinitionsDoping = Use of (currently) banned performance-inhanced drugs in sportsSports = Can mean 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'- but for this debate sports shall be taken to mean athleticsAthletics = The sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing.RULES1.) No Wikipedia2.) No trolling3.) No kritks/semantics4.)Begin in 1st round.5.)FF is concession unless same numberThanks!", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00007-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7543783187866211}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: Any athlete who uses performance enhancing drugs and has a good career should not be able to make the hall of fame. This includes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and all the other players that used them. I believe that if you use these you are getting an advantage that everyone else isn't. They didn't hit all these home runs off of there pure talent and skills, they needed a booster to get where they are and they cheated. They should never be able to be among the Hall of Fame electors like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron who did it with out performance enhancing drugs.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7537078857421875}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens Content: To be specific, I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are both un-necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered \"performance enhancers\" or \"dietary\" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec\u2022re\u2022a\u2022tion\u2022al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup\u2022ple\u2022ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.", "qid": 11, "docid": "fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7528988122940063}, {"content": "Title: Drug Testing on students in extra curricular activities Content: Drug testing is important. If people in sports didn't get drug tested that would be unfair to the other contestants/athletes. With taking drugs you have an advantage. You get a boost in your energy. Also it is illegal to take drugs when you are in athletics. If you participate in any athletic activities you need to be fair. There is a lot of news going around that athletes who win every race or what ever took drugs they lost all their gold metals and their whole carrier went down the drain.", "qid": 11, "docid": "87b43e8a-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7522817850112915}, {"content": "Title: players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped Content: Players that are convicted of using Performance Enhancing Drugs (or PED's) should have their records, accomplishments, and titles (if in a single player sport) stripped from them. The use of PED's is cheating. The most recent case about this has been Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was found guilty of using a PED and was stripped of all of his Tour de France victories. This was rightfully done because, if he had not used them, then maybe someone else could've won. The use of PED's has become an infamous problem in sports and it shouldn't go without real consequences.", "qid": 11, "docid": "3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7518460154533386}, {"content": "Title: Lance Armstrong should still be considered as more of an international hero than just a lying jerk Content: Since you had Prima Facie, you had the right to set the terms and limits of the debate, which you never seemed to. Also, I didn\"t make the debate pro- or con- doping, I\"m asking why we should praise someone whom everything they done was built on a lie, on cheating, on breaking the rules. You are saying that because he used ill-gotten gains to do good, that we should ignore that the gains are ill-gotten? There is an old adage that applies: The ends do not justify the means. You then bring up Winning at any costs. Is winning the only thing that should matter? Also, is it worth winning if you know that you didn\"t do it fairly? It is a moral dilemma that we have a social norm which answers the question: CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER. Next, you say why put all the blame on him? Because for 14 years, he lied at every opportunity. He could have at any time said yes, but he only said yes now because he wants to keep competing and keep making money and is hoping that his punishment will be lessened. He wasn\"t told to keep lying, he CHOSE to keep lying. Now, to rebuild my Counter Contentions, quoting your attacks. 1) \"All race walkers with no exception break the basic rule of their sport, and the winner still isn't punished.\" Do you have evidence that EVERY one of them break the rules? I know it\"s semantics but saying something like that is just open to attack. Also, has anyone in Race Walking dominated their sport in the same way Lance Armstrong did? Finally, It also doesn\"t damage the argument that he should not be praised, so Bring Counter Contention 1 across. 2)\"Maybe like Overeem in UFC? Doping really says more about the sport than about the athletes.\" In this situation, Overeem is not licensed in the state where the testing occurred, and thus cannot be punished until he decides to try to get licensed in Nevada, thus it doesn\"t apply. Meanwhile, to further my argument more, Sammy Sosa also did a lot of charitable work during and after his career, but all we remember about him is PED use and corked bats. Bring Counter Contention 2 across. 3)\"if Michael Jordan admits doping tomorrow, would he really loose whole of his reputation? I don't know, he would still be a legend to me...\" Nice hypothetical, but there\"s a difference between a statement and if evidence came out. Also, when someone ADMITS they were wrong, we treat them better than if they were confronted with the evidence before saying anything. Also, Armstrong denied for YEARS that he doped, and only said anything to try to save face. Bring Counter Contention 3 across. The point I\"m trying to make is this: He made a choice to cheat, and then chose to keep cheating and keep lying about cheating for so long, that it built up and up until the truth came out. Why should we still praise someone who did this, no matter what he might have done with the fame and fortune? Cross-apply what I said at the beginning: The Ends Do Not Justify The Means, and Cheaters Never Prosper. You have shown nothing why we should ignore these social norms in this case.", "qid": 11, "docid": "f5740022-2019-04-18T17:52:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7513813376426697}, {"content": "Title: Drug Use in Sports Content: Since I am going to argue for the use of drugs like stimulant, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin and Blood Doping in sports events. I hereby list out my arguments: C1: Drugs like stimulant and etc. Are performance boosting drugs during sport events: Drugs like stimulant and also muscle/hormone growth are common practice in some sport areas, For example: it is common knowledge that the fighters in AFL or other television events use these drugs before the event happened. Despite many arguments that these drugs are harmful to human body, Body stimulant drugs are used in many normal competitions. C2: The current technology is expensive, And also inadequate enough. One of the most famous quote in the tour of france is the following: You have no idea what the Tour de France is\", Henri said. \"It's a Calvary. Worse than that, Because the road to the Cross has only 14 stations and ours has 15. We suffer from the start to the end. You want to know how we keep going? Here. . . \" He pulled a phial from his bag. \"That's cocaine, For our eyes. This is chloroform, For our gums. \" \"This\", Ville said, Emptying his shoulder bag \"is liniment to put warmth back into our knees. \" \"And pills. Do you want to see pills? Have a look, Here are the pills. \" Each pulled out three boxes. \"The truth is\", Francis said, \"that we keep going on dynamite. \" Henri spoke of being as white as shrouds once the dirt of the day had been washed off, Then of their bodies being drained by diarrhoea, Before continuing: \"At night, In our rooms, We can't sleep. We twitch and dance and jig about as though we were doing St Vitus's Dance. . . \" \"There's less flesh on our bodies than on a skeleton\", Francis said. This might be a joke, But the truth is, These long range races are suffering to the people who are participating in them. Also, Lance Armstrong, A legendary doping figure in the Tour De France had also talked about 1 single thing: \"It is impossible to go on without drugs. \"", "qid": 11, "docid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7506927251815796}, {"content": "Title: Essendon's Players should be banned Content: I think there should simply be separate leagues for people who used steroids and other enhancements and those who do not. Pretty soon we will have people who are bred for specific genetic traits and prosthetic limbs that will make them far superior to normal athletes. Doping will look downright tame by comparison. But for now, I would rather see athletes push themselves beyond the limits of their bodies using technology than watch them be hobbled by people who think that the human race should cede to evolve any further than it already has. Passing a \"no steroids rule\" is like passing a rule in basketball that says no player shall be over 6 feet tall.", "qid": 11, "docid": "feaf7746-2019-04-18T17:15:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7505979537963867}, {"content": "Title: As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban Content: Just because you cant't catch every athlete that is doping doesn't mean you should just give up and lift the ban and let every athlete dope openly. If you did every athlete would be doping and you wouldn't be able to compete unless you used dope. This would promote the use of dope among children who dream of becoming a professional athlete. Almost all of the banned substances have negative side effects on your health from heart attacks and strokes to the shrinking of your testicles. We do not want our children taking unhealthy substances especially while their bodies are still growing. Lifting the ban would be telling them that it is okay to use these drugs. That is the most important point. Are we going to force people to use unnatural drugs in order to compete? I think that is immoral and damages the integrity of the sport. As far as the swim suit and the oxygen tank for climbing I would agree with the Royal Geographic Society it's not completely human but that's another debate.", "qid": 11, "docid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7479245662689209}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \" Again, you are ignoring your own statement at the beginning of the debate. You conceded the point about which meaning of \"allowed\" is to be used. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. \" You're contradicting yourself. The ability to do \"stupid things\" is part of the ability to choose how to live. Either you dictate how they live or you don't, there is no middle ground here. Respect their rights, or treat them as slaves. That's it. If you dictate that a person acts as a role model, this means you are dictating that they live as one. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? \" Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning. Not optimal but some people do it with success. And you are ignoring the fact that being a professional athlete is a choice. They are free to be one or not to be one. So no, they don't HAVE TO do anything, even those whose sports do require conditioning, are not forced to choose that sport. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \" Again that \"Has to,\" which is false, and the false assumption that the first party can't use the drugs. And if you'll notice, exhbit A, the most successful steroid users also work the hardest (See Barry Bonds' extensive workouts.) The steroids simply allow the workout sessions to last longer and be more productive. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports.\" You are twisting logic here, and it is you who contradict yourself. You state that i contradict myself by declaring you were talking about the law, and then declaring you were talking about the law? That is the opposite of a contradiction! Meanwhile you contradict yourself by stating you are talking about the sports league's rules, and then stating \"PUNISHABLE BY LAW.\" \"LAW\" is not what a sports league makes. It is what congress makes. A sports league has every right to forbid participation based on such grounds as steroid use... but such a rule is not a \"law,\" does not make participation \"illegal.\" Only that which is forbidden by a government body, Congress, is \"illegal.\" Unless you were trying to say I stated you were arguing it \"Should be allowable by the law, not the sports league,\" which means you misinterpreted my statement. I stated the debate, you clarified, was about \"What is allowable\" by the law, rather than \"what is allowable\" the sports league, which means you are dropping the context and thus altering the meaning of my statement. Either way I have not contradicted myself, either you misunderstand the term contradiction or you are dropping the context of a statement (Your summary of my supposedly contradictory arguments was so ambigous I have a hard time telling which.) \" Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? \" You are given fines, which if not paid result in jail. The end that lies down the road is the same, there are simply more steps. The point is that the penalty is government administered, and active, as opposed to the passive penalty of being refused employment if the prohibition were private. Jail and government-mandated fines are morally equivalent. Where one is morally unjustified, so is the other. \" My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments.\" And I have shown how you have misinterpreted mine, and thereby not shown how I have misinterpreted yours. \"urthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position,\" Your explicit position, explicated in Round 1, is that it should be, again, ILLEGAL for athletes to use steroids. Not, grounds for a private entity to not hire, but, ILLEGAL. If you think I haven't been arguing with that position, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention. \"nd is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution. \" I already demonstrated I have not contradicted myself. I hope you can do the same. It isn't my fault what you chose to open the debate with, had you not, the meaning of \"allowed\" would still be open to discussion, but your inclusion of the term \"illegal\" made certain it is not, and you have not responded to my arguments against it being illegal (or, since i am Pro, in favor of it being legal, though there is no difference between the two terms).", "qid": 11, "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7476713061332703}, {"content": "Title: Should MLB baseball players be banned from baseball for doing drugs Content: I agree it does depend on the drug but steroids can really affect a person and it is ruining our game! I really don't know why anyone would agree with drug usage!", "qid": 11, "docid": "fd2a6336-2019-04-18T16:18:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7451797723770142}, {"content": "Title: Improving safety standards in sport Content: There will always be a black market for cheaper or for new untested drugs that will give an athlete an edge before others have a chance to try it. Legalization is therefore unlikely to result in large health benefits as the competitiveness of sport will always result in athletes being willing to take a risk.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00014-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7451556921005249}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports Content: 1. Athletes should be able to use whatever means they would like to improve their performance. If that includes steroids, then let them use it. 2. Steroids' risks are clear, and an athlete has a right to choose whether or not he would like to use them. 3. Steroid testing is not efficient, and new types of steroids are being released that often pass screenings.", "qid": 11, "docid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7451445460319519}, {"content": "Title: There's no I in team Content: A team should be punished if it is discovered and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire Olympic team has been involved in illegal \u2018organized cheating\u2019. However, this does not mean that just because only one athlete was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, the entire team should be held responsible. You cannot punish someone for simply being affiliated with a person who has cheated. That is akin to arresting someone because their brother stole a car. You cannot punish someone for the bad decision of another. It is an individual\u2019s right to make their own decisions about what they do to their bodies. Even if a convincing argument is made as to why performance enhancing drugs are a god idea, it is ultimately that athlete\u2019s decision whether or not to use them. If the teammates did not also take the drugs, then they should not be punished. Why should we penalize the whole team for making the wrong assumption that their teammate would think twice before doping because s/he will have the entire team to consider? Some athletes are willing to cheat even if they know they are risking their career. Then, here is quite obvious question, is an athlete going to prioritize their career or their team's career? Assuming that their team's career might 'increase the risk' is not going to necessarily prevent any athletes from dope usage, and this is because each individual are even willing to sacrifice their own. Thus, our opposition has also stated that there is \u2018peer pressure\u2019, which would apparently make the athlete \u2018uncomfortable\u2019, which is illogical. At the end of the day adding pressure to someone will not guarantee that they will make a decision one way or the other. The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the athlete.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7449758648872375}, {"content": "Title: That doping should be permitted in all sports Content: RebuttalCon\u2019s only argument is that if doping were to be permitted, and if everyone were to dope, that would eliminate the already existing unfair advantage that is created by some people doing it illegally. The problem with this is that the argument only works if everyone in the sport did steroids, and that steroids works the same for every person. If these two premises are kept true, the argument works, if even one of them is negated, the entire argument falls. Firstly, if there is a reason that one person cannot do steroids, that excludes that one person from everyone, and since Con needs everyone to take steroids in order for the argument to work, the argument falls.Some people cannot do steroids because they are allergic to them. \u201cSteroids can induce hypersensitivity reactions. The number of reports on contact allergy or anaphylactic reactions is increasing. Steroid hypersensitivity should be considered in any patient whose dermatitis becomes worse with topical steroid therapy, or in patients who develop systemic allergic reactions after the use of systemic steroids. The diagnosis can be confirmed by skin testing, in vitro evidence of specific IgE, oral or parenteral challenge, or an allergic patch test.\u201d [1] Since we cannot have every athlete take steroids, the argument is negated.Secondly, the argument assumes that everyone responds to steroids the same. This is false, see my argument \u201cUnfair Advantage\u201d in R1. Since everyone has varying success with steroids, the unfair advantage would still exist, negating the argument. Defense of HealthFirstly Con attacks my source showing that 14-19% of athletes dope. This is pretty pointless because he concedes that athletes dope in his first contention.His reasons for why it was false was because the study in general was on methods to find athletes that dope. Con does not effectively discredit the fact that 14-19% of athletes dope, it has no relevance to the validity of the statistic. In order to discredit this he would have to attack the statistic, which he didn\u2019t do.Con then says that my argument doesn\u2019t work because these side-effects only occur at high-doses, and athletes won\u2019t dope to a point where these side-effects occur. The problem with this is that there isn\u2019t a \u201cpoint\u201d at which this occurs, it happens when you use it period, no matter the amount of dosage.Defense of SuicideCon responds to the argument by saying that there are treatments to help prevent suicide, and therefore suicides would be prevented. The problem with this is that although treatments may reduce the amount of suicides done by steroids, it will not prevent all of them. And this argument does not negate that fact that severe depression is caused in users. As with Efrain Marrero, his death was not prevented, the argument is demonstrably false. Defense of Unfair AdvantageCon says that my source saying that steroids affects people differently is false because it is about steroids treating arthritis. This does not discredit the source, I used the source in order to show that steroids affects people differently, which was dropped. Con then says that people react to nutrition supplements differently too, so it doesn\u2019t matter because people react differently anyways. This is not any excuse to allow steroids. We should strive to minimize factors that give athletes unfair advantages as much as possible, not expand on them. Defense of Purpose of SportCon drops my argument, it is irrelevent. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7448703050613403}, {"content": "Title: Steroid legalization in MLB Content: Okay, it looks like my opponent has dropped all my points.Yes, yes, we all know about people who die of drugs. But who's fault is that? I already stated that it is a choice. Whether or not you make it illegal, players will still take steroids, it is inevitable. It's like how people take illicit drugs. These people know the consequence of the drug, yet they still take it. It's their choice that they want to harm their health.", "qid": 11, "docid": "84b97490-2019-04-18T18:20:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.744605302810669}, {"content": "Title: should doing be made legal in sports Content: what do u mean when u say that its rampant and so be made legal. .. .rapes are also rampant so do you mean to say that they should also be made legal? Another point in my view is that if doping is made legal then whether the spirit of sports will give up to the circumstances. Then sports will transform from competition between the skills of the players to the wars between the pharmaceutical labs and industries of the two countries. The country which possess the advanced medicine will have a straight win and advanced medicines could only be achieved by the countries which have a hefty budget amount to support the industry. This will directly lead to deprive the economically weak countries to even dare to challenge the the so called developed countries and will be completely overshadowed by them. the world will then be confined to these rich countries which will snatch this very chance of the poor countries to make their presence felt. Use of steroids made legal will make the strong even stronger and weal negligible. I would like to make you recall the real motto of organizing sports to bring countries or organizations together together not to demean anyone. Yes winning should be the main thought, but the path used for achieving it should also be kept in mind. The steroids will also have a degrading effect in the health of the sportsmen which will make them succumb to the particular drug and may even take his/her life . Winning the game at the cost of someones life is not that should be done.", "qid": 11, "docid": "363193e9-2019-04-18T17:17:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7441213726997375}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament Content: But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child \"A\" said \"Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too\" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)", "qid": 11, "docid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7437872886657715}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: \"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \"Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs. \"\"Have to? \" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations. \"And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \"This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports. Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? =============================================================================== My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7434824705123901}, {"content": "Title: Drugs in sports Content: When people use drugs in sports, it is not only cheating, it is unhealthy for the user, an overdose results in death, and other problems. Good luck to my opponent.", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb7b9e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.742645800113678}, {"content": "Title: Steroids should be banned in all sports. Content: \"My opponent has proved my point all the examples he gave show that it gives the user an UNFAIR advantage over all other players because of Increased bone density, Increased muscle mass etc.\" Diet, exercise, and vitamin supplements also can increase muscle mass and bone density why aren't these an \"UNFAIR\" advantage. Further steroid use has been shown to offer enormous benefit, when taken correctly, in regard to performance and physical/mental health to the user. There are risks to taking steroids, however there are also risk when exercising or taking other beneficial drugs or undergoing cosmetic surgery. \"... yes they want the best performance but of person who is playing fairly and not cheating by taking steroids. If one person wants to be unethical and take steroids that doesn't mean that everyone does but it compels them to because of the advantage that one person got.\" It is only \"cheating\" if players had agreed not to participate or been required not to participate in steroid use. If they were allowed then it is no longer \"cheating\" because it is fairly playing by the rules, which also negates the ethics of the matter. Diet, exercise, vitamins/supplements, and proper health care are all things that can give an athlete advantage. What is the defining difference between steroids and these? Should vitamins/supplements and proper health care be considered Cheating or Unethical because another athlete feels compelled to do the same to improve his/her performance?", "qid": 11, "docid": "e9b63a9a-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7426243424415588}, {"content": "Title: That doping should be permitted in all sports Content: Thank you con for that excellent speech. Rebuttal R1: 'Health' If we examine the study that we have been linked to[1], we find that it in fact is not a study that (as Con would claim) shows a widespread prevalence of doping in sports, it is in fact a study studying methods for finding out the prevalence of doping in sport- 'a review of numbers and methods' So here's the conclusion that Con has given us. (As I understand it). 'If doping is legalized then everyone would do it, leading to unrestricted use etc etc'. This is a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. We can agree that everyone would wish to use doping drugs, as they give an advantage - we can draw this belief from what happens currently when a new training method or nutritional supplement is developed. The slippery slope is that of unrestricted use. Athletes and their trainers are not stupid. They know what is good for them and what is less good. This therefore limits the slippery slope that Con is relying on for his argument - as athletes will therefore not dope to a level which is harmful to their health, as this would be a bad thing for them and their future prospects. The parade of horrors that Con has shown us is only based upon taking excessively large doses - but, as the mayo clinic says, 'The effects of taking anabolic steroids at very high doses haven't been well-studied'[2], meaning there is no evidence to back up this claim whatever. R2 'Suicide' Now, the reason that steroids are claimed to cause depression is from the fact that they stop the pituitary glands from producing testosterone - however, the website that Con links us to [2] states that ' Scientists are not completely sure why low testosterone causes depression, but they do know there is a link between the two.' They then go on to say that ' To offset this, it is important to run a proper post cycle therapy (PCT) and bridge.'. So this alleged bad effect of steroids is actually preventable and therefore would be prevented. While the anecdote provided by Con was indeed sad, it is of dubious relevance to his actual case. Sure, there was one person who responded badly to steroids, but the plural of anecdote is not data. This means that this is not actually evidence towards the claim that is being made here. R3 'Unfair advantage' While it may in fact be the case that people respond differently to steroids, there are two factors causing this point to become invalid. Firstly, the evidence that Con has produced is about medical steroids for the treatment of arthritis and not about performance enhancing drugs, so it is invalid as a back up to his arguments. But the second factor is simply - so what? So people respond differently to steroids. So people respond differently to other more 'naturalistic'(notice the quote marks) methods of enhancing performance such as a diet regimen or training! The point is that everybody responds differently to everything, not just steroids, and so any claims of 'unfair' advantage are invalid. R4 'Ruins purpose of sport' There is no evidence whatever that the 'purpose' of sport (if indeed it has one) is, as Con claims, ' in the values that it exhibits.' More development is needed for this point to be considerable, and I would encourage the reader to disregard this pending further development. On to my points. C1 'That permitting all people to dope would erase the advantage that doping currently confers' Let's suppose we're all at a level. Let's further assume that we have an arbitrary scale of 'athleticism', with wizards[3] at 1, the average joe at 50, your average athlete at 80, and Usain Bolt (say) at 100. Let us further assume that doping confers a +20 advantage to your score. Under the current paradigm, your average athlete can dope, and reach the level of a Usain Bolt 'artificially'. Both myself and Con are in agreement that this is inherently bad. But now let's assume that everyone is doping. Sure, the guy who was doping before reaches a level of 100, but now a Usain Bolt (i.e. the ones who were already on top under the 'perfect' paradigm) also reach a higher level. This means there is now no net benefit whatever to doping, and so it is not bad. I look forward to the next round! 1.)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.)http://www.mayoclinic.org... 3.)http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net... 4.)http://www.menshealth.co.uk...", "qid": 11, "docid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7425335645675659}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports Content: Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. \"Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal\"examples.\" (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. \"Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells.\" (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. \"The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women.\" (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. \"Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits.\" (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs.", "qid": 11, "docid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7424823045730591}, {"content": "Title: Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame Content: I am not saying all average players should make it but what about above average players who werent as good as the ones that used steriods? They won't make it because these people used steriods and got a chance at getting ahead of them. How would the players know if steriods didn't effect the quality of their game, theres no evidence to support that claim. You think there going to tell you, yeah it helped my game out a lot, they wouldn't say that. They are lying you, they make a false claim with no evidence to support that claim. They have no evidence it didn't effect their game. Why do you think they call it performance enhancing drugs, key words performance enhancing. Do you understand what performance enhancing means? It means that it improves your game, so them saying it didn't is lies. If steriods didn't enhance each players game play why would they ban it? If it didn't effect their quality of play why would the MLB ban it?", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7418432235717773}, {"content": "Title: Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports Content: 1. Sports already have health risks that one needs to accept to be willing to play. One only needs to look at the recent focus on concussions in football. The physical side-effects that you mentioned are just that- physical. It is someone's choice to look a certain way. Thus, I do not see why a sports league should ban a substance for aesthetic reasons. If the mental side-effects that you mentioned were true, why would we not see a disproportionate number of athletes on steroids arrested for violent crimes. Also, this is not teaching kids to \"abandon the values of fair play\", as steroids only complement natural skill. If an average man decided to take steroids, he could not hit 762 home runs in the MLB (as Barry Bonds did). Thus, the legalization of steroids would actually help to put everyone on an equal playing field.2. Your argument seems to be that broken records are less impressive when one knows that steroids played a part. However, you do think that it is impressive that someone lived to 122 with modern technology. Let me ask you this: If we develop anti-aging technology and someone lives to 500, is that impressive or the equivalent of steroids? My point is that the best, most cutting-edge technology is a part of human achievement. If we did not accept that, then we would still be living in the way that the early cave men did thousands of years ago.3. It is not a false correlation at all. There may not be much interest in the WWE, but that can be for other reasons. For example, the idea of a scripted sport appals many. Just look at the Nielsen ratings. Per Spotted Ratings, the 2004 World Series had 216% the demo audience of the average TV show in the 2004-05 season. Most recently, the 2012 World Series only had 170% of the average show in the 2012-13 season. This came while the other sports have been rising relative to the average TV show. The NBA Finals and the Super Bowl have grown from 127% and 817%, respectively, in 2004-05 to 329% and 1884% this year.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7404009103775024}, {"content": "Title: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th... Content: We should have some sympathy with athletes: very often, they are compelled to take drugs by their team\u2019s coach. There are stories of Chinese swimmers eating steroid-laced noodles. To overcome this, the IOC Conference in February 1999 recommended that coaches should take the Olympic Oath as well as athletes. Techniques to detect new drugs are being developed and being embraced by the Olympic authorities. A new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the first time at the 1996 Atlanta Games, and a technique that can detect the taking of growth hormones up to 6 months earlier was introduced at Sydney. An Independent Anti-Doping Agency was also established for Sydney. Samaranch declared himself to be fully behind the drugs war as early as 1998. The battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two in 1996. The IOC is coming down hard on those who take drugs: a two year ban for the first offence has been introduced.", "qid": 11, "docid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7403994202613831}, {"content": "Title: Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens Content: Unfortunately I received no rebuttals from last argument so I have re-submitted and hope that Con will be able to finish the debate. I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are not necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered \"performance enhancers\" or \"dietary\" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec\u2022re\u2022a\u2022tion\u2022al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup\u2022ple\u2022ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.", "qid": 11, "docid": "98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7402583956718445}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports. Content: I extend my arguments, steroids should not be allowed within sports.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1df2fccf-2019-04-18T18:34:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7401243448257446}, {"content": "Title: WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues Content: Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports \" it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On \"The league's rights\": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...", "qid": 11, "docid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7397474050521851}, {"content": "Title: Doping should be allowed Content: Thank you for showing your point of view in a clear understandable way. First of all, The main objective of sports is to provide better health or to keep it and I think the whole concept of doping is against that. And these athletes that participate in the olimpics or in big competitions are pretty much the representatives of sports. So if they start getting unhealthy and taking substances that aren't good for the body,it will not transmit a motivational image for the so called 'normal' people. Another important point is that if everyone doped obviously the rich countries would have a greater advantage since they have more money and technology to develop innovative substances that will produce better and quicker effects. And that would destroy the whole meaning of competing as an athlete because it wouldn't be the one who trained the most and has the greatest mentality who would win but only the ones with the most efficient substances in their body. It wouldn't be a competition between humans but between puppets under the effects of drugs. And finally, what about those countries like Ethiopia, Eritrea or Kenia? they have nothing, no economy, corruption, their people starve, but their moment to shine is competitons like the olympics where they completely wipe it out in the marathon or other long distance runs. And that gives those countries popularity and more attention from all parts of the world. Now if dopping would, in fact, be allowed to everyone, they would have no money or technology and innovation to create the same substances as developed and rich countries such as Russia or the USA. And what about the athletes? Is there any glory or self realization when a medal is won, not by the self's effort but by some external input? Medals wouldn't mean a thing. At the end, high competiton sports would only be another huge way of making profit and entertaining people.", "qid": 11, "docid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7389813661575317}, {"content": "Title: Better spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the pu... Content: Better spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands \u201chigher, faster, stronger\u201d from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00014-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7383791208267212}, {"content": "Title: Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes Content: I would have to disagree with you there. You are correct that steroids is getting a free 48 hour workout, and that is precisely why it should be legalized. From what I see in your argument, you are saying that it is about having the skill through practice. In a professional sports team, it is all about getting into the championships or the playoffs or whatever the finals are. Sports are not about leveling the playing field. In all sports, everyone is different. There are short people, tall people, light people, heavy people. We are not going to level the field by making everyone 5' 10\" and 220 lb. It just isn't going to happen.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7375504970550537}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports. Content: In my opponents first contention he says that athletes that take steroids don't show their symptoms on the field, but that doesnt mean that they don't have symptoms. The rest of my opponents first contention is saying that there is already steroid use and that it doesnt cause death basically. My response to this is simply that if steroids were allowed, then more athletes would use steroids, which means that more athletes would be subject to serious, but not always life threatening symptomes. Simply because something isn't life threatening doesn't mean that it isn't detrimental. Some more side effects of steroids are trembling vomiting, nausea, hallucinations, paranoia, mood swings, and increased blood pressure. Although these symptoms don't cause death, these symptoms should not be promoted throughout professional sports through the instigation of steroids. As I stated in my first contention, athletes will essentially be pressured into taking steroids because if they refuse, they simply wont have the ability to play professional sports since their competition will be taking steroids. In my opponents second contention, he is basically saying that professional athletes arent telling kids or teenagers to take steroids. They aren't DIRECTLY telling these kids to take steroids, but if all or most athletes are taking steroids then children will be incentivized to take steroids because they will feel that it will be their only way to make it to the professionals. My opponent also says in his second contention that sports are for entertainment, and steroids enhances that entertainment. Basically he is advocating that athletes should purposefully destroy their bodies for entertainment. This argument is obviously morally wrong for several different reasons. It is inhumane. According to my opponents logic, dog fighting should be allowed because it is for the entertainment of the viewer.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1df2fccf-2019-04-18T18:34:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7364703416824341}, {"content": "Title: Drugs in Sport Content: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on...", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7362667322158813}, {"content": "Title: It is short sighted to promote sportsmen as the role models for the youth of a country. Content: Just a brief point before I get started. There are plenty organizations that test for use and abuse of steroids, yet athletes are always upping the ante. Designer steroids are allowing many to bypass such screens (as seen by the fact that many athletes have had their medals stripped after being tested multiple times), and some coaches are even pursuing gene doping, an untested and unsafe method, as a way to circumvent these organizations. And even if they're caught, these are the people that get the most attention, not the athletes who played by the rules. My opponent is conflating two things that are not the same: encouraging sports as a beneficial hobby, and encouraging people using pro athletes as a model. Since what he is doing with his case is the latter, that is where this debate should be focused. Yes, we can all agree that someone becoming physically fit is better off on the whole. But what about someone who is competing on the level of a pro athlete? I would say that I've already given a lot of what happens \" steroid usage, violence, and bad sportsmanship. However, it goes deeper than just what we see on a day-to-day basis, what's broadcast on news stations the world over. It involves intense pain and physical trauma, and early death. How about that intense pain and physical trauma? Let's talk about the training. High altitude training is a must for many athletes, but it causes major harms. Acclimatisation to high altitude leads to the production of too many red blood cells, making the blood thicker and reducing blood flow. This stresses out the heart, and deprives parts of the body of oxygen. High altitudes also lead to intense weight loss (both from loss of appetite and the body eating itself), risks of weakening the body's immune system, and lengthened times of recovery from muscle damage. That's not to mention the expansive list of altitude illnesses that can result from pressure changes and oxygen deprivation.[1] But that's probably the least of their concerns. The real problem starts at their overall level of training: \"One word that describes it best is BRUTAL. You have to be insane and neurologically damaged in your head to undergo some of the training regimes top level athletes put themselves through, day after day, week after week for an entire year. It\"s not normal but it\"s the price you pay to be the best. A typical pro athlete would train around 5-6 hours a day 6 days a week. This might not seem like a lot of hours but the intensity of training is ridiculous. In fact, without sounding pompous, an average fit individual would struggle to make it through one of our warm-ups. Take a particular endurance session of a former world champion squash player (I do NOT recommend trying this at home). His training session would involve getting on a spinning bike with a heart rate monitor strapped around his chest. He\"d then start pedalling hard until his heart rate hit 190 beats per minute which he\"d maintain for a duration of 10 minutes. This would be followed by a 3-minute break and the cycle would be repeated 6 times! If you wish to fathom what this feels like, the next time you go exercising, try taking your heart rate to a level of 180 beats a minute and maintaining it for 20 seconds. Make sure you have a trustworthy friend by your side.\" [2] BRUTAL. What does this intense training result in? Let's look at endurance sports. Studies have shown that \"When the data of extreme endurance athletes was isolated, it was found that the health effects of regular physical activity became less pronounced, and were instead replaced by significant heart damage.\"[3] Here are some examples of how this affects athletes. \"For example, distance-running legend Micah True \" better known for his role as Caballo Blanco in the book \"Born To Run\" \" died while on a trail run from cardiomyopathy due to an enlarged heart. True was just one example of seasoned endurance athletes who have experienced sudden cardiac events during exercise. Marathoner Ryan Shay and Ironman triathlete Steve Larsen are others, and most recently professional Ironman triathlete Torbjorn Sindalle was forced into unexpected retirement due to premature wearing of his bicuspid valve.\"[3] That link has more than a half dozen other examples of this happening. And this is just with the endurance athletes. Don't think that other athletes are exempt from these physical harms. The vast majority of pro athletes die young. The mean death rate for professional athletes is worse than the general population.[4] Athletes in their mid-30's experience sudden death as a result of clogged arteries that result from a lifestyle that includes poor diet, excess stress and overtraining, all of which are common among athletes. Overtraining specifically is a big problem. It can lead to imbalances in the brain, nervous and hormonal systems, upper respiratory illness, compromised immune function, and increase chronic inflammation. It contributes to heart disease and increased risk of death. What's worse, many of these abnormalities can lead to short term improvements in athletic performance, which makes them continue pushing themselves, mistakenly thinking that their training has been successful. Worse still, athletes and society as a whole often accept this ill heath as an inextricable part of athletics. This unhealthy \"no pain no gain\" approach leads them so far as to assign names that are often glorified to the harms of overtraining: \"athlete's heart,\" \"runner's knee,\" \"swimmer's shoulder,\" and \"runner's anemia.\" This just perpetuates the health harms and spurns treatment and prevention efforts.[5] But let's think about it for a second. Why should we logically believe that overtraining is bad? It has to be just correlative, doesn't it? \"Any athlete who overtrains must also overeat to maintain his or her bodyweight and strength, and that leads to the heart of the problem, which is the overproduction of free radicals in the body. The body produces many different kinds of free radicals, but every kind is a molecule that is missing an electron in its outer shell. That makes free radicals unstable and on the lookout for a way to fill the electron void. When they bump into a normal healthy cell, they steal one of its outer-shell electrons from the cell wall, thus damaging the cell and setting off a chain reaction, with each damaged cell molecule looking to replace its missing electron. What you get is a bunch of permanently damaged cell walls that can lead to such problems as cancer, heart disease and arthritis. You name it, and free-radical damage to the cells of the body has been linked to it.\"[4] So not only are there problems associated with the overtraining of these pro athletes, but they're causally linked to these harms. I will address the point about emphasis of sports vs. academics in R4. For now, I kick it back to Con. 1. http://www.altitude.org... 2. http://health.india.com... 3. http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com... 4. http://imbodybuilding.com... 5. www.philmaffetone.com/files/20158/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf", "qid": 11, "docid": "68e6178d-2019-04-18T16:43:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7357933521270752}, {"content": "Title: Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes Content: Sports are not about the practices. If they were, then they would be televised a lot more. What matters are the games. Those are what everyone wants to see. If a professional athlete took the right amounts of the right kinds of steroids, then his game performance would be better and the team would do better. If I were a coach, I would allow my players to do just that so we could beat the other team.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7349616289138794}, {"content": "Title: \"Fortune\" Allows Certain Teams, as well as Certain Athletes, to Take Unfair Advantages Content: The first part of the argument is thus responded: we don't oposse more and better doping tests. Let's test each and every athlete if possible. AND let's use peer and social pressure to insure fewer people try it. Their example of Michael Phelps is easily crushed when you find that the \"photo of him doping\" was taken in 2009 [[http://on.today.com/q1Z9CL]] and the Olympics were in 2008 [[http://fxn.ws/nh0LN4]], so opp is saying either that the drugs that he consumed in 2009 affected him retroactively on 2008, or that he had been on a continuous doped state for months. In any case, the fact that some athletes might cheat without a consequence has no bearing that cheating has to be castigated first and foremost in order to greatly reduce the number of people that will chance it. We believe that after just the first incident of this policy being enforced as a agreed upon policy, the peer pressure will work as disincentive. Of course its It is unfair some teams that do not get caught. But in the balance doping is dangerous and it\u2019s unfair for ALL the teams that participate and don't cheat, the fans, the IOC. Even if the policy could affect completely innocent team-mates (and many aren't innocent as we explain in our 5th point) we think that possibility pales in comparison to the unfairness in the SQ where just one team member is justly punished but his team, country, fans might benefit from the medals. Lastly, Opp seems to be saying that since some teams will get away with doping because of luck and some won\u2019t, this policy shouldn\u2019t be implemented. But the same risk present in the SQ but with individual punishment. This is like saying that since there are criminals and their collaborators that aren't caught, then we shouldn't prosecute anyone. We think once you have a couple of \"unlucky teams\" that get stripped of medals you'll see a reduction of people trying their luck.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00025-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7346992492675781}, {"content": "Title: Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports. Content: Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7343577146530151}, {"content": "Title: allow women to compete in the same leagues as men Content: Athletes should decide for themselves.", "qid": 11, "docid": "26f1a2c3-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7335749864578247}, {"content": "Title: Steroids should be banned in all pro sports Content: My opponent has neglected to respond to any of my points and instead just kept going on about how Anabolic Steroids are bad for you; a point which I am not denying. The resolution of the debate is \"Steroids should be banned in all pro sports,\" my two arguments were that corticosteroids are used to treat a multitude of medical conditions and that steroid use would not affect the outcome of those listed sports. My opponent did not even address these points. I end the debate with the resolution negated and urge a Con vote.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d1edcf12-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7334052324295044}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman Content: Consisten? You're pro in this topic. so you agree to legalize PED. But ur argument ask to make PEDs remain illegal for sportman.", "qid": 11, "docid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7332757711410522}, {"content": "Title: Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports. Content: I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate \"chemical\" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs \"chemical achievement.\" So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.", "qid": 11, "docid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7332527041435242}, {"content": "Title: In order to work the risk has to be too big to take Content: Historically, some athletes have decided to get an edge against their competition by utilizing illegal substances or have been negatively influences to do so by their social network, trainers, teammates or peer pressure. This goes against the maxim of what healthy competition represents. Council of Europe in the Code of Sports Ethics The potential benefits to society and to the individual from sport will only be maximised where fair play is centre stage. The truth is that whenever doping is discussed the debate is centered around why do athletes fall into the temptation that banned substances represent, but the main reasons why athletes do not cheat are rarely mentioned. Fact is that the main reason athletes choose not to cheat is the risk of being caught, so this leads to the argument that the risk of cheating has to be so big and the consequences so harsh that more athletes will choose to remain clean. Sociologist Howard S.Becker published a classic work in 1963 called Outsiders which illustrates that athletes' main reasons to avoid taking illegal substances hardly ever relate to moral standards or health issues, though they may factor in the decision. The reason for not doping back when the study was made that was given repeatedly was the fear that it would be socially excluding; that it would ruin the athlete's reputation if he or she were caught. The best way to illustrate how the larger risk represented through the removal of all medals to an Olympic Team will further deter the use of banned substances will be to analyze the situation from a trainer's point of view. In most cases, athletes are either recommended to use the substances by their trainers or at least the trainer is aware of the use of said substances. So, if a trainer knows than one of his athlete's does not stand a chance to win, he may support the use of banned substances. However, if that athlete's decision could hurt the entire team, he would prevent it from happening.", "qid": 11, "docid": "d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00017-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7331113219261169}, {"content": "Title: If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on... Content: Reform is preferable to surrender. The current testing regime is not perfect but better research, testing and funding, plus sanctions against uncooperative countries and sports could greatly improve the fight against drugs in sport.", "qid": 11, "docid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00019-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7327425479888916}]}
{"query": "Should birth control pills be available over the counter?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Please define your argument a little more specifically please. I think that women can defiantly take contraception if they please, however the way of the contraception being provided is the most debatable topic in this issue. I think that women should be able to go out and buy birth control, which is cheap, on their own dime. Their employers or the taxpayers are not responsible to provide this. Also, if you are having sex and taking birth control, you are having sex for recreational purposes. I love to go fishing on the weekends, but I don't demand from my employer that he or she pay for my fishing pole. Women should defiantly be allowed to use contraception, but I would like to debate how the contraception is paid for more.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7274532318115234}, {"content": "Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients\u2019 over-the-counter purchases, but a patient\u2019s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer\u2019s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.", "qid": 12, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00015-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7265836596488953}, {"content": "Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends.", "qid": 12, "docid": "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7208794355392456}, {"content": "Title: should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on birth control Content: Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy. There are a lot of benefits from birth control, such as it can treat endometriosis, balance hormones and periods, ease cramps, make periods lighter and shorter, and lower the odds of ovarian and endometrial cancer. I do think that underage girls should tell their parents that they're on birth control, but some don't. I don't know about a requirement. Some parents think that if they're child is on birth control, they're more likely to have sex but studies have shown that women that are on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships. Due to this assumption, parents won't let their children get birth control which could effect them later in their life.(http://www.womenshealthmag.com... on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships than women who aren't using birth control)", "qid": 12, "docid": "284f3543-2019-04-18T12:51:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7172901630401611}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7143899202346802}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: To clarify, the basis of your argument is that women should be allowed to take birth control. If that is the case, I agree with you. I was evolving the discussion to a more controversial topic about who would be supplying the birth control as it has been the topic of many interesting debates and an important supreme court case. If you would like to debate more on this topic, I would welcome a response of any view.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.710444450378418}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: Whether it is a contraceptive or not is not in dispute. I am more concerned with the irresponsibility that will be created if those that are over 17 years old have easy access to the pill especially when that are under 16 years old could easily ask someone who is 17 years old to get them the pill or even worse their partner who could be of age and get it for them. Therefore, the morning pill should banned.", "qid": 12, "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7087327241897583}, {"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Birth control is a \"free will\" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of \"free-will sexual intercourse\" and \"free-will reproductive suppression\" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7083930969238281}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children Content: I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.", "qid": 12, "docid": "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7040719389915466}, {"content": "Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are good reasons for making the morning-after pill a non-prescription drug. It can take time to get a prescription from a doctor, and in cases of emergency contraception speed is very important. Some patients may be embarrassed to tell their doctor about their sexual behaviour, and consequently be put off seeking a prescription. The restriction of emergency contraception to over-16s makes no sense in any case; a girl under 16 who has had unprotected sex may well need emergency contraception.", "qid": 12, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00014-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.703142523765564}, {"content": "Title: Get your working butt off Aleve,. believe in yourself. Content: You suggest buying more pills from Wal Mart, most likely?", "qid": 12, "docid": "1b8be402-2019-04-18T15:32:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7019574642181396}, {"content": "Title: Banning of the \"morning After Pill\" Content: Sex has become more socially accepted and teenagers are having sex at a younger age but this does not condone the use of a pill with a primary ingredient with many dangerous side effects . If anything this further proves my point because now the risk is being exposed to teenagers which are much more likely to need this \"back up\" plan more frequently than adults and further putting themselves at risk and continually damaging their menstrual cycles that can pair with their already complicated hormonal imbalance. The view of teenage moms and the financial Burdens they go through would be a solid defense if it was only used by teenagers but the fact is that the pill is used by females of all ages and poses a health risk that is not necessary.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.6988974809646606}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.6950186491012573}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.", "qid": 12, "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.6924949884414673}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: P1: Seventeen year olds do not need a prescription to have access to the morning after pill. P2: Anyone under seventeen does need to have a prescription to know whether they should be allowed to take the pill [1]. P3: Those under seventeen could get the pill from people over seventeen. P4: Having the pill will create a mistaken belief that the pill is a second option to solve their responsibilities of not having sex. Therefore: The morning pill should be banned. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...", "qid": 12, "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.6924356818199158}, {"content": "Title: Can\u2019t throw money at the problem Content: Money doesn\u2019t solve all problems but if providing access to contraception prevents at least some pregnancies then it must be worth the investment. No single thing will solve this problem and access to contraception would only be provided in conjunction with other forms of education and treatment. However, clearly contraception does work and making it more accessible would mean more people used it. Ergo, fewer pregnancies.", "qid": 12, "docid": "dd5c2196-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00014-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.691672146320343}, {"content": "Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills?", "qid": 12, "docid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.6912213563919067}, {"content": "Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: I think that teens should get birth control because then they would be even more irresponsible than before now knowing that they can do whatever they what without parents consent and know they have a backup. That is very sick and really disgraceful to show that teens can get anything they want. Soon they'll be debating over if the legal limit of alcohol should be 16. I think that birth control should be for the adults because they will know when to use it and teenagers will use it maybe even daily. Birth control is a heavy burden and never be use to a teenager, even a responsible one.", "qid": 12, "docid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.6858726739883423}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: Con will argue that teens should only be given birth control if their parents are told. I am not looking for a 'formal' debate. I am not planning on posting sources or doing any of that formally, unless con asks me to, and in that case, i will. Thank you to who ever accepts to be con, and good luck:) -i will say this before you accept, i am not in this for winning. I am in this to hear others opinions on this situation, and also to give out my opinion.-", "qid": 12, "docid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.6854608654975891}, {"content": "Title: ivf debate Content: Birth control may be taken. If birth control is not taken then there is a chance of cysts and the eggs not being fertilized at the correct cycle. If estrogen levels are not correct , then injections may be needed which may counteract the birth control being taken.The baby may not be correctly placed and may be stuck in the insertion catheter at the time of insertion.(http://www.shadygrovefertility.com...) It is insanely expensive to conceive babies through this fashion. A family that does not make over $75000 and is uninsured will have to pay about $8470 (https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com...)", "qid": 12, "docid": "d64195b7-2019-04-18T14:57:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.6844211220741272}, {"content": "Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: Of course periods aren't just menstrual products. Never said they weren't. But HuffPost is very left-wing (https://mediabiasfactcheck. Com/huffington-post) and not trusted, So I wouldn't reccomend using it in a debate. I already made clear that I don't think students should be provided with free condoms. Not sure why we are debating that. Toilet paper is needed by all sexes and all ages to stay clean after going to the toilet. Menstrual products are only needed by around half of women, And only a few days a month. So there is much less demand for menstrual products and they are more expensive than toilet paper. Which is why they're not provided at bathrooms and schools. I am not aware of any US state of country that doesn't tax foods. We tax foods, We tax soap, We tax dental products, We tax clothes. . . Why shouldn't menstrual products be taxed? They are used by a smaller fraction of the population than all the other products I just listed, So why shouldn't they be taxed? You haven't listed a single reason why menstrual products should be free/untaxed and why other necessary products used by a much higher percentage of the population shouldn't be.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.683218240737915}, {"content": "Title: Condoms in Schools Content: Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...", "qid": 12, "docid": "e897bde-2019-04-19T12:47:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.6825752258300781}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health \"benefits\" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal.....", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.6818727254867554}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.6817996501922607}, {"content": "Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of \"the pill\" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.681102991104126}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent Content: I am strongly against the idea that a pharmacy is legally allowed to sell contraception like condoms and spermicide to people under the state's legal age of consent. All that this does is encourage our nation's teenagers is to have sex knowing that they have contraception to help. But what most teens don't realize is that a condom, spermicide, or both don't work 100% of the time against pregnancies and STI's/STD's. In fact, per every 100 condoms, 2 are reported to be broken. Not to mention the 1-5% that slip off or the 3-13% that slip down the penis during intercourse (stats from http://hamovhotov.com...). But it's not just that condoms fail, but it's the shockingly high number of teenage pregnancies. In America in 2010, 367,752 infants were born to girls between the ages of 15-19. Granted those numbers did fall from 2009 when the numbers were about 9% higher, but that number is still too high if you ask me (stats from http://ww.cdc.gov...). And you do have to imagine that there are more pregnancies if you consider that there are some girls under the age of 15 who engage in sexual activity. Then you have to consider the cost of raising a child from day 1-year 18. In health class (I'm only 13) I discovered that raising a child from day 1 to year 18 for just the bare essentials (food, shelter, child care, etc.) averages around $250,000! How many teenagers do you think have the financial support to afford that? That is too big an investment for a person who's independent life hasn't even truly begun. My last point is the transmission of STD's and STI's. Every year in America, 3 million teenagers contract an STD. One of the most common STD's is chlamydia, which affects up to 40% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19. And chlamydia can cause sterility in both males and females. Another common STD that strikes among teens is HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which affects 15% of sexually active teenage girls, and the most common strain can lead to cervical cancer. And some teenagers are going to have to live with the fact that some dumb choices they made will affect their lives forever (stats http://www.bhg.com...). Now, my rambling may seem senseless at first, and would be a good sermon to tell teens why not to have sex, but there's a method to my madness. And my method is, when a teen puts on a condom or injects spermicide or uses another method of contraceptive, they tend to get cocky. They tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives. But what they don't realize is that nothing will work 100% of the time. But the thing is, who supplies the 15 year old, the 14 year old, or even the 13 year old with the condom package with that one broken condom? And what happens if that teen puts on the broken condom? But that could be avoided if the teen never got the condom, never felt on top of the world, and never had sex.", "qid": 12, "docid": "2059e76d-2019-04-18T18:24:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6805150508880615}, {"content": "Title: Buy Accutane 30 mg Online Content: So you're basically saying I should buy a medicine online from a shady website with a ton of side effects to MAKE MY SKIN CLEARER? 1. Why would I risk health issues and overdosing on medicine to get rid of something that is not causing physical harm to me? 2. I can cover up my acne with makeup, And just upkeep my hygiene for free. 3. This is an ad on a debating site. Why are you posting an ad on a debating site? 4. I can go buy some other, Cheaper medication, One that has no side effects, And that I know works/ how it works. 5. You are risking awful side effects and overdosing WITH NO GUARANTEE OF RESULTS. 6. Seriously? Like, Are we gonna do this?", "qid": 12, "docid": "7b73bd78-2019-04-18T11:17:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6794527769088745}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: It's their life. They should do as they please. Banning the pill can be helpful to them if they made an irresponsible mistake. It shouldn't matter what age she is. You said yourself, if the girl can get someone older to buy it, what's the point of changing the age when she can potentially still have access?", "qid": 12, "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6792560815811157}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: You make very good points, but I never said that birth control prevents STD's. Also it is logical that if not used correctly it would be harmful. Also I never said that ALL teen girls would actually go and get it, but the one's that are willing to go get it. Your father might buy guns, but that doesn't give him the right to murder. A teen that has strict parents, (possibly Catholic parents), cant just go and say I need birth control because it in most cases, just does not work. The doctor would explain how to use it, and it would but up to the free willed teen to use it correctly. When birth control is not used correctly by ANY ONE it can be harmful not just teens. Also not just teens sell and use drugs, not just teens use or don't condoms, and just because the legal drinking age is 21 doesn't mean that teens don't drink. Note: This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy.", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6791135668754578}, {"content": "Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their \"wise master\".", "qid": 12, "docid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.679104208946228}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.", "qid": 12, "docid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6790709495544434}, {"content": "Title: Emergency Contraception Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "qid": 12, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6788725852966309}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I understand your point however you may be misunderstanding me. I do believe girls should be able to obtain birth control to take control of their sex life and be able to prevent unwanted and unplanned mistakes. I agree with you on the fact that girls should be able to obtain such prevention and the high number of teen pregnancy further proves that. However I believe the users parents should be involved in the process. Even though a young girl may not want to talk about such topics with her parents, the discussion and decision to get birth control are things that should not be simply left to the opinions and maturity of a freshman or sophomore in high school. At that age girls are influenced by so many other things that may make a responsible decision difficult. Do you believe that such an important decision should be able to be made by a child of any age?", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6783204078674316}, {"content": "Title: Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ... Content: Given the existence of the various unpleasant side-effects discussed, nobody would sensibly choose the morning-after pill over other forms of contraception, or risk unprotected sex on the grounds that they can take a morning-after pill afterwards. Emergency contraceptives are for use in emergencies - and emergencies really do happen, and really do need to be dealt with.", "qid": 12, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00010-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6779260039329529}, {"content": "Title: is birth control good or nah Content: First, let\"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don\"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates \"normally.\" This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.", "qid": 12, "docid": "8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.677550196647644}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00009-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6773180365562439}, {"content": "Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: Birth Control is extremely hard to manage, and should not be seen as this fool proof way of stopping teen pregnancy. Without a parent to help them, chances are a teenage girl will improperly administer it, especially if she is trying to keep it secret from her parents. No one should condone allowing a teenager to have access to something as important as birth control without parental knowledge and supervision because a) the parent has the right to know and can help and b) they will probably use it incorrectly at some point. If you want them to have protection without parental knowledge then they have condoms....you need to show why condoms are not an appropriate solution to the problems you've listed, and why we should allow inexperienced teenagers access to a drug that plays hell with their hormones and can be very dangerous. It's kind of like saying that teenagers should be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental consent. The resolution is negated.", "qid": 12, "docid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6770884394645691}, {"content": "Title: birth control in high school Content: Given Pro's premises, her conclusion comes as a surprise. After pointing out the negative consequences of no birth control, her conclusion turns out to be that \"there should not be any birth control in high school.\"I think there should be birth control in highschool for all the reasons Pro gave--that having a baby in highschool may force a mother to have to dop out and get a crappy job.Anybody who has sex and doesn't want a baby should use birth control, whether they are in highschool or not.", "qid": 12, "docid": "7c48bf09-2019-04-18T16:59:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6758253574371338}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff523-2019-04-18T13:04:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6754117012023926}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraception is a right. If a woman wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. Women own their bodies.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.674857497215271}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina. ProR: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it. ProR: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice. Con: That proves nothing... Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy. Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution? It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose. Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.", "qid": 12, "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6735098958015442}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: I should 1st make myself clear, the ban should be for all. Those that are over 17 have easy access to the pill and could provide it for those that are younger. In order for the pill to be effective the person taking it would need to have a certain BMI for it to be effective [1] therefore those that are below 16 need a prescription but there are those younger than 16 that would not know this and if they are aware of the existence of the morning after pills but nothing more then this could create a misconception of it being a second option which shouldn't be. Therefore to prevent this misconception the morning pill should be banned for good. 1 http://www.plannedparenthood.org...", "qid": 12, "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6734877228736877}, {"content": "Title: Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Content: Hi Beverlee! Thanks for accepting this debate. I just want to clarify that the scope of this debate is strictly on whether all contraceptives should be classified as preventive care, not preventive care in general nor reproductive health, which has a larger scope than just contraception.For the purpose of this debate, I am defining preventive care as \"a pattern of nursing and medical care that focuses on disease prevention and health maintenance. It includes early diagnosis of disease, discovery and identification of people at risk of development of specific problems, counseling, and other necessary intervention to avert a health problem. Screening tests, health education, and immunization programs are common examples of preventive care.\"(1)Preventive care consists of two basic functions:1. disease prevention 2. health maintenanceSome common methods of attaining said functions are:1. Screening and early diagnosis/identification2. Education and counseling3. Proactive prevention methods such as immunizationsAs you can agree, that is a pretty broad definition and there are definitely some aspects of contraception that can fall into preventive care. However, contraceptives as a whole does not meet the definition of preventive care. FDA-approved methods of contraceptives are \"hormonal (e.g., birth control pills), barrier (i.e., diaphragms), emergency contraceptives (i.e., \"morning after\" pills) and select over-the-counter (OTC) contraceptives.\"(2) \"Certain OTC contraceptives for women are covered at 100 percent including female condoms, emergency contraceptives (Next Choice\", Next Choice One-Dose\", Plan B One-Step\"), and contraceptive film, foam and gel.\"(3) I will structure my argument around the function of preventive health care and relate it to the 3 FDA-approved functions of contraceptives (as OTC contraceptives fall into one of those three categories).A. Disease PreventionOne type of barrier contraceptive (condoms) does assist in preventing the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD). However, that is just a secondary function. I will argue that STD prevention is not a critical objective for preventive health care, the primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention, and the decision to have sexual relations is a privilege, not a right.Point 1: STDs are not considered a critical objective to preventive health careI would like to highlight some diseases on the CDC website for Preventive Screening recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF):(4)1. Alcohol Misuse2. Chlamydial Infection3. Hepatitis B only for pregnant women4. HIV only for high risk persons5. Obesity in Adults6. Tobacco UseHep B and C are on the list but the USPSTF only recommends Hep B screen for pregnant women and does not recommend or is neither for nor against screening for Hep C. Also, there is a distinct absence of other STDs, such as gonorrhea, meaning that STDs, in general, are not considered part of the preventive care regimen. Point 2: The primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention but pregnancy preventionSee definition of contraceptive. Also, the majority of FDA-approved contraceptives (hormonal, barrier other than condoms, and emergency) do not prevent disease. \"The condom is the only form of birth control that also protects against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (the virus that causes AIDS).\"(5)Point 3: Sexual activity is a choice, thus the use of condoms is a responsibility, not privilegeThe decision to be sexually active is a privilege, not right. In fact, abstinence is the only way to prevent the spread of STDs.(6) Just like purchasing care insurance, the cost of condoms for the purposes of STD prevention is the responsibility of the individual. While I fully agree that counseling for obesity or tobacco use should be included as preventive health care, the cost of tools such as gastro-bypass surgery and Nicotine patches are NOT covered by most preventive health care insurance nor required by ACA as preventative coverage. Review the Cigna Preventive Drug List and there is no category for weight loss or tobacco cessation.(7) Therefore, counseling and education on STDs should be covered by preventive care but not contraceptives such as condoms.I do not support full coverage of condoms under the guise of preventive health. Like the cost of maintaining a healthy lifestyle (gym membership, more expensive organic foods), using a condom is a personal responsibility.B. Health MaintenanceThis will probably be a greater point of contention in this debate as there are direct health benefits to the use of some contraceptives for specific individuals. I will argue that contraceptives as a whole do not promote health maintenance because only a few hormonal contraceptives help regulate health in specific circumstances and the use of contraceptives may actually be a health detriment.Point 1. Contraceptives used for health maintenance is limited to specific circumstances and typesOral birth control pills can help regulate numerous issues such as acne(8), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) (a debilitating form of PMS)(9), ease menopausal symptoms/discomfort(10), and even help prevent osteoporosis(11). However, each of these are only representative of a select group of hormonal contraceptives and health situations. Not all hormonal contraceptives are helpful in each of these specific cases. Other contraceptives have no bearing on an individual's health whatsoever. For the sake of clarity, becoming pregnant is not a health maintenance issue for a normal, healthy woman.Point 2. Use of contraceptives can actually be a health detrimentAccording to the World Health Organization, \"the birth control pill increases a woman's risk for cancers of the breast, cervix and liver, but it decreases risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers.\"(12) Additionally, hormone imbalance is an issue where women may experience \"anxiety, loss of appetite, insomnia and lack of concentration...sudden weight gain, a reduced sex drive, hot flashes and night sweats\"(13) While there are several factors that can contribute to hormonal imbalance, \"more commonly, medication such as birth control pills can also throw off your body's chemistry.\"(14) Other potential side effects of oral contraceptives \"may include severe abdominal pain, chest pain, unusual headaches, visual disturbances, or severe pain or swelling in the legs\"(15) as well as \"sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences.\"(16)Contraceptives were never designed to be a health maintenance tool. I would support the limited use of certain oral contraceptives to assist in regulating hormones as a preventive health resource, but not all contraceptives in general.(1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.uhc.com..., Page 1(3) ibid.(4) http://www.cdc.gov...(5) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (6) http://www.webmd.com...; last bullet: Consider that not having sex is the only sure way to prevent STDs.(7) http://www.sjcme.edu...(8) http://www.webmd.com...(9) http://www.mayoclinic.com...(10) http://www.lifescript.com...(11) http://www.aafp.org...(12) http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...(13) http://www.sheknows.com...(14) ibid.(15) http://health.nytimes.com...(16) http://www.medicaln...", "qid": 12, "docid": "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6729758977890015}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: I understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however I believe that in some cases the lack of birth control will keep them from becoming sexually active and possibly prevent a mistake from happening. By allowing a young girl of any age to obtain birth control with no knowledge to their parents, it is making it easy for young girls to make mistakes that they may be too immature to recognize at the time.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6727253794670105}, {"content": "Title: Banning of the \"morning After Pill\" Content: you say that all the other drugs on the market that have side effects is not a sufficient enough argument but what does the pill defer from other ones that cause all types of cancers and altzers . Taking the morning after pill does not guarantee any of the symptoms its simply a warning that there maybe a risk when taking the pill. The same risk you take when you consume any prescription medicine. It is up to the consumer whether they want to take it or not. Only one person can decide if the risks are worth it and that is the women faced with the life altering decision of having a baby. If we didn't have this pill more babies would end up at the doorstep of churches or behind dumpsters abandoned by mothers who can not handle it.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.672673761844635}, {"content": "Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: I see your point, And I guess I might change my argument a little bit. I think that menstrual products should at least not be taxed. Menstrual products add up over time and the taxes just make it even more expensive. I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in schools and other similar places such as public bathrooms. Toilet paper is free in public bathrooms and is used for hygienic purposes. Condoms are free at most colleges whereas menstrual products are not. This shouldn't be the case because condoms are not needed for health purposes. Even if we would have to pay taxes, It wouldn't be that much, Especially if it were split between everyone in the U. S. Menstrual products are very important because if they aren't used, Women will bleed through their clothing and stain it.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6722093820571899}, {"content": "Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.", "qid": 12, "docid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6720042824745178}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Regardless of a woman's right to her own body women have no medical need to have sexual intercourse and thus should not be forcing a health plan to fund their sexually active lifestyle (this entire argument by Pro is sexist since men need contraception too since they may be having sex with a girl who is not on the pill or want it for actual prevention of STDs which the pill does not offer).In Round 1 I stated that no one has to have sex but that some people need to be cured and can't afford it at time unless they are on a health plan. Health plans are about spending the money that all the insurance company's clients put in on the clients the need it the most. It is not fair to be spending valuable money on contraception and then realizing that not enough is left over for the people who actually need it (such as cancer patients undergoing chemo-therapy or donor recipients for a transplant operation).You did not rebut this at all and even when I expanded on it in R4 you state that the condoms should not be covered by insurance but the other methods (that prevent birth only) should. If you are going to not fund the STD-preventing method of contraception that is condoms but fund the less medically relevant sex-enabler that is just ridiculous.Okay, I am going to use big font here just to say the same thing that I have said all debate:If women do not want to get pregnant but cannot afford contraception there is this great money-saving tactic called not doing penile penetration during the experience of sexual pleasure. Furthermore if they do not want to risk STDs, there are options of masturbation with a variety of toys, both for men and women.There is absolutely no reason for the resolution to hold true.Thank you for reading.", "qid": 12, "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6716777086257935}, {"content": "Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: Wow, I realized I am really bad at debating. . . . Anyway, Periods aren't just menstrual products, There are many other things people buy to help them get through their periods. Https://www. Huffpost. Com/entry/period-cost-lifetime_n_7258780 You don't have to have sex in college, You don't need condoms if you're not going to be doing it. Yes, People need food, Water, Etc. But I believe that menstrual products. Many foods also aren't taxed (depending on where you live). I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in public places, Like toilet paper. When you are having your period, You can't just drive home to go get a pad or tampon, Especially at school. I see your points and now realize that it would be somewhat hard for menstrual products to be totally free but they should at least be free in public places such as bathrooms and schools.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6711117029190063}, {"content": "Title: Women Should not be Considered for Front Line Combat Roles, and Additionally Excluded From the Draft Content: Ah, true, I suppose there are a few other things women do need. I don't know why I didn't think of that in the earlier round. I don't see how it would be too big of an issue however. The woman would just have to put up with a period potentially going on while in combat. This is something that the woman likely would think about before entering the military and perhaps can solve the issue herself. There are other solutions, for example, birth control pills usually prevent a period from occuring. They wouldn't need anything else beyond that, and they could just take that pill while they are not in combat. And as for the standards again, I don't think every single woman who tried to enter the military didn't meet the original high standards, which as you stated, the drop out rate was 85%, and not 100%. While the drop out rate is at 85%, why not allow the 15% to be in the military? I don't think the hygienic issues are big enough reasons to prevent them from entering the military, and I offered a way in which the woman can choose to solve the issue. Regarding that women would be a liability, I don't think they would be if we kept the standards high. The very few women who are the best of the best women, the 15% mind you, would probably not be a liability, especially if they were able to handle all of the hygienic issues you mentioned. It would probably be a good idea for them to be on a birth control pill that blocks menstruation. I don't see why any women who does that, and who meets the original standards for the military, can't be in the military. They would not be a liability. I again bring up my previous example: was Leigh Ann Hester a liability to the military?", "qid": 12, "docid": "2a2c6cd2-2019-04-18T12:22:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6685035824775696}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: For women who demand complete control of their body, they should prevent the risk of an unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception. If the person was not responsible, they should face the consequences.", "qid": 12, "docid": "b185a445-2019-04-18T17:00:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6678093075752258}, {"content": "Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to \"suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world.\" Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;", "qid": 12, "docid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6677236557006836}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Morning After Pill Content: I would argue in favor of keeping the morning after pill and to just have restriction that will only allow adults to buy it but I cant. Even though there are already restrictions that only allow anyone over 17 to buy the pill there is still a possibility that anyone younger than 17 can get access to it through those that are allowed access to this pill, since, once they leave the store they are able to do what ever they want with the pill.", "qid": 12, "docid": "fd36e585-2019-04-18T16:35:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6676946878433228}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: I understand what the debate is about, what I am showing though is that if birth control were to be available to all teenagers then STD cases would go up. Teenagers would be having sex and pregnancy rates may go down but because STD rates would go up is the reason why I am against allowing all teens unrestricted access to birth control. My final arguments against unrestricted birth control: 1) A subsequent rise in STD rates 2) Teens may not even use them 3) Even if they do they may not use them correctly 4) Pregnancies may fall but STD rates would climb so there would be no net health benefit (I see what you meant by the guns argument, so no harm done)", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6671143770217896}, {"content": "Title: Diet pills should be banned Content: Hello everyone! I am new to debate.org so I apologize for any mistakes. I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. The testimonial on a leading diet website is gushing: \"I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!\" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned.", "qid": 12, "docid": "19901fc2-2019-04-18T18:10:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6669224500656128}, {"content": "Title: Diet pills should be banned Content: Hi ! I am also new here! ^^ I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. >>Diet pills are made for those people who want to lose weight easily, it means that it also needs an exercise and proper diet. It is not directly said that taking in diet pills will automatically lose the weight you desire to lose Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. >>It became popular because many people witnessed on how effective pills are. \"I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!\" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. >>As I have said, taking in pills will need an exercise and proper diet and I think that it is indicated or whether told by the doctor, because stupid people will not take those pills whenever they want to. We all know that everything is interconnected to another thing, simply means you can do a thing successfully if you will do it with some help. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned. >>How do you say so that they do bad more than good, it's not their fault to take those medicines maybe because it will help them a lot and you don't care about it, even a little, because those medicines affect their own bodies NOT YOURS!", "qid": 12, "docid": "19901fc2-2019-04-18T18:10:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6666961908340454}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control Content: To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.", "qid": 12, "docid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6659107208251953}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: Quick clarifications:1) I never claimed you said that birth control doesnt protect against STDs, Im just showing that the health benefit of unlimited access to birth control would be very outweighed by the spread of STD's through sexually active teenagers2) I also never claimed that you said everyone would get them, Im just showing how teen pregnancies would not be wiped out3) My Dad buys guns and stuff to hunt gators not people.......... thanks for suggesting hes a murderer thoughYou claim that \"When birth control is not used correctly by ANYONE it can be harmful not just teens.\" Birth control can be harmful to people when just ONE person does not use it correctly, It only takes one person to pass an STD onto another person and then those two people could accidentally give it to others later in life.... Implying that everyone has to use birth control incorrectly for harm to be done to teenagers is not true at all\"This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy.\"The debate resolution is \"Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent\"Not\"Teenage girls ages 15-17 who really want to be protected from pregnancy should be able to get birth control without their parents consent\"Unrestrained access to birth control would affect far more groups than just the audience you really wish were the only ones getting unrestricted access. This idea of unrestricted birth control to all teens would have far more consequences as wellmy other arguments still stand", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.665794849395752}, {"content": "Title: Minors should need parental consent for abortions Content: All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.", "qid": 12, "docid": "deb2a1a4-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6652926206588745}, {"content": "Title: Banning the Pill Content: The morning after pill should not be banned. P1. It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. http://www.prolifephysicians.org... P2. It can act for emgergencies for mistakes that a person may have done the night before P3. Everyone should be responsible for their actions Conclusion. The morning after pill should be available for eveveryone because its their life and their actions that impact their life, nobodys elses.", "qid": 12, "docid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6651835441589355}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is an easy and direct method of reducing population growth. The popularity and success... Content: There are often technical difficulties associated with implementing widespread contraception. The cost can be prohibitive, especially when considered on a national scale. Large numbers of trained workers will be required to educate the public on the correct use of contraceptives. Even with an investment in training, there is no guarantee that birth control methods will be used correctly, especially by the illiterate and uneducated \u2013 numerous anecdotal reports exist, where, for example, villagers, having seen a banana used as a prop for teaching condom use, proceeded to place their state-sponsored condoms on bananas.", "qid": 12, "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00008-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6645588874816895}, {"content": "Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: So, You change your argument from \"menstrual products should be free\" to \"menstrual products shouldn't be taxed\". Let's get to that, But first some of your arguments. You say that condoms are free. I personally don't think condoms should be free, As they are extraordinarily cheap and accessible. But colleges don't want students to get pregnant, So I see the reasoning. Saying that people won't have to pay a lot for free menstrual products is ridicolous too. Does that mean you can tax them because you don't want to pay for your own hygiene products? Of course not. Why should men and women in menopause pay for something they will never use? The argument that menstrual products are very important doesn't mean they should be free or shouldn't be taxed. Dental products are important, Toilet paper is important, Soap is important, Shampoo is important, Clothes are important, Food is important. . . Something being important for humans to live doesn't mean it should be free or not taxed. Please find a better argument than \"women need menstrual products\". I need to floss my teeth everyday, But do I advocate for floss being free or not taxed? Menstrual products are very cheap. You can go and buy 30 tampons for $7 at Walmart. That's cheaper than condoms, Which you are so against being free. Don't tell me that an average American woman can't go to a store and buy cheap menstrual products. That's crap.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6641873717308044}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is wrongly sought as an alternative form of birth control Content: Kristin Luker, Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept (1975) - \"In short, there are no empirical grounds for assuming that women have an \u00e0 priori preference for contraception over abortion.\"[27] In other words, women see abortion as a suitable alternative to birth control.", "qid": 12, "docid": "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00224-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6637227535247803}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: No trolling allowed. You have wasted my time. Like I said, contraception is a right. If a woman wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and raiuse a child.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff523-2019-04-18T13:04:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6633455157279968}, {"content": "Title: People should ask for cheaper alternatives Content: Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor\u2019s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.", "qid": 12, "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00014-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6626225709915161}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: This debate is about contraception being a right, not let versus right. Stay on topic. Contraception is aa right because women own their bodies. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she has the right to prevent that.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff523-2019-04-18T13:04:43Z-00007-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.662518322467804}, {"content": "Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: I believe that teens should be aloud to get birth control without their parents consent because it would save a lot of teen pregnancies. A lot of teens do not go to their parents because they are too scared of being disowned when their parent or guardian finds out that he or she is having sex. Most teens don't want their parents knowing that they are having sex. So they do not go to them and they have sex any ways. I know then there would be problems with parents then trying to take doctors to court, but I should be legal. It should be up to the doctor to explain the health risks and up to to the person to have the freedom to choose. Even if teens do go to their parents most parents would say no any ways because they to not want their children to have sex any ways. I bet before a teen got pregnant the parent wouldn't consent birth control, but they wish their teen was aloud to get it any ways to save them the hassle when their grandchild arrives.", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6623904705047607}, {"content": "Title: Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective Content: First, let me respond to something you said. We both agree that abstinence is the only way to protect yourself from pregnancy or STDs (because, let's face it, birth control CAN be ineffective...there's no fool-proof or error-free method, no matter what some people may claim). However, to argue that \"people will do it anyway\" is similar to the argument of let's teach people junk food is fine and guns (no matter how responsible or irresponsible the owner may be)- everyone should own one because people will own it anyway. In other words, enabling something that's illegal or unsafe or immoral just because everyone does it makes as much sense as telling a person with diabetes \"everyone else is eating this pie, come on, you're gonna die anyway, so why not enjoy yourself\". I agree the method may be ineffective, but the principle isn't.", "qid": 12, "docid": "2a4ff294-2019-04-18T20:00:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6608420610427856}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?", "qid": 12, "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6605386734008789}, {"content": "Title: Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Content: Thanks for your well-thought out opening argument. I would like to address some of your points with comments.\"Contraception is not only critical to the health of women, but also crucial for healthy pregnancies and babies. Contraceptives play an important role in helping to ensure that more pregnancies are planned, provided for, and healthy.\"It is difficult to have this discussion as it appears we do not have the same definition of preventive care. In my opinion, being pregnant is not a health problem. One can be pregnant and healthy or not pregnant and unhealthy and vice versa. They are independent of each other. Back to the definition I posted in Round 2, I would like to highlight the key is \"necessary intervention to avert a health problem.\" Contraception is critical to women's health, but should not be classified as a preventive health tool. More on that in my rebuttal/continuation.\"What is covered by the Affordable Care Act?\"\"Why was pregnancy prevention added to the new health reform laws?\"This is an ignoratio elenchi. We are talking about whether contraceptives should be considered preventive care. The reasons for inclusion in ACA is irrelevant and do not address the issue of contraceptives as preventive care.\"The purpose of contraception is to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancy, and the related health impact and costs. The preventive nature of contraception makes this area the most common-sense form of classification.\"Again, preventive care is not preventing all health conditions. It is specifically focused on disease and detrimental health issues. Being pregnant is not a health problem nor is preventing pregnancy the goal of preventive care.\"Contraceptives and family planning options are a critical component of women's health, and should be included with other preventive health care options available to families.\"I completely agree with this statement. However, it is another ignoratio elenchi. Family planning is not a key component of preventive care.Rebuttal and ContinuationBeing pregnant is a not a detrimental health issue and pregnancy prevention is not a goal of preventive care. Being sexually active is a lifestyle choice. Therefore, the onus to do so responsibly falls on the individual. Going to the gym and working out has great benefits to health. In fact, regular exercise helps to control weight (less strain on joints and bones), combats heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol (actual health problems that preventive care seeks to prevent/mitigate), improves mental health, and provides more energy and better rest.(1) All of these things fall under the tenant of preventive care, yet a gym membership is not covered under preventive care by insurance companies. Why? Because it is a lifestyle choice and personal responsibility.Additionally, Pro's argument is specifically focused on women's health, which is understandable as only women can become pregnant. But that effectively ignores half of the population. If contraceptives are classified as preventive health, which would be fully covered without copay, then half of the population is paying for a service (through either taxes or premiums) to which they have no access. Don't get me wrong. Pregnancy prevention is a shared responsibility of both people involved. But because it ignores half of the population is another reason why it should not be classified as preventive health care. What concerns me about this mindset is that it promotes a culture of a lack of responsibility. Individuals who choose to be sexually active want others to pay for them to be responsible in their lifestyle choice. If I choose to drive without insurance, should others pay for my car to be fixed if I get in an accident? Should I expect others to pay for my toothbrush, toothpaste, and dental floss to ensure that I responsibly maintain the health of my teeth and gums? Better yet, in my example in paragraph one, should I have other people pay for my gym membership so I can work out and improve my health? Where do we draw the line as to what are preventive health issues and problems?Again, I would like to reiterate that my position is not that contraceptives should not be covered by insurance. It is only that it should not be classified as preventive health care, meaning zero out of pocket expenses. There should be plans that include contraception, just like there are plans that include family planning or dental. But it should be the responsibility of the individual to pay for those additional, and sometimes necessary, services.Pro cannot redefine the meaning of preventive care or she needs to clarify how she defines preventive care. As is currently presented, in my opinion, she has not adequately addressed why contraceptives should be classified as preventive health care.(1) http://www.mayoclinic.com...", "qid": 12, "docid": "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6602284908294678}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: No need to wait, just jump right in. All I ask is that you address each of my points according to the number I gave it. 1. Contraception improves the health of women by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. 2. Childbirth is much more expensive than contraception. 3. No matter how you feel about abortion, people do have the right to choose what to do with their bodies as long as they do not hurt anyone. 4. Contraception saves money by allowing a person to avoid the cost of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery after childbirth, and so on. 5. Unwanted children are more likely to suffer and be abused, so why not prevent their conception. 6. Contraception is cost effective.", "qid": 12, "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6601547598838806}, {"content": "Title: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ... Content: While birth control should be a priority in many developing nations, there are often other more pressing issues to be addressed. Improving basic healthcare and providing proper sanitation can improve the health of an entire family, in addition to reducing childhood mortality \u2013 often a major reason for parents wanting to hedge their bets by having plenty of children. Spending money on such infrastructure and services is a far better long-term investment compared to the ongoing cost of providing contraception.", "qid": 12, "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00014-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6600735187530518}, {"content": "Title: Banning of the \"morning After Pill\" Content: The argument that every drug has side effects is not a sufficient enough excuse for the use of this potentially dangerous drug, and the fact that other drugs have side effects doesn't make it okay for them to be on the market especially one as unnecessary as this one. The example you use of water drags us to the red herring fallacy as you bring premises that have little to do with the conclusion and is pointing out one harmful ingrediant in our drinkingwater but ignore the fact that the positives and necessity of our everyday drinking water unlike this drug which is not essential at all There are plenty of other contraceptives out there already and just providing this harmful back up even further damage these woman and there decision making", "qid": 12, "docid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6599363088607788}, {"content": "Title: Businesses Providing Birth Control Products Content: I favor that the Affordable Care Acts requires health insurance policies to cover birth control products. I disagree with the idea that companies have the right to take away parts of the insurance coverage of theiremployees, because of the personal preferences of the employers.Not to be pedantic, but the title of this debate is misleading, because businesses are not required to buy birth control products for their employees.I will argue PRO.", "qid": 12, "docid": "224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6598443388938904}, {"content": "Title: Preventive Health Care Content: I would like to direct voters to the comments wherein I asked my opponent to clarify some of the round. She reiterated that R1 is her main argument, and so I'm going to take a more niche position. That is, we can maintain access without subsidizing those who choose to receive them. It's not clear to what extent 'preventive health care' is inclusive or exclusive of healthcare vs. sexual health. But I will start with the observation that the oft-repeated trope that the 'ounce of prevention is a pound of cure', etc. , is frequently without justification. We can delve into this claim, but as a rudimentary warrant, we should recall the scuffle over the frequency of mammogram testing 2-3 years ago. While we can draw a number of valid conclusions here, most important is that prevention is never an unlimited good--prevention has costs which can outweigh the benefit. Moving on to what appears to be my opponent's main focus, we should differentiate between the ability to purchase condoms and 'constant access to condoms'. For example, it's cheap enough to purchase condoms that we probably don't need bowls heaped with Trojan ultra-thins at the door to each high school classroom. Access without the subsidy. That same would apply to female contraceptives. While there's a reasonable argument that some could be sold over the counter, this in no way suggests that we need a blanket no-cost birth control guarantee of the sort imposed by the Obama administration earlier this year. We can, and potentially should explore this specific issue further, but my essential claim dovetails with the mammogram example--such a policy could only encourage migration to the most expensive forms of birth control for very marginal benefit. This has a second impact related to the host of potential consequences to sex--i. e. both pregnancy and STD. Clearly we have an interest in preventing both, but the focus on this policy only looks to the former and could potentially exacerbate the latter. Since my opponent apparently agrees sexual behavior carries with it implicit risks, I'd ask why a responsible policy would pretend these risk don't exist--i. e. access vs. subsidization. Paying for condoms vs. getting them for free.", "qid": 12, "docid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6594831943511963}, {"content": "Title: Preventive Health Care Content: So, the crux of your argument appears to fall generally under the heading: \" I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse\". Even if this is the case, it's a position unresponsive to the argument I advanced in R1. We should extend my argument as not responded to--access can exist without the subsidy. Since the subsidy has harms and I don't see my opponent advancing any claims wherein the benefits to access are only unlocked if it's paired with a subsidy, then Con gets the Pro advantages--access reduces the bad things she talks about, while the lack of subsidy keeps costs under control.", "qid": 12, "docid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6583674550056458}, {"content": "Title: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ... Content: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced obstetric care, and the prevalence of disease and malnutrition, there is a high rate of mortality among pregnant mothers and their new-born children. This risk can be over 100 times that of mothers in developed countries. Birth control allows women to avoid the risks of pregnancy if they so wish.", "qid": 12, "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00015-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.657935619354248}, {"content": "Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision.", "qid": 12, "docid": "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6578254699707031}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraception is defined as something that works before fertilization, not after. I take the affirmative position, and my opponent disagrees. My opponent will make the first argument.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff504-2019-04-18T13:33:24Z-00009-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6577708721160889}, {"content": "Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.", "qid": 12, "docid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6577466726303101}, {"content": "Title: Birth Control is Immoral Content: ~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a \"birth control\". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write \"no argument as agreed upon\" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.", "qid": 12, "docid": "606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6572950482368469}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Youy said that contraception is a sin. Prove it. This is my body. I have the right to prevent a pregnancy. Pregnancy would preent certain health risk for me. Are you saying that I should be forced to go through that?", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff504-2019-04-18T13:33:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6570016741752625}, {"content": "Title: Women Have The Right to Contraceptives Content: Hello, TheOpinionist, I have recently come across your debate on this issue with someone else, and noticed they put up a very weak fight in discussing the subject. I would like to fill in their position in a hopefully more effective way in saying that women having access to contraceptives should logically be a basic human right. I apologize for the impromptu debate challenge, and you don't have to take this debate into account, however I would like for this to be something we may maturely dispute.", "qid": 12, "docid": "16d7ef8d-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00007-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6569526195526123}, {"content": "Title: SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission Content: Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.", "qid": 12, "docid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6567233800888062}, {"content": "Title: Sex education in primary schools Content: It is a exciting having a debate... that's why I love this site lol Flaws in pro's case: [1] No method contraception is 100% reliable. However, male condoms are 98% effective, whilst female condoms are 95% effective. The contraceptive pill is 99% reliable. Contraceptive implants are 99% reliable. You could also use a condom and the pill together whilst having sexual intercourse, which makes it twice more reliable. Considering that contraception is so reliable. It is very unlikely that the 40% rise (and in areas where sex education has been specifically targeted) is to do with contraception being so unreliable. [2] Pro also states that another reason could be down to inexperienced teenagers. The whole point of sex education is to teach teenagers how to put a condom on. So, if more teenagers are struggling to put condoms on, that shows sex education is not doing it's job right and it is ineffective. Pro has shown this. Also, there are other methods of contraception, there isn't just a condom. I don't believe these two reasons is for the dramatic increase in teenage pregnancies in the last few years. Here are more of my points: [1] Sex education is also not right for the children ages. The images are so graphic for young children, and things are far too much. For example, 5-year-olds get taught about erections, masturbation, orgasms and prostitution. I'd hardly call that education children about contraception. In a nutshell it is teaching them how to do sex. They also tell 5-year-olds how their parents have sex. It is all in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... It is too much too young. This sort of material is not suitable for 5-year-olds. [2] The UK also lacks the teachers with training to provide a good sex education lesson. The teachers who tend to teach the subject are ones that come from all sorts of subjects. And who are not specially trained in teaching sex education. Which also puts UK pupils at a disadvantage. [3] The UK should learn from other countries when it comes to sex education. Did you know that teenage pregnancies in Holland is one-fifth as high as the UK. The way they teach sex education is different to how it is taught in Britain. In the Netherlands, sex education is brought to pupils in the form of a relationship and not in the form of a biology lesson. If we took lessons from countries with a lower teenage pregnancy rate than here, we may see an improvement in this country. [4] Also, I can understand teaching pupils how to use contraception. But why is it necessary to teach children how to actually have sex. It is a natural thing. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Why do we suddenly need to get taught how to have sex. I'm in agreement with teaching pupils how to use contraception and (like the Netherlands) relationship advice. But, like the link I posted above, why that sort of content? Source: [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.nhs.uk... Thank you and I look forward to the next round!", "qid": 12, "docid": "7f2b3c6-2019-04-18T17:12:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6566444635391235}, {"content": "Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs. How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?", "qid": 12, "docid": "2218331a-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6561986804008484}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior Content: The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f9097cbd-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00018-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6560615301132202}, {"content": "Title: young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. Content: You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? http://m.cvs.com...", "qid": 12, "docid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6560132503509521}, {"content": "Title: Banning of the \"morning After Pill\" Content: you are right the morning after pill does come with side effects just like every other drug on the market. . The water we take our medication with contaminated with fluoride that can damage the brain and bones of the consumer. It is banned in over ten countries including china, Japan and all of Europe but yet is nearly found in all aspects of American consumption. I am not saying the morning after pill makes it ok to have unprotected sex regardless of what age you are. We know teenagers are not the only ones using this product although they are the majority, we are just giving does how are unprepared for a child or not ready to have one the option of not doing so.", "qid": 12, "docid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6558941602706909}, {"content": "Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: Con: \"there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.\" I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: \"Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.\" Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: \"Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.\" I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: \"Con: What does this have to do with anything?\" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.", "qid": 12, "docid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6558636426925659}, {"content": "Title: Contraception is a right. Content: You still have not even tried to establish that birth control is a right. Therefore, I will give you \"argument\" its due, which is nothing. Since you failed to prove your case, I win.", "qid": 12, "docid": "f3fff504-2019-04-18T13:33:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.655812680721283}, {"content": "Title: Overpopulation and Contraception Content: Contraception can reduce family sizes. This will allow a greater proportion of resources to be alloc...", "qid": 12, "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6554199457168579}, {"content": "Title: the Catholic Church is justified in forbidding the use of barrier methods of contraception. Content: Birth control within monogamous relationships.", "qid": 12, "docid": "b79cf889-2019-04-15T20:23:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6551856994628906}, {"content": "Title: Emergency Contraception Content: Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ...", "qid": 12, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6549807786941528}, {"content": "Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: Again,you provide no basis for your argument . I repeat my question to you, \"Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,\"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight\"\" Also.yes,condoms and contraceptives are not full proof.But they are very effective.STD's and unwanted pregnancies are there but without these,their rates would have been a lot higher. A study to validate my point: http://www.reuters.com...", "qid": 12, "docid": "5fdf615c-2019-04-18T15:36:16Z-00006-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6545861959457397}, {"content": "Title: free contraception for teens in schools Content: I have no doubt that giving teens contraceptions is useful, nor that encouraging them to purchase contraception will statistically improve birthrate in the nation.The issue I have is with FREE contraception.", "qid": 12, "docid": "98cbcd80-2019-04-18T18:06:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6543041467666626}, {"content": "Title: Birth control Content: First, I would like to apologize for this round, as I am not able to handle all arguments as fully as I would like to. Please do not hold this overly against me 1. Failure RatesMy opponent cites unsourced statistics of success from the Catholic Diosceses of Richmond. I don't think I need to say what's wrong here.2. Pill CancerIt does help women who might otherwise have gotten one of the types of cancer the pill protects against. I assume the risks probably mostly balance each other out. Regardless, if one fears cancer so much, one need not use the pill. That does not preclude using another type of birth control.3. STDs and Condoms I don't feel like pointlessly rehashing an argument here, so I will simply quote a government site. Note what I said last round about any protection being better than nothing. \"Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.\" [1]4. NFP and Divorce I invite my opponent to make a case regarding this instead of using her source as an argument. 5. More PregnancyThe birth control did not increase the birth rate, that was the students being stupid and having more sex. Birth control cannot be blamed for people's idiocy.6. Abortion I concede this point fully.New Arguments:A. Natural Family Planning is not always possible It is complicated, and generally only usable by people in a stable relationship. Additionally, it provides no STD protection, and requires abstinence. The biggest issue is, of course, the complexity and relationship requirement. NFP is pretty much useless unless you are married or in a very stable relationship [2]. You can't just be like \"Tonight let's use NFP\" out of nowhere, it requires an excessive amount of preparation and is easier to screw up than pretty much any other tactic. Do note that my opponent seems to have dropped the argument from the Bible. Sources:1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.nhs.uk...;", "qid": 12, "docid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.654187798500061}, {"content": "Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is \"suppose\" to make them safe with no risks and so no\" what if's\" or \"worries\" are in their minds.", "qid": 12, "docid": "5fdf615c-2019-04-18T15:36:16Z-00007-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6536781787872314}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body", "qid": 12, "docid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00008-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6535443067550659}, {"content": "Title: Overpopulation and Contraception Content: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ...", "qid": 12, "docid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6523954272270203}]}
{"query": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun.", "qid": 13, "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8147846460342407}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.", "qid": 13, "docid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8123272657394409}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Responding to my opponent: I know that alternatives to fossil fuel exist \u2013 the fact that I named most of them in the previous round proves I know of their existence. The problem is that none of them are yet viable as a complete fossil fuel replacement in electricity generation or in car locomotion because they are either too expensive, are not capable of being produced on a large enough scale, or are not a reliable/consistent enough form of power. Nuclear power I think my opponent means nuclear fission. Fission is a reaction that breaks apart an atom (usually Uranium-235) to generate energy. Fusion is the process the sun uses of fusing together protons to generate energy. Scientists have yet to produce a commercially viable fusion power plant, and many people still consider fusion power a pipe dream. Nuclear power, in contrast, is not a good fossil fuel replacement. The Huffington Post reports that nuclear power plants, even when operated correctly, cause cancer. \"Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. . . . after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer.\" [1] The Huffington post cites a number of studies proving the link between nuclear power and cancer: \"Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, has authored 23 scientific articles since the mid-1990s documenting high local cancer rates near [nuclear power plants]. One study showed child cancer exceeded the national rate near 14 of 14 plants in the eastern U.S. Another showed that when U.S. nuclear plants closed, local infant deaths and child cancer cases plunged immediately after shutdown . . . A November 2007 article on U.S. child leukemia deaths updated the 1990 National Cancer Institute study and showed local rates rose as nuclear plants aged -- except near plants that shut down.\" [2] Studies in Germany have also proved the link between nuclear power plants and cancer. [3] The fear of cancer sparks a \"not-in-my-backyard\" (NIMBY) attitude towards nuclear power plants, whereby locals and politicians protest the location of nuclear power plants near their homes, thereby making it impossible to build nuclear power plants anywhere. If countries all decided to pursue nuclear power, it would take well over a hundred years to build all the power plants. There is only one steel plant in the world, Japan Steel, that has a forge big enough to make the containment vessel for nuclear power plants. They are only capable of forging 5 such containment vessels per year. [4] The Star continues that the waiting list is filled up until at least 2018, even though demand for nuclear power is relatively low right now. Building enough nuclear power plants is infeasible. Other arguments against nuclear include: it is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The Post-Gazette reports that \"A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW) . . . A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build.\" [5] Nuclear power reliance worldwide would create a spent fuel storage problem \u2013 where does all the radioactive waste go? Nevada has been unwilling to allow the U.S. to store the waste at the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, nuclear is non-renewable: uranium sources will run out. And lastly, a global trade in uranium/plutonium makes it easier for a terrorist to get their hands on one of these substances. Nuclear power as a replacement source is negated. Geothermal: The Energy Information Agency explains that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers, most of which are located on the west coast of the Americas and the east coast of Asia. [6] These energy sources are not widely available, which is why geothermal has the potential to provide far less than 1% of the world's power. Geothermal as a fossil fuel replacement is negated. Solar/wind: My opponent does not answer my analysis that these are intermittent power sources with no way to store their energy. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, we must get our power from coal or natural gas. Studies show that wind power in particular does not replace fossil fuel power because electric utility companies are forced to keep natural gas power plants readily available in case the wind is not blowing and since power plants cannot be easily turned on and off, the natural gas plants are constantly on. In addition, my opponent does not answer the evidence from the Energy Information Agency that in the best case scenario, the United States could only generate 10% of its power from renewable sources by 2035. In addition, wind and solar plants are very expensive because they need to built in specific locations (where wind blows or where cloud cover is rare) and necessitate new power grids to be built. Power grids typically cost $3 million per mile to build. In addition, the further the power plants are located away from the houses that need them, the more energy that will be lost due to \"line loss.\" The friction caused by electrons moving through the wires causes lost electricity due to heat. This is another of the many challenges facing solar/wind. Wind has further challenges. The annoying noise from the rotor blades and the blinking lights to warn airplanes/helicopters of their presence decrease property values near wind farms. According to Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy, \"Large wind turbines in concert with each other, especially those sited on ridgetops with side slopes shaped like a parabolic reflector, create profound, relentless noise reverberations extending out for more than a mile, sounding like \"a boot tumbling in a dryer\" or the revving of jet engines on a runway.\" [7]. Wind farms thus generate the same NIMBY attitude that nuclear power plants generate. For all of the above reasons, solar and wind power are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. If we like to have electricity and to drive our cars, fossil fuels are the only option for the foreseeable future. UV light: As someone who is extremely fair skinned, the lives of Australians sound extremely similar to my own. I cannot leave the house without sunscreen and protective coverings or else I will develop a sunburn within a matter of 15-20 minutes of sun exposure. Even ozone-shielded UV radiation can be highly damaging, and doctors recommend that even dark-skinned individuals wear sunscreen. In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that the particular ozone hole he is talking about over Australia is widely acknowledged as being caused by the emission of CFC's, not of fossil fuels. Lastly, my opponent has no response to the tens of millions of jobs that are generated worldwide by fossil fuels and related industries, and the fact that fossil fuel-exporting dependent countries would have their economies collapse without fossil fuels, causing a massive drop in global demand for good and services, sinking all countries further into the global recession. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] Ibid [3] http://www.currentconcerns.ch... [4] http://www.thestar.com... [5] http://www.post-gazette.com... [6] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [7] http://www.wvmcre.org...", "qid": 13, "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7793905735015869}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels Content: Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short.", "qid": 13, "docid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7775777578353882}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: \u2022Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases \u2022Easy to install \u2022Virtually no energy costs once installed \u2022The technology for solar power is constantly improving \u2022Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: \u2022No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions \u2022Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land \u2022The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options \u2022Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.", "qid": 13, "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7769092321395874}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted. Content: While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.", "qid": 13, "docid": "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.774121880531311}, {"content": "Title: Solar energy Content: Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "qid": 13, "docid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00073-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7697087526321411}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas Content: Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases", "qid": 13, "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00042-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7640887498855591}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Energy Content: yes I suppose I only had one argument. I do believe you had more convincing arguments. You have won, but just for the record I wasn't saying that nuclear energy is not one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. I need to complete three arguments and this is one of the only ones that was open.", "qid": 13, "docid": "b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7618658542633057}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it. First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time. Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however. Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone. We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future. In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.", "qid": 13, "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7606630325317383}, {"content": "Title: Steps to stop \"Global Warming\" will kill far more people then it will save Content: Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, \"Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save\": \"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them.\" Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules. \"The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves.\" As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support. \"Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence.\" It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7581871151924133}, {"content": "Title: Offshore oil addresses energy shortages better than most renewables Content: Renewable energy is not yet an adequate alternative to oil. While the transition is made to renewable energy in the long-run, other offshore oil and gas alternatives should be found in the short-to-medium run.", "qid": 13, "docid": "ffc14fd7-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00057-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7514086365699768}, {"content": "Title: fossil fuel Content: Contradicting to what my opponent argues, many of these alternatives are been used by many countries in the world. An example of this is Brazil who last year or two started using ethanol products such as sugar cane to manufacture most of their fuel and tend to their needs. Brazil have progressed a lot and in fact, they are the most improved country in the world since the resent years. My opponent mentions that Nuclear fission cases cancer however he failed to mention the fact that Magnetic reactor which are already in use is able to contain and transform these waste into useful materials thereby making Nuclear fission a safer product than that of fossil fuel. Fusion is not a chain reaction, therefore it can be stopped at anytime and there is no threat of a meltdown opponent also states that nuclear fission is more expensive than fossil fuel power but an article from thinkquest.org/ states that nuclear fission is The fuels that could be used are relatively inexpensive and readily available fusion would be a virtually inexhaustible energy supply that could eliminate most of the world's dependence on other fuels. giving all these facts we must see that Nuclear fission energy is a wise and a very good alternative to Fossil Fuel. Geothermal Energy: I agree that geothermal energy sources are: volcanoes, hot springs, and geysers but geothermal energy can also be drawn from the earths core as I mentioned in my previous debate. an article from darvil.clara.net states that Geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years in some countries for cooking and heating and these countries have progressed energy wise. geothermal energy is also an energy efficient alternative and could serve as more than 85 percent of the earths power need. my next point leads me to solar power. The production of energy from the use of fossil and some renewable fuels can be noisy, yet solar energy produces electricity very quietly. One of the great pros of solar energy is the ability to harness electricity in remote locations that are not linked to a national grid. A prime example of this is in space, where satellites are powered by high efficiency solar cells. The installation of solar panels in remote locations is usually much more cost effective than laying the required high voltage wires. Solar energy can be very efficient in a large area of the globe, and new technologies allow for a more efficient energy production on overcast/dull days. Solar panels can be installed on top of many rooftops, which eliminates the problem of finding the required space for solar panel placement. Another great pro of solar energy is the cost. Although the initial investment of solar cells may be high, once installed, they provide a free source of electricity, which will pay off over the coming years. The use of solar energy to produce electricity allows the user to become less dependent on the worlds fossil fuel supplies. Wind power: unlike what my opponent said, wind power is a cost efficient way and does not require the wind to blow as more renewable energy is developed, the nation's electricity supply will balance renewable energy supplies with regional demands. Studies have shown that significant investment in offshore wind on the Atlantic Coast would virtually always be producing electricity \u2013 so if the wind stops blowing in Massachusetts, South Carolina's offshore resource may supply power to the Northeast. comparison with other anthropogenic activities, the climate impact of wind power is negligible. The continued burning of fossil fuels and unsustainable development inflicts the greatest harm on the earth's climate. If wind energy generated enough electricity to meet current electricity usage, this would amount to about 6% of all other wind disturbances, like reforestation efforts and tall buildings. This would have no significant impact on global wind patterns. Additionally, wind turbines could have a side benefit of decreasing temperatures at higher latitudes, offsetting the anticipated warming caused by greenhouse gases. we could see that fossil fuel is not the answer but better alternatives are. http://na.oceana.org...", "qid": 13, "docid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7477637529373169}, {"content": "Title: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: As CON, I will try to prove that an alternative energy source is something that is either a loss or a draw for the United States. In order for PRO to win, judges, my opponent must prove to you that an alternative energy will pull us out of the economic crisis and will be beneficial to our environment. I am deciding to allow my opponent the opportunity to bring some forms of alternative energy to the table. It's not practical for me to organize arguments against alternative energies, only to have PRO state that my argued forms of energy aren't the ones we, as a nation, should pursue. So then, PRO, which form(s) of alternative energy would you like to see implemented in today's society and why?", "qid": 13, "docid": "2aa5711e-2019-04-18T19:33:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7395508885383606}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life \u2013 cars \u2013 and I thank Anikiforouk very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 \u2013 My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel \u2013 which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... http://www.hybridcars.com... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 \u2013 Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 \u2013 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is \"nothing special\" about that year that my opponent \"ought to win\" this debate by default! Thank you.", "qid": 13, "docid": "c98fe988-2019-04-18T19:32:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7393869757652283}, {"content": "Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: The topic of alternative energies is one that I am currently debating in public forum. Good luck!", "qid": 13, "docid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7390481233596802}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.", "qid": 13, "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7381203174591064}, {"content": "Title: Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout... Content: Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.", "qid": 13, "docid": "ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7372552752494812}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Don't you have a rule that when people insult you they instantly lose? I expect your resignation next round. (not really) A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy. Preferably electric energy derived from solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal energy sources. However, even if derived from just coal it actually ends up putting less pollution into the atmosphere (still). * You misapprehend the battery comment. We make hydrogen by splitting water. By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel. That makes it an energy storage substance. Other than from other energy sources (electric, natural gas) where do we get hydrogen? * Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. * \"Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane\" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. The recharge time has been improved on a Toshiba batter. 90% in five minutes. http://www.dailytech.com... Cheap Li-ion batteries: http://www.popularmechanics.com... Nanotech advancement 10x battery life: http://www.news.com... And potentials to advance completely away from batteries to capacitors. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org... We are dealing with storing energy in either chemical form or in the electric field of a capacitor. That's pretty limitless and allows for massive amounts of innovation. * Being messy and tiny and leaky is far is not discredited by your comment of it being the \"cleanest\". Frankly, it's not. To get the hydrogen you're using actual energy. Just because it's a fairly green battery doesn't mean it's green energy. If you filled a building filled with hydrogen rupture it it might well just leave a giant hole in the ground if anything sparks. * We used the water to make hydrogen. The fact that hydrogen burns into water again is just confirming what I said in my intro... glorified battery. * I ignored the embrittle problem and certain other problems as they are simply small technological hurdles. I think however, the fact that it leaks all the time (think a 2-day old helium balloon) is problematic. * You cannot hijack the natural gas infrastructure. First, it will leak! Secondly, we use that for natural gas! My stove isn't set to run on a hydrogen and natural gas mix. My water heater, dryer, my heater they aren't either. Am I to forgo my use of natural gas in order to have leaky hydrogen to power a car which cannot pressurize the gas itself? We only have so much natural gas, and that's only while we're using it at the rates we're using it. Power cars with the stuff would drop our amount of natural gas and drive up the price. And we'd end up with electrolysis (which scales). * If you wanted to convert cars over to run on natural gas, that is something to be independently discussed. As is, you're arguing that one gas is pretty much another. And though we currently use natural gas in things made for natural gas. * Building the infrastructure is an acceptable ideas. Though, here we are faced with a catch-22. Do we build the infrastructure first or the cars first? How much infrastructure do we produce before the cars and who foots the bill if it doesn't work? Though, I assume that will be overcome. * Not a hazmat team to deal with a crash, but rather a well trained group of firefighters who know where they should not use the jaws of life to cut you out of that? How to detect a hydrogen leak, and what the risks are involved when different parts rupture or the car catches on fire. * I've seen them at car-shows but other than that I've seen them nowhere. * I do not typify the \"non-scientific liberal reaction to hydrogen\" -- the fact of the matter is that hydrogen has a large amount of following within the liberal community. My objection however is simply a scientific understanding that hydrogen is just a glorified battery and not a very good one at that. * Converting the power grid to carbon neutral profile is certainly a requirement to moving forward with energy today. Global warming is not our friend. We need to switch to carbon neutral sources of power (hydrogen is not a source) sooner rather than later. * I am strongly pro-nuclear. I am pro-science and the science behind nuclear is sound. * I never advocated ethanol, at least not corn ethanol. Sugar ethanol works well as it's a biproduct and works out quite effectively and doesn't replace food. * I said 2nd law because that's what prevented it. 0,1,3 weren't mentioned as they weren't needed. -- My solution (which isn't needed for the topic) is plug in hybrid cars, which transition to electric as the technology does. * The EV1 wasn't a failure, GM just recalled all the cars and forcibly scrapped the project (they didn't want politicians forcing them to make electric cars), see \"Who Killed the Electric Car\". Further, there are cars being put out all the time. Tesla Roadster - http://www.topspeed.com... There is massive potential for increases in technology here, whereas you're scrambling with \"just build the infrastructure\" or \"we'll use this fossil fuel instead. Plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road today. * For quick charge comment see Toshiba. Further, supercapacitors would have the ability to charge in a few seconds (you don't want to do that/might as well be lightning). * Hydrogen has less energy density than gasoline. Pure liquid hydrogen has less hydrogen than gasoline (the molecules pack the energy better than simple pressurization). * There's no room for advancement when you're dealing with chemicals. But, take a look at cell-phones. The charge time, the battery technology, the rather continual and gradual improvement. That's what we need in a car technology. Hydrogen has nothing behind it, and it can't scale. --- Your calculations about the \"price per gallon\" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon.", "qid": 13, "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7331954836845398}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas Content: 0-emission renewables are a superior alternative to natural gas", "qid": 13, "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00036-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7329767942428589}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal Content: Patrick Moore. \"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: \"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.\"", "qid": 13, "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00093-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7311545014381409}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life \u2013 cars \u2013 and I thank Russia very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 \u2013 My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel \u2013 which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com...... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk...... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk...... http://www.hybridcars.com...... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 \u2013 Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 \u2013 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is \"nothing special\" about that year that my opponent \"ought to win\" this debate by default! Thank you.", "qid": 13, "docid": "c98fe9c6-2019-04-18T19:32:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7310119867324829}, {"content": "Title: An alternative to Gasoline Content: I accept the challenge. Hopefully this will be fun. I wish there were good alternatives to gasoline but there are not any good alternatives here right now that can replace it. Electricity is not unlimited source. The biggest sources of electricity is coal. It is cleaner but is still fossil fuel and still produces a lot of CO2. Coal is also limited. People can argue that solar and wind power are not limited but the technology use to harness the electricity is not advanced enough yet. A lot of fossil fuel are needed to make solar panels and wind mills. There is also no good way to store of this energy. When night comes the solar panel doesn't produce electricity. Right now engineers are trying to develope a storage for electricity during the day but it isn't efficient and cheap enough at this time. \"If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.\" This statement is false for many reasons. 1) The environment will not be better off. Vegetable oil burns less CO2 but that isn't the only thing that concerns the environment. In order to use vegetable oil to replace even 50% of gasoline it will have to take all the farm land of the United States of America and none will be used for food. This makes the environmental impact a disaster. 2) Farmers will make more money but starvation will increase. During the gas price boom last year ethanol (in which is more efficient than vegetable oil) use skyrocket. As a result a corn shortage happened and prices went up for food that had relation with corn. This shortage wasn't a problem in United States as much in poor countries. 3) Obesity is the problem in the United States not really starvation. Going hungry in the United States is nothing like going hungry in Africa. There is enough food production and food is profitable. More farmers live in Beverly Hills than movie stars. Food is a good enough reason to farm.", "qid": 13, "docid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7297090291976929}, {"content": "Title: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... Content: The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.", "qid": 13, "docid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00012-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.729205846786499}, {"content": "Title: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway Content: Fossil fuels are finite, we should start developing alternatives now rather than later.", "qid": 13, "docid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00010-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7256477475166321}, {"content": "Title: Solar Power is the future not wind or being oil dependent Content: Apparently not.Though I really need not put forth much in the way of an argument supporting my position, as you have already, for the most part, though none too coherently, done so, I shall provide a little bit more of a case, as if you actually were playing the role of the Con.Perhaps one of the most common arguments given against solar power, and in favour of petrol, is that solar power is weaker than burning hydrocarbons, and that switching to completely electric fuel would be detrimental to the economy. However, these arguments are not valid, and are merely slanted in such a direction as to keep the world dependent upon large oil corporations, and because humans are generally afraid of progress.Now, there are also significant environmental concerns, from burning hydrocarbons, to the atmosphere, and thus the biosphere. Normally, the planet's carbon should remain in its crust and biosphere. When, as carbon dioxide, it is released from burning hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, it can cause an unbalance in the planet's natural atmospheric balance. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it traps heat in the form of infrared radiation inside the atmosphere, maintaining a level of warmth necessary for life. Were there too few greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be significantly colder. However, the burning of petrol, coal, and other compounds rich in CO2, releases unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causing Global Warming. Too much global warming eventually leads to a cascading climate change, that cannot be prevented, Runaway Greenhouse Effect. This would destroy our ecosystem beyond repair, and cause the largest extinction Earth has even known: total extinction. This is obviously not a favorable occurrence.There would be no significant economic damage, if the world were to take itself off of hydrocarbon fuel sources, except for countries whose only major export is natural oil, particularly in the Middle East. Germany has already proved that solar energy can be just as efficient as any other energy we have yet devised, in fact, more so even than nuclear energy. The Middle East could easily accumulate solar energy to make up for the lost economic staple, natural oils. In fact, it could become a world energy producer by that. Thus, the economy could flourish on solar energy.One of the large qualms that has been raised, particularly by America, is that the loss of petrol would be multiple nails in the coffin of the automobile industry. While I do not personally think that is such a bad thing, I understand that much of America's economy has been based on automobiles, and they certainly are the primary transportation there. I thus acknowledge that solar energy could also provide the fuel for automobiles. No, not solar panels mounted on the roofs of cars. That would be impractical and tacky. However, Nikola Tesla devised a way of wirelessly delivering electricity from one point to another. Solar power plants could collect energy, by either photovoltaics or some other method, then deliver it to cars through wireless energy transfer coils planted in the roads. This would solve the common complaint that electric cars are not as energy efficient. It has been shown that they are practical in every other way. In fact, in the early 90s, General Motors built a number of prototype electric cars, which were test-driven and found to be highly useful, but recalled and destroyed, because of the possible economic repercussions to the rest of the American auto industry.Sources:http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...http://goo.gl...", "qid": 13, "docid": "59e99f04-2019-04-18T18:06:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7249689102172852}, {"content": "Title: government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels Content: I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared. This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation Please vote in affirmation.", "qid": 13, "docid": "f8fc8c9e-2019-04-18T19:30:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7243560552597046}, {"content": "Title: Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant Content: It is important to clarify first before we begin. Take Note: Pro specified his rules in comments \"Round 1 is just acceptance. You can present your argument in 2nd round. That is why i have selected 5 rounds. \" Definition Replace- \"to take or fill the place of\" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... In this case, the resolution is vying to replace thermal power plant with so called \"safe\" and \"renewable\" energy, that is solar and wind. It is nice to have renewable energy but it comes with a price, a price I'm not willing to trade thermal power plants for considering the level of technology we are currently having. Arguments will be on the second round as per our agreement. Thank you and you may present your case.", "qid": 13, "docid": "63114415-2019-04-18T16:31:15Z-00007-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7218894958496094}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: Here is the debate structure: R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense I will be arguing that fossil fuels are a better energy source than Renewable Energy Sources. My opponent will argue that Renewable Energy Sources are a better energy source than Fossil Fuels. Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. Definitions Renewable Energy: any naturally occurring, theoretically inexhaustible source of energy, as biomass, solar, wind, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric power, that is not derived from fossil or nuclear fuel. Source http://www.dictionary.com...", "qid": 13, "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7213748693466187}, {"content": "Title: wind power should be a primary focus of future energy supply. Content: Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power", "qid": 13, "docid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7201018929481506}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.", "qid": 13, "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7196487188339233}, {"content": "Title: renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide. Content: By 'best solution', I presume that you argue that it can provide the energy non-renewable sources currently provide, without the negative environmental effects or the fear of it running out. I support the use of renewable energy where possible, but believe that it is currently nonviable. Thus, I support the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels to provide our energy.", "qid": 13, "docid": "53b7edd-2019-04-18T15:25:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.719444215297699}, {"content": "Title: Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant Content: Pro's voice on green resources is admirable but he made numerous mistakes in his arguments. Pro's ConcessionFirstly, my alternate resolution was to consider Co-Generation as what was also advocated by the IEA in order to disapprove the resolution of replacing. Pro concedes to this resolution as he says in his R3 argument:\"Yes, I agree that we should go hand in hand with all power generating plants, i. e, We can have Wind,Solar and thermal all together for power generation and when solar and wind efficiency and many other factor increases we may reduce the thermal plants. .. I agree for that with Brother Relativist. \" Untouched RefutationsI am responsible for denouncing the resolution with proper reasons and I have rightly so. Pro did not respond to my refutations at all as he continued with his energy efficiency analysis instead so I assume that my refutations have successfully nullified his argument. This includes:a)Global Warming Myth(By Carter) in response to his greenhouse gases. b)Crisis of Renewable Energy(As an additional problem to green energy, to shift support towards thermal)-Extinction of various types of species as a result of destroying 3,500 acres(9000 for Alta Wind Farm) of forests. c)Economic Problems for poor countries -The Brandt report accurately elaborates how poor countries are, thus unable to afford green energy (which is in opposition to the resolution as it advocates replacements, which are very expensive)d)Pro's energy efficiency analysis (Elaborated below)These are my main oppositional arguments and they are left virtually untouched by Pro and with no responses, I hereby conclude that my argument have successfully denounced his resolution. Other Minor detailsThroughout this debate, my opponent seems so fixiated on energy capacities. He devoted his last round to prove that it is at least 3-5 times(instead of 5-6). Even his round 3 argument was devoted to this same concept. Regardless, Thermal Power plants still yields more energy than the combination of both Perovo and Alta, thus it is more reasonable to adopt conventional measures. Pro made an analysis on solar cells but fails to provide how it is linked to the resolution as he did not provide a proper evaluation. Pro claims that thermal power plants should be 2km away from homes, the same should be done with Wind. The main point is to find incentives on why wind should replace thermal, if they are both floating on the same boat, then there is no reason to adopt the resolution as both are essentially the sameConclusionMy refutations are my main contentions for disapproving the resolution. Without any response, his argument is nullified along with the resolution. I'd like to thank him for his politeness, one which is rare considering that youtube comments have been my standards for decency as well as his proposed resolution and I hope our debate entertained him as it did to me. Thank You And Have A Nice Day.", "qid": 13, "docid": "63114415-2019-04-18T16:31:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7190266847610474}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Energy Content: I will begin with my opponent's case and then present an alternative to nuclear energy. Opening statement: My opponent has produced some very impressive data on the efficiency of nuclear energy. Prima facie or first glance could easily sway a person to support nuclear energy. I vaguely recall having done rudimentary research on nuclear energy for a Lincoln-Douglas topic last fall. In fact, a conversation I had with our science department head revealed only one significant pitfall, what to do with the waste? My opponent has even identified dis-ads of nuclear waste and offered suggestions on the very subject of nuclear waste. If we dig deeper though, what are other concerns? Let's explore! 1) Effectiveness. At first glance the only disagreements I could identify were really nitpicky stuff. I could say that some of the water which became steam would inevitably evaporate and have to be replaced. I could even strengthen my opponent's defense by saying that the moving parts replacement schedule is likely very minimal. There is no shame in expanding Robert Fulton's use of steam even if it is an old idea. We still use wheels right? :o) There is no doubt that nuclear energy can offer power to communities. I, and the judges, are likely tired of semantical battles of topicality, that being said; much of my opponent's first point are stipulated and conceded. 2) Safety. This is a cause for concern. While technologically developed nations such as the U.S.A., the U.K., and France have operated plants for upwards of 60 years without serious incident, that does not make them immune to trouble. Many safeguards have been implemented since the 1950's to improve and upgrade the facilities. Yet, even superpowers such as the U.S. (3 mile island) and the former Soviet Union (Chernobyl) have had their share of growing pains. Most recently, another developed nation, Japan, experienced a calamity of catastrophic proportion. Are nuclear power plants compeletly safe? No. Now consider lesser developed nations that are seeking nuclear power, Iran and North Korea for example. Both are suspect for being politically unstable as well as using nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. Oversight can be a tricky thing when a more radical nation prefers not to be inspected or have other's watching over their shoulders as they attempt to develop energy, or secretly weaponry. This forces them to be sneaky, which may lead to shortcuts, which may lead to disaster. Security of nuclear facilities. There are high protocol, likely classified, to protect the integrity of nuclear facilities in developed nations. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for less stable nations. Can anyone, with any certainty, verify the count of every spent rod or piece of weaponry from the the Former Soviet Union, especially after the breakup of the former into 15 separate and independent nations? I would have to say no. Further, what would prevent well organized and well funded terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials in lesser developed nations? This too eats away at the safety argument. An article I discovered addresses nuclear waste in a different light than that of my opponent. Like my opponent, it identfied waste that was short term and had reduced effects with proper handling and recycling. Also, like my opponent it identified longer term waste. However; the safety of the longer term waste was the compelling factor. It is quite dangerous, ecologically unfriendly, and can take an estimated 1000 years to decay. http://www.scienceclarified.com... These are a few \"what if\" or otherwise hypothetical scenarios that challenge nuclear energy safety as well as historical examples such as 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Japan. While precautions and protocol do exist, they are far from foolproof, and are not necessarily as safe as my opponent would have us believe. http://www.nirs.org... 3) Costs. My opponent has demonstrated that nuclear energy does indeed exceed the effectiveness of fossil fuels. It's common knowledge and widely accepted that once established, nuclear is more logical than fossil. It appears to be cleaner in emissions, and uses fewer resources in producing more energy. At first glance, this seems to make perfect sense. This leads me to ask a question. Why then isn't everyone using nuclear energy then? A Smithsonian study showed that only approximately 16% of the worl'd energy is nuclear based. Since it is demonstrably more effective as shown by my opponent's CBA, why aren't most nations using it? Simply put, the necessary precautions make it cost prohibitive. Many African and Central American nations struggle to even provide basic necessities to their citizens. Citizens in African nations do not enjoy clean water, adequate food, clothing, or shelter. Haiti and Honduras don't even have a pot to piss in. In fact, many nations have substandard living conditions to include plumbing and basic sanitation. Constructing a nuclear power plant is not in their foreseeable future. My case: At first glance my alternative seems to be a reinvention of the wheel. There are alternatives to nuclear energy though. All of which can be done at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy, and boast a much better safety record. HYDRO: Every nation does have rivers. Dams can be constructed, and power can be retrieved via hydro energy. SOLAR: Especially with so many \"experts\" verifying the existence of greenhouse gases and global warming, you would think that would open the door even wider for good ol' solar power. Yes the sun shines all over the earth! Yes, solar panels are expensive, and yes, at present they need to be rather large to capture this energy. Why can't every roof be a solar panel? This is worth research and development money! Opportunity is knocking! (For my beloved Israelis, I am offering triple mitzvah points if you discover it first) Who among us on this earth will be the first to develop more efficient solar power for all to enjoy? WIND: The wind blows. Meterologists have ways to track weather and determine the most strategic locations to place wind energy generators. KINETIC GENERATORS: Quite possibly the world's best kept secret! These puppies are built at a nominal cost, and run virtually clean, quiet, and very efficient. This is probably the better answer to the energy crisis. We (Collectively) have put boo-koodles of investment money into so many things. It makes sense to look into research for the large scale, big picture. http://www.homestandbygeneratorsystems.com... In closing: While nuclear energy is a better alternative than fossil fuels, it has yet to replace them. Why? It is both dangerous, and cost prohibitive. I am suggesting that nuclear energy research monies be diverted toward large scale research of kinetic generators. Thank you!", "qid": 13, "docid": "b4dd79ae-2019-04-18T18:43:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7189554572105408}, {"content": "Title: government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels Content: First I will address my opponents three points. 1) \"Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. \" That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels. 2) \"Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? \" This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. Yes any alternative fuel is acceptable so long as it is within the bounds of the law. As for the plan itself there are already many sources of alternative fuels currently available to automakers. Things like hybrid gas electric, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and propane. Alternative fuels are defined by the Michigan State Document Center as anything other that Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas or Peak Oil. 3) \"Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then. \" It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. This can only be done with firm decisions and a strong governmental role. As for my opponents analogy \"That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. \" This couldn't be more untrue. It would be true if all the cellular phone suppliers in the U. S. were bankrupt or going under, if they cell phone grid where destroying the environment, if foreign cell phone suppliers were all moving forward and taking business from the United States and if instead of Solar Power you told them to use a whole new form of power and they could decide what it was. If that were the analogy then it would fit pretty well. And I think you will agree that if that were the case a change would need to be made on the part of the cell phone business. There is also the issue my opponent has brought up with timing. First my opponent says \"2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. \" My opponent then compares the resolution to switch to alternative fuels with some others related to cell phones, \"The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. \" Imagine if the rest of the world took this approach. What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect. As for government mandates, they can be repealed if it is necessary. A mandate is merely a direct rule or order. If changes are necessary the government can form a new mandated that make the new adjustments.", "qid": 13, "docid": "f8fc8c9e-2019-04-18T19:30:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7187843322753906}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Once again, it is silly to argue with a fool with no scientific background at all, it is like arguing with a college freshman (or high schooler) lets first go over all your ERRORS first, and then I will adress your correct arguments ERROR 1 \"A fuel that can replace gasoline in its entirety forever- electric energy.\" CORRECTION how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft? electric alone wont even work for Priuses (more on than later) ERROR 2 By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel CORRECTION WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period. it is mostly made from methane right now, which is NOT renewable. It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O) ERROR 3 Green energy, renewable energies and carbon neutral energies are all needed to not only reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, foreign energy sources, but also needed to prevent and slow the progress of global warming and climate change. CORRECTION Climate change is a total BS tax scheme. But I am not here to argue that the main reason we need renewables is NATIONAL SECURITY and ECONOMICS. period ERROR 4 * \"Primarily right now hydrogen is produced through reformation of methane\" -- You cannot scale that. It can be done, but cannot be scaled to any degree. Methane is a fossil fuel, one which we have about 50 years worth remaining and certainly cannot be a permanent replacement. That process produces twice as much CO2 as hydrogen (by the chemistry). CORRECTION Methane steam reforamtion stoichiometry 101 (a couple catalzed steps actually) CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) ) Nice try, Chemistry genius (note that this is typical of liberals- they LIE and use words like \"by the Chemistry\" when they have NO CLUE what an atom or molecule is at all) ERROR 5 * Regardless of the manner of electrolysis the end result is the same, less energy than it took to make is in the resulting product. That's just basic physics. For the sake of argument, I'll let you say you have perfectly efficient electrolysis, which is to say you have exactly as much energy in the hydrogen as you used on the water. -- That's a glorified battery! CORRECTION (so now I see we have switched to Physics to act like were a smart liberal) No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT. a BATTERY is a SOLID ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL, with an ELECTROLYTE. Your nonsensical arguments about the source of hydrogen are irrelevant ERROR 6 * Unlike a real battery however, you have no ability to store more energy. Battery technology has high potentials to store far more energy than we currently have in a tank of gas. Supercapacitors, better materials, faster charges, new technology... the possibility of innovation here is quite large. Batteries can be improved. CORRECTION What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine. There IS of course HOPE for improvement in batteries- but you know NOT of the current state of the technology or the physical and chemical limiations The main issues with batteries are (1) Weight (2) Cost (3) Longevity (4) Recharge Time (5) Materials limitations (6) Environmental factors (temperature coeffient of voltage) ALL of the examples YOU note do not fulfill criteria 1,2,and 6 for TRANSPORT You have NO CONCEPT OF HOW MUCH POWER A CAR NEEDS Now I am going to skip to your last statement for ERROR 7 ERROR 7 Your calculations about the \"price per gallon\" were flawed. The wikipedia page on the Toyota Prius (which I assume you used) didn't say the energy use was 100kwh. Rather it was saying the current limit to drive range was 7 miles in all electric mode up-bounded by the speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The range limit is low because batteries aren't designed for electric only mode and this is not a plug-in or electric model. The batteries only store about 1.3 kwh of power. Which by the way, works out to 0.185 kilowatt / mile or 2.8 cents a mile. That's 37% less than gasoline at $3.00 or $1.11 dollars a gallon. CORRECTION This completely nonsensical statement belies your complete and utter ignorance here are some FACTS (1) For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power http://www.toyota.com... (2) for a real SUV (toyota highlander) , it is about 270 HP in power http://www.carseek.com... For you, genius, 270 Hp at 1 HP = 0.766 kW = 206 kW So to be an ALL electric car, in one hour, you will need 57 kWh for the prius or 206 kWh for the Highlander Thus the hybrid is mostly using GASOLINE for now, NOT electricity ALL of your arguments for new batteries are NOT for cars, they are for computers and small EXPENSIVE things the HYBRID is the answer the fuel for the motor needs to transition to HYDROGEN, which is the ONLY fuel that can power everything and be scalable to any size. HYDROGEN can power AIRPLANES, the SPACE SHUTTLE and ANY TRANSPORT VEHICLE this is a FACT HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER Sooner of later, after enough peasants starve to death, maybe congress will get it and give up the Ethanol and Biofuel DISASTER At least you support NUCLEAR ENERGY - you are not totally hopeless SOLARMAN", "qid": 13, "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7177901864051819}, {"content": "Title: Solar energy Content: Alternative clean fuels generated from solar power reduces dependence on oil", "qid": 13, "docid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00012-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7173185348510742}, {"content": "Title: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: After two dropped rounds, I have nothing further to add... I feel as if I should apologize to the readers and voters, since my opponent isn't going to do it. I, personally, wish my opponent wouldn't have started this debate and walked away... I'd have loved to see the clash! All I ask is you vote CON. All my arguments still stand, and I believe all my points are stronger than those presented by my opponent. Finally, I'd like to ask that you vote on the merits of the debate, and not whether you think we should have an alternative form of energy or not. Thanks.", "qid": 13, "docid": "2aa5711e-2019-04-18T19:33:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7171970009803772}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: Both Fossil Fuels and Renewable Resources have their pros and cons. But for this debate, I'll argue that renewable resources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc) have more advantages than Fossil Fuels.", "qid": 13, "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7171369791030884}, {"content": "Title: Pro/Con with the use of turbines Content: Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that \" fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer\". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.Example One: Geothermal Power PlantsGeothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary. Advantages \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdIt is almost infinite and does not emit CO2. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdThere are no by-products, and almost no waste. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdIt can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdPower stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals. To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;", "qid": 13, "docid": "16850e2-2019-04-18T15:59:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7160171270370483}, {"content": "Title: Steps to stop \"Global Warming\" will kill far more people then it will save Content: Besides ethanol, there are also successful hydrogen-powered and oxygen powered cars, and even solar-powered cars, that can fit the current infrastructure (road) system. They just need to be mass-produced. Your argument against the use of nuclear energy and its links don't matter since I agree with you on that - nuclear energy isn't a good idea in my opinion. Since I never disagreed with you about it, we don't need to argue about it. \"All electric and hybrid battery cars...\" Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without? Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there. \"Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more.\" It will not take that long, and with the proper funding, it can happen. I've already stated that some alternative-energy cars are efficient and suited to the current infrastructure. And using hydroelectric power at major water bodies can provide enough energy for alot of places. Using wind power on the coast and in high places can provide energy for those places. Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be \"dying by the millions\".", "qid": 13, "docid": "8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7156902551651001}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7153609395027161}, {"content": "Title: Solar and Wind Power plant should replace Thermal Power Plant Content: I will do my best to keep this interesting even though I am a newbie to this website as well as having average knowledge in this field. My contention will not deal with specifics but energy in general, in addition to refuting my opponent's arguments and proposing an alternate resolution. Take note: I am trying to post a picture,forgive me as I am new, if the picture did not show up or it turns into zombie text instead. . http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; src=\". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/4/3520/141496-3520-nfg75-a. jpg\" alt=\"Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com...; />Source:. http://technologygreenenergy.blogspot.com... Renewable energy supplies the world around 7% on average, This includes all renewable resources but with only solar and wind, the figure will be significantly less. With a ratio of 1:10, to convert to a complete consumption of renewable resources is inadvisable, especially in its current state. The reasons are outlined below. I propose the following. .. Co-Generation as an alternative(1) Instead of replacing, which is what Pro is trying to advocate, it is better to consider Co-generation rather than hunting down thermal power plants. Thermal power plants are governed by the law of thermodynamics, such plants produces enormous heat as waste products. The implementation of Co-generation in thermal plants is used to deal with the excess heat and convert it into energy. With Co-generation, the energy efficiency can be increased to a further 80% as a result instead of the flimsy 33% as what was offered by Pro With energy doubling, it is very easy to meet current energy demands. For us to meet the current energy demand is very important as our lives are highly dependant on electricity. What we use everyday, from cars to dish washers, require electricity. Since the priority of human being is to survive at the expense of other species, We have no choice but to use thermal power plants regardless of the issue of global warming The International Energy Agency, acknowledged co-generation as a viable alternative. \" One technology by itself will not bring about the dramatic changes that are needed to resolutely reform the energy system. Co-generation and renewable, both low-carbon solutions, will be part of the SOLUTION. \"(2) Its nice to see your originality pro, but IEA's proposed alternative is very powerful. We have to be realistic in order to change our world The Current Crisis of Renewable energy The adoption of such 'green' technology have garnered lots of negative feedback. Wind turbines are said to produce noise pollution that will likely cause health problems(3). Migraines will start kicking in at the sound of these dreadful turbines(3). Forests are destroyed for the sake of these giant unearthly machines. Over 3,500 acres to be exact(4) while it manages to power 140,000 homes(5) only, out of 5 billion inhabitants on this planet. Moreover, It produces only 7% of the world's energy. Though renewable, its harms weigh more than its benefits. The energy output is not worth it. Who is to justify the millions of species extinct in the blink of an eye? We\u2019ve only scratched 14% of earth's species (6). There's bound to be some extinction when you cut over 3,500 acres. I have no contentions with green energy, but at its current rate, it is disastrously inefficient and too risky. For the sake of fairness as Pro could not refute my contention since he went first, I will hold my rebuttals and additional arguments until the next round. Thank You Sources (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://www.iea.org... Pg 8 (3). http://www.naturalnews.com... (4). http://www.slate.com... (5). http://www.nytimes.com... (6). http://news.nationalgeographic.com...", "qid": 13, "docid": "63114415-2019-04-18T16:31:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.715125322341919}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. As the pro side, I define nuclear power as power generated as a result of nuclear fission and fossil fuels as coal, natural gas, and oil. The job of my opponent is to provide a suitable alternative that is more viable than nuclear in substituting fossil fuels. My first argument is nuclear power's ease of location. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere on land (and possibly sea) which could provide power for more desolate places or places which have temperature extremes. While the sun may be shining for the day, there are many places where solar panels are not cost effective. Geothermal energy is self explanatory as it can only be done where there is sufficient warmth in the ground. Wind energy has to be put in rather desolate places that have seasonal temperatures as the cost of maintaining wind farms in a blizzard is tremendous. Hydro has to be near water and cannot be inland without rivers. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere and the energy can be generated at a rather low cost which will later tie into my second point. Nuclear power can be in all temperatures and can be provided to every place in the world. Even coal, oil and natural gas have to be reasonably to a mine or well or the transportation cost would be too high. As shown in the following website, the cost of uranium needed for nuclear does not really affect the price. Logically following, the location of the uranium that it uses does not have to close to the plant. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "qid": 13, "docid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.714950680732727}, {"content": "Title: Wind Farms should not be removed from Australia Content: \"Fossil fuels are already used commonly so using it to make a better environment for the future would be better than sticking with fossil fuels,\"- SquidKing Do wind turbines reduce the amount of carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere? Of course not. If you use the oil or other fossil fuels to make something it still will effect the environment. Having a massive tall structure made out of plastic stuck into the ground you will still effect the environment.I would also like to point out that thousands of dollars cannot be spent. We have billions of dollars at debt and money doesn't grow on trees so we cannot just spend \"thousands of dollars\". Also where did I say \"sticking with fossil fuels\". I never did ! In fact I propose a better plan which leads me to my argument. Instead of using wind turbines as a source of energy we can further harness our great Australian sun. Solar panels are made out of silicon, a much more environmentally friendly material. If we put a solar panels on most houses we would provide a lot more power and the extra power it generates can be sent back to the grid.", "qid": 13, "docid": "40e61a27-2019-04-18T14:35:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7137641310691833}, {"content": "Title: the government should mandate that all vehicals be powered by an alternativr fule souce by 2040 Content: On behalf of the members of this site, I should like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for addressing this important issue. Unfortunately, my opponent was not explicit as to the nature of his objections so I have, therefore, been obliged to conclude that he either believes that alternative fuels are not associated with glamorous, high-performance cars or, otherwise, that he is an oil tycoon and consequently has a vested interest in putting profits before pollution. Now, please don't be deceived into believing that that alternatively-powered cars have too be small, slow and as dull as ditchwater. Here's what's available on the market right now: The Tesla Roadster is powered by an electric motor: http://www.teslamotors.com... The Venturi Fetish is hybrid-powered http://www.hybridcars.com... All Saabs are available with biofuel engines http://www.topgear.com... The Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen http://automobiles.honda.com... And here's what's coming soon: The Audi R8 V12 Le Mans is powered by a V12 diesel engine http://www.audi.co.uk... The Saab Aero X Concept is powered by a V6 biofuel engine http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... The RUF Porsche 911 is powered by an electric motor http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de... Glamorous enough for you? And who knows what else will be available by 2040? If my opponent agrees that green cars can be desirable, and it is rather the case that he makes a living by prospecting and drilling for oil, and stands to lose out financially if alternative fuels are mandated by the United States Government, I have little sympathy for him - the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one and just as steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, the switch to alternative fuels is inevitable and I advise my opponent to adjust his investment plans accordingly. Thank you.", "qid": 13, "docid": "7f65d0b8-2019-04-18T19:33:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7135589122772217}, {"content": "Title: The United States should fund alternative energy research Content: Alternative energy research is the future of America. Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers. This debate should not be restricted to alternative fuels, but also include alternative energies to power the country.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7132790684700012}, {"content": "Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: Okay, first, I will start off by stating my arguments, and introduce my topic. I believe renewable energy is the ideal source of energy for the future for many reasons 1. Renewable energy will never run out As fossil fuels do run out, as they are non-renewable, renewable energy will not. They come in natural forms such as sun and wind which are things that will never run out. 2. Fossil fuels pollute earth and melt polar ice caps As shown in numerous studies, the use of fossil fuels has melted the polar caps greatly and have raised ocean levels several inches. 3. Easy to get As for fossil fuels, you have to go drilling deep down into earth, for renewable energy, it's as simple as getting sunlight.", "qid": 13, "docid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7131240367889404}, {"content": "Title: Biofuels Content: Biofuels are now an economic alternative to fossil fuels and with advances in technology and the sca...", "qid": 13, "docid": "e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7124830484390259}, {"content": "Title: Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout... Content: Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.", "qid": 13, "docid": "ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7122347950935364}, {"content": "Title: We should invest in alternative sources of energy Content: There are many alternative sources of energy available, and I believe that those that are both renewable and non-toxic would help the environment best. Such sources are solar energy, hydropower, and wind energy. Alone, these kinds of power have seemed to be less-than-needed by the large population, but when put together could have a tremendous positive effect on the economy and the overall homeostasis of Earth. Solar energy is energy gathered from the wavelengths of light produced from the sun, which can be captured with solar panels that contain light-capturing cells. Instead of wasting some of this energy powering huge electrical appliances, it could be kept in it's primitive form to heat houses, water, and small hand-held devices such as calculators, watches, etc. It can also be converted into electricity through various machines. If the United States were to further invest in Solar Power, the citizens themselves would be able to spend less money on house electricity and thus result in more money to the Federal Government, which could be used for multiple things to better our situation with other countries, such as China, to which we owe enormous debt, and as the National Debt decreases, the value of American currency will increase and we will slowly but surely achieve a better political and economic condition. Hydropower and Wind energy are could be used to move rotors or wheels, and the resulting movement would create electricity. These, if used correctly, would greatly decrease the amount of money we use to buy foreign oils and the National Debt would decrease further and the previous results would occur in a quicker time. :)", "qid": 13, "docid": "2aa5711e-2019-04-18T19:33:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7116844654083252}, {"content": "Title: moutain top removal Content: Your point is a valid one my friend. Unfortunately your idealism gets in the way of practicality. America, as it is, is currently going through an energy crisis. Our dependence on foreign oil has negatively affected both our foreign policy and our economy. We must break free of the vice that the middle east has put us in! To do so, we must find our energy hear, in America. There are several plausible and practical solutions. They range from drilling in ANWR to providing more subsidies for alternative fuels. Within that spectrum there are many other options. Coal is a good one. Clean coal technology is making coal much more environmentally friendly. Yes, I know it is a fossil fuel, but until alternative energy becomes more effective, it is a legitimate way to break free of oil in the short term. And the most effective way to get coal is mountain top removal. If we limit the number of mountains it can be done on, this will not ruin the beauty of the region. I agree, it is a sacrifice, but things like this occasionally have to be done if only to provide people with energy.", "qid": 13, "docid": "d7bf3b30-2019-04-18T20:00:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7114402651786804}, {"content": "Title: Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels. Content: If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.", "qid": 13, "docid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7112870216369629}, {"content": "Title: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ... Content: It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. For the reasons explained above (diminishing supply, environmental damage) we can rule fossil fuels out immediately. We also see enormous problems with every form of alternative energy. The most efficient source of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. However, this usually creates more problems than it solves. Building a large dam necessarily floods an enormous region behind the dam which in turn can displace tens of thousands of people. There are also enormous ecological costs to dam building. A classical example is the Aswan dam in Egypt along the Nile. Not only did many thousands lose their homes but the yearly inundation of the Nile, which fertilised the surrounding land for thousands of year, was also stopped. The subsequent silting up of the river destroyed much wildlife. A similar story of ecological destruction and human homelessness surrounded the more recent Three Gorges dam project in China. Solar energy has never lived up to expectations since it is hugely inefficient. A solar panel the size of Europe would be needed to power a city the size of London! Wind energy is only marginally better with an unsightly wind farm the size of Texas needed to provide the energy for Texas alone. The worst performers of all have been geothermal and tidal energy which have been hopelessly inefficient because no rocks have been found that are hot enough and no waves have been found that are strong enough! The great irony is that not only are most renewable sources inefficient but many are also ecologically unsound! The opposition to the building wind farms in certain areas has been just as strong as the opposition to nuclear power because wind farms destroy the scenery, being so unsightly and large, and may also be bad for wildlife.", "qid": 13, "docid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7112563848495483}, {"content": "Title: The Green New Deal is Ridiculous. Content: First off, Thank you for accepting! Now, Into the arguments. First, You said that fossil fuel will eventually run out. Well, So will a lot of things. The sun will allegedly burn out one day, But that doesn't stop us from using it's energy. We have almost unlimited access to fossil fuels, And we are in no danger of running out anytime soon. Next, You said that the Green New Deal is necessary to solve the \"problem. \" But, If you look at the plan, They want to eliminate all fossil fuel in just a dozen or so years! Andrea Ocasio Cortez has mentioned getting rid of air travel because of their \"effect on the earth. \" This idea simply could not be put into action. We do not yet have a reliable method of storing mass amounts of solar energy, And that's something we're going to need if this plan is to go forward. While I acknowledge that the science of solar energy may prove promising in the distant future, It simply is not sufficient right now. Wind power is practically useless on the large scale, And water power cannot be harnessed on a mass level. There is no way we can get enough energy to power the entire US in just a dozen years. Next, You said that there are no good other options besides the Green New Deal. This is because this is not (at least right now) a truly pressing problem. Until there is a verifiable danger of energy running out, Another option is not necessary. Lastly, The Green New Deal isn't trying to accomplish this just to save energy because we're \"running out. \" It's because they claim we will all be dead in a dozen years because of \"global warming\" and the \"harmful effect of fossil fuels on our planet. \" So, What I'm saying is, You're going to need to prove that either there is a true threat of running out of fossil fuels soon, Or that we will not survive if a solution is not found soon. P. S. - The burden of proof is not solely on you. Unlike the guy who calls himself \"killshot, \" I believe that the burden of proof is on BOTH sides. Don't ever let someone tell you that the burden of proof is solely on you. That's just unethical debate style if someone tells you that. Once again, Thank you for accepting, And back to you!", "qid": 13, "docid": "74a77292-2019-04-18T11:10:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7109439969062805}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Energy Content: While I am all for alternatives to fossil fuels i have to say that nuclear energy is my least favorite. I may not produce any green house gasses it still is dangerous to dispose of it could kill many living thing the way that the careless scientest dispose of it. Not to mention the fact that it could create acid rain, and kill trees, fish, animals of all kinds, and human beings.", "qid": 13, "docid": "b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7106705904006958}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: No. Yes, the market will take care of it. Currently, non-renewable sources, especially natural gas, is the cheapest form of energy according to the EPA (http://www.eia.gov...), and that won't change in the near future. Some renewable sources will catch up, but the majority will still be more expensive than non-renewable sources. Also if you take a look at the mill/kWh of different energy sources from 2002-2012 (http://www.eia.gov...), you can see that natural gas even declined in price over thise period, whereas all other mentioned resources, renewable and non-renewable, increased by up to 80%. Secondly, if the government should intervene, my question to you is how. Monetary, or by introducing new legislature? I'd like to remind you that if you want the government to assist renewable energy sources monetarily, the money has to come from somewhere; either from new taxes or cut away from other budget items (where I'd prefer the lesser option, gov is big enough already). Thirdly, you don't provide any sources for your claims. Therefore I have some questions regarding your very vague arguments: 1) \"companies say they can make alternative biodiesel fuels for a dollar a gallon\" -> where does this number come from? What does it include (only investment, or also operating / maintenance cost, or only variable costs)? 2) \"alternative energy companies often must put operations on hold. why? because there's no demand\" -> Well, according to the EPA the demand for renewable sources is rising and will continue to rise, whereas e.g. coal is projected to decline (http://www.eia.gov...). Again, I ask you to elaborate on your claim and show me your sources for that. Your argument that there's \"no\" demand is invalid. 3) \"say a new biodiesel machine at a gas station costs fifty thousand\" -> This is just the investment. You purely ignore the O&M costs. I could continue demading more sources, but altogether your arguments can't be judged as highly valueable if you only provide things you may know or may have heard/read somewhere without any source to prove your credibility. Fourth, let me remind you that Tesla's foudner, Elon Musk, recently released the patents of Tesla cars and thereby made the technology open source (http://www.teslamotors.com...). This can be an incentive for car companies to create their own electric cars, as they don't have to do the R&D anymore (which can reach hundreds of millions of dollars). In the following costs per car can decrease as the large manufacturers can produce the cars faster and have more experience in assembling them (whereas Tesla's USP was the technology and R&D). Thereby electric cars can get cheaper, meaning more people will buy them. Following that, the demand for electricity will rise whereas the demand for fossil fuels will fall. Whether the electricity comes from renewable or non-renewable sources is another question, but according to various sources (e.g. http://www.acore.org...), wind power will increase heavily, as well as solar power, geothermal, TPD and others. Last but not least: rather than allowing the government to intervene to increase renewable energy sources, the government should, and is already, stop to prefer non-renewable sources like oil. The DoD for example already plans to lower its reliance on oil and increase renewable energy consumption (http://energy.defense.gov...).", "qid": 13, "docid": "57476c56-2019-04-18T16:05:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.710347056388855}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear power will help lower oil dependencies and risks. Content: Nuclear energy is one of the most viable alternatives to oil, particularly because it is capable of supplying such massive amounts of energy. According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors (that convert Uranium into other nuclear fuels while generating energy) have the potential to generate energy for billions of years, thus they make nuclear energy sustainable while lowering our dependency on oil, thus increasing our energy security.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00151-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7102841138839722}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power Content: The primary intention of my argument, will be to convince the reader that nuclear energy is becoming obsolete. I hope to put nuclear energy in the same category as fossil fuels, and perhaps show that nuclear energies carbon footprint actually has more impact on the environment than oil, coal, and all other fossil fuels. I believe that nuclear energy represents an old standard of large, company owned energy when society is on the cusp of technological advances that will help promote individually owned energy. While energy saving batteries and solar panels become more advanced and cheaper as time moves forward, nuclear energy, and all energy companies may find it increasingly difficult to compete, and will struggle to justify their existence. If we owned the means of our own energy production, then the risks involved with nuclear energy would become unnecessary. Out of all forms of terrorism, nuclear terrorism is on the highest rung of terror. One could argue that steps could be taken to lessen the risk of a terrorist attack on a nulclear plant, but that would raise the price of nuclear energy, and there's never a garuantee. Unfortunately, terrorism is more technologically advanced too. Cyber terrorism can potentially penatrate the safeguards of a nuclear power plant, and destroy lives. The only true garuantee against such a nightmarish scenario would be to abandon nuclear energy, and embrace renewables, embrace the future. Any government investment in a renewable energy based infrastructure could potentially be paid back to the taxpayers in the form of savings on energy costs. Investments in nuclear power would come from the consumers, and may not have the same energy saving bennefit. I will show you that money used to \"update\" nuclear power plants doesn't fall solely on the consumers, but on taxpayers as well. In my oppinion, goverment investment in nulclear energy is nothing more than a bailout, whereas a government investment in renewables, is an investment for the future of energy. *Nulclear is becoming obsolete* The Tesla power wall and other products like it are becoming more of a mainstream option for home energy consumers. More and more renewables are being looked at as a viable option for homeowners and renters. Less and less are renewables being thought of as solely an environmentally conscious decision by the wealthy. Renewables are becoming more efficient and less expensive, and there's no evidence that trend will plateau anytime soon. True, waste annihilating molten salt reactors (wamsr) are a technological advancement for the nuclear industry, but they are not inducive toward individually owned energy. WAMSRs also don't represent a cheaper trending source of energy. Actually, the cost of nuclear energy may go up initially because of the cost of converting old reactors into newer WAMSRs. As time goes on renewables are becoming more of a mainstream option for energy consumers. . http://theconversation.com... *Nulclear is not clean energy* High grade uranium is a finite recourse, so nuclear energy is automatically barred from being considered a renewable energy. Nuclear reactors need uranium to function. The uranium minning process is an environmental nightmare. Just like coal minning, uranium minning leaves toxic remnants but the remnants of uranium minning are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. And of course, just like coal minning, uranium minning needs large heavy machinery to move and process, and then needs to be shipped to the plants. All this moving and processing needs fossil burning fueled truck and machinery. Then there is the spent nuclear rods, and other nuclear waste that has to be isolated for hundreds of thousands of years. WAMSRs can help with using up much of the nuclear waste, but does nothing to lessen the environmentally disruptive minning process, and won't be able to use up all the nuclear waste. When you consider the environmental litigation, the storing of used material, the energy needed to convert nuclear power into energy, (it takes energy for nuclear conversion) then nuclear energy is very inefficient. In my humble opinion along with many in the science community, nuclear energy is the WORST polluter of all energy sources. Most scientists believe, if we stop using fossil fuels today the effects on the environment would begin to reverse in as little as a decade. If we stop using nuclear power today, we will have to deal with the environmental effects for hundreds of thousands of years to come. Don't believe the hype, nuclear energy isn't clean! . http://www.beyondnuclear.org... . http://www.psr.org... . https://www.theguardian.com... *Nulclear power plants are susceptible to terrorism* . http://www.cbsnews.com... The fact of the matter is, terrorists don't need old fashioned brute force and guns to gain control of a nuclear power plant. Cyber terrorism is the new technological weapon in the arsenal, and there's far less calorie burning required, much to the chagrin of the lazy terrorist. A skilled computer tech, or a team of techs could potentially infiltrate a nuclear power plant and shut it down, release radioactive material into the air, or even cause a meltdown. But for the nostalgic terrorist, guns and brut force still is an option. *Nuclear power relies on goverment bailouts* The nuclear industry has needed government assistance to help save them from bankruptcy. They also need government assistance for environmental litigation and high insurance costs. . http://www.psr.org.... The taxpayers money needed to help the nuclear industry qstay afloat may never be reimbursed to the taxpayers, and there's no assurance that the nuclear industry will stop needing assistance for the foreseeable future because of old outdated and crumbling nuclear plants. . http://www.psr.org... I would like to thank my opponent for letting me debate him on this matter. I look forward to some thought provoking argument.", "qid": 13, "docid": "f074f877-2019-04-18T12:16:57Z-00008-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7097873687744141}, {"content": "Title: I'm a Utopian idealist - prove me wrong! Content: I feel that the points he raises are well-reasoned, but are based on an insufficiently detailed understanding of my case. In this post, I will point out what he overlooked. I apologise if my use of the phrase \"apparent scarcity of oil\" led readers to think I meant oil is not running out. I do accept that oil is running out. I deny that this is problematic. Oil is good for two things: energy and plastics. Non-oil sources of energy are so vast that to call them \"abundant\" would be like calling Pol Pot \"eccentric\". Even if all we has was solar panels, converting just 0.02% of the sunlight that falls on our planet to electricity would more than meet our needs for the foreseeable future. Nuclear fusion (which was successfully done last month) can liberate as much energy from a litre of seawater as 300 liters of oil. (That is to say, our oceans contain 10^31 joules of nuclear fuel. ) Factor in space-based solar, wind energy, geothermal, wave energy, microbial fuel cells, nuclear fission etc. and we have a staggering abundance of energy. As for plastics, I challenge my opponent to name a single case where oil-based plastics are used where an alternative material cannot satisfactorily replace them. We are running out of oil. But that's ok, because humans are ingenious and can apply know-how to overcome such scarcity. Even if oil were irreplaceable (which I have shown it is not), scientists expect that we will soon be able to grow oil with bioengineered bacteria, and much progress has already been made in this direction My esteemed opponent has claimed that only 0.65% of water is \"easy of access\". This is a matter of opinion; it depends on what one means by \"easy\". I consider all the water in the air around us, all the greywater in our buildings, all the water in our lakes and rivers and all the water in the sea to be \"easy\" to purify. I make this claim based on the fact that the most required is some carbon nanotube filters (made of carbon, using helium - both extremely abundant elements) and some ultraviolet LEDs - a very cheap, abundant technology. Humanity's water resources and the technologies for harvesting water are analyzed in much greater detail at adciv. org/Water. You will find that nothing is needed that is not in fantastic abundance on Earth. My opponent believes that desalination requires \"considerable amounts of energy, time, and money\". Desalination was once energy-intensive - true. (Though if you think we lack energy, you ain't paying attention! ) But emerging technologies are changing this, specifically nanofiltration and microbial desalination. Nanofiltration slashes energy needs by a factor of four compared to the old membrane technologies, and microbial desalination actually generates electricity while desalinating. The claim that we can't desalinate water because we lack the time to do so doesn't merit refutation. As for money - money is not needed to desalinate water (nor to do anything else for that matter). Take seawater. Pass it through a nanotube filter. There, you desalinated it! The laws of physics (by which our technology functions) do not have meters on them. The laws of physics do not send us bills when we use them. They do not charge by the hour. Money is required by one thing and one thing only: the monetary system. An alternative to the monetary system is proposed in my first post; it is the free sharing of know-how and the local application of that know-how. My opponent has claimed that an insurmountable problem with minerals is that they are unprocessed. I don't know what to say to this, except that it is a problem that was solved by the advent of the Bronze Age. Mining and smelting are now extremely well-developed technologies that we know a lot about. We have invented plenty of machines that do most of it for us. Mining and smelting (along with every other aspect of our infrastructure) are becoming more and more automated with each passing year. Extrapolating this trend, we will arrive at full automation. (A general point about my thesis is worth repeating: it considers a world on the horizon in the next several decades. Some of the technologies I discuss are as yet in the prototype phase or are otherwise not fully mature. They are all very near though, and all considered entirely possible or inevitable by researchers. ) A weak point of our current automation is maintenance and repair. But scatter sensors throughout a machine to detect problems, have other machines ('repair bots') that can replace faulty parts, and build machines from smart, self-healing materials and there is no need for maintenance by humans. I do not claim that this has already happened; I claim that it is now possible with current technology and I expect it will be done soon. See adciv. org/Advanced_automation/Self-maintenance_and_repair for more details. (Besides, even if infrastructure is not 100% automatic, if it becomes ninety-something percent automatic, that is enough to create a leisure society. And this has almost happened already, with logistics, loading and unloading ships and other aspects of infrastructure now automated, saving enormous amounts of human labour. The main obstacle to the leisure society is the monetary system, which as I've said, can be bypassed if open culture generates abundance. ) My opponent claims that \"the changes proposed by the theory requires large amounts of investments\". Let's be specific: The \"changes\" my thesis requires are some successful open-source projects, ones that will create free education, free healthcare, free fabrication etc. If my opponent was referring to some other \"changes\", I would ask him to be specify what changes he means. At the risk of stating the obvious, open-source projects require very little money compared to private or public projects. In fact, they are often one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than equivalent private or public projects. This is because people work on them for free. Wikipedia has accrued over 100 million man-hours of labour for free. Linux is a world-class operating system (often considered better than Mac or Windows) put together by free labour. Open-source bypasses the monetary system, so money can be cut out of the loop in many areas. However, as of 2010, money cannot be completely cut out. It is true that open-source projects do need some money to manage. (I have managed some myself. ) This is because the monetary system is currently so dominant and so ubiquitous that one cannot avoid dealing with it. But the money is always forthcoming when the projects are worthy. The Wikimedia Foundation raised $8 million dollars in 2 months last year, surpassing its targets. OpenPCR raised 202% of its target. Diaspora raised 2006% of its target. (And all this happened in the middle of the most acute financial shortage in living memory! ) The investments are forthcoming and that is the fact of the matter. I challenge my opponent to name a single open-source project scuppered by lack of funds. My opponent was worried about population growth. Population just means having a lot of people around. I think having a lot of people around is a good thing. I find people to be hilarious and sexy. I think the problem you have in mind is not a surfeit of people per se, but rather a lack of resources relative to those people. Correct? If so, what resource is lacking? Minerals are not lacking; our planet is made of them. Water is not lacking; the surface of our planet is covered in it. Food (and land to grow it) is not lacking; we have enough farmland to grow food for 80 billion people (and enough plant nutrients to grow for hundreds of billions more with controlled-environment growing). See adciv. org/Food for a more detailed analysis of the amount of food that can be grown on this planet.", "qid": 13, "docid": "fa854329-2019-04-18T19:02:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7095609903335571}, {"content": "Title: Deep water oil drilling, Kimo vs. Pono Content: Part of the issue? Global warming patterns are more directly correlated to the sun patterns than with CO2 emissions. \"So what Beginner seems to be saying is he drives a gas guzzling vehicle and could give a damn if he kills innocent life forms.\" My opponent seems to think that gas is ONLY used in vehicles. The oil extracted is a very precious and much needed commodity. Oil runs everything. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the car you drive, the housewares...all the items in this link: http://www.anwr.org... and much more. Almost everything requires oil. The world is now in a state that it cannot run without oil. By giving up oil, you are agreeing that we should give up the production of nearly everything in the world. We should stop producing housing, ventilation, commodities (such as clothing, toothbrush), etc. You are saying we should give up running water (because the engines running such pumps are, guess what? OIL-facilitated) and nearly all common necessities you probably don't even think about. By denouncing nuclear energy, my opponent has also agreed to alternative forms of energy. Since we do not have anything close to a sufficient amount of supplies (economically and literally) to produce enough 'clean' alternative energy, we would be relying on the burning of fossil fuels (the old method) which is much more accessible/practical to mass produce. The irony is that we use nuclear energy because its proponents want cleaner energy. They are against using oil/burning fossil fuels so they support using nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is very clean and does not harm the environment when contained. If my opponent is against oil-energy, than the only other practical option is nuclear and vice versa. Other options such as wind and solar are expensive and hard-to-make products. The production of such clean energy alternatives will not cover our energy consumption rate. We consume millions of barrels per day even with nuclear energy: http://www.accuval.net...", "qid": 13, "docid": "8bd07da7-2019-04-18T18:07:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7093547582626343}, {"content": "Title: Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels) Content: I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.", "qid": 13, "docid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7092087268829346}, {"content": "Title: The Republican Party Content: You admitted that climate change exists. But you said that it's largely natural, which is false. I'm not sure what you mean when you state that \"something needs to exist in order to be natural,\" but I can say with absolute certainty that climate change is not natural. It is a real phenomenon, brought about by our burning coal. I am not saying that we need to stop using electricity and water. I never said that. you're using Straw Man. We do not need to stop using electricity and water to stop burning fossil fuels. We simply need to install more wind turbines and solar panels. And we shouldn't produce those wind turbines and solar panels by burning fossil fuels. That would be counterproductive. Solar panels and wind turbines, if installed all over, could absolutely produce sufficient energy. Putting wind turbines and solar panels into developing countries would actually be great for a developing country. One thing a developing country shouldn't have to deal with is pollution. The Earth is not going to become an infinitesimal amount warmer. It's going to be so warm that it will melt all the Polar ice caps and flood most major coastal cities. Here's a map of the United States once all the ice melts: https://i.ytimg.com... And here's some articles about solar panels and wind turbines. Both of them are efficient and helpful. They release no CO2 and can power homes well. https://www.livescience.com... https://www.energy.gov... My SkepticalScience link is incredibly relevant, as it does mention both Lewis and Curry- and says that climate change is very reasonable. My AndThenTheresPhysics link does say that the paper is somewhat PLAUSIBLE, but also says that Lewis and Curry manipulated data to better prove their hypothesis like the shameless frauds that they are. Their paper is only one among thousands which say otherwise, sir. They made their paper for a reason. It has one diabolical purpose. That purpose is to lie. There is a big consensus, but it is by no means magical. There is real math, and real science. And that science and that math all leads to one undeniable conclusion: that our burning of fossil fuels could spell the end of civilization as we know it. We do need real solutions. One real solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and use alternative energy instead. Do you know why we don't use alternate energy, sir? It's because the oil and fossil fuel industry is run by Republicans, big Corporate execs who would let their planet die for a quick buck. I'll tell you what real science is not, Sir. Real science isn't a denial of real science. Real science cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Real science is not used to prove a hypothesis, but to prove or disprove it. We do not need to stop everything. We simply need to recycle more and stop digging up dinosaur remains. That Graphene Sieve you mentioned does sound nifty. We should also stop burning fossil fuels. That helps too. You don't know what The Little Ice Age is. The Little Ice Age, sir, is not a true ice age. It was just a cold spell. And the Medieval Warm Period, the period right before it, was warm- but not as warm as it is now, sir. The Earth is at an unprecedented point of warmth. Things are going to be heating up quite a bit from now on- and all because people like you never stopped to listen. We have everything to do with it. Before us, there was no species that burned coal. The climate began to change when WE began to change. You, sir, are ignorant. If poor people live in a violent area, they should move. That's my solution, sir, in a Republican-controlled economy. My ideal situation would be for a gun ban, and I'd like it if the slums were spruced up a little, with Republican taxpayer money, so that black and lower income families wouldn't need to live in fear of being mauled by gunmen at every second of their lives. But, in a Republican controlled economy, where guns are bought and sold freely, with no rules or restrictions placed upon them- well, I hope that every non-criminal family in the slums finds a better place to live. They probably won't be able to, you're right. I just hope they do. I care about people, you know? The rich can be taxed enough to improve the sums, but they won't, because rich people want to keep their money. Such is the bizarre, counter-intuitive nature of Capitalism. I think making nicer neighborhoods would help the poor. You wouldn't have to gentrify anything. All it would take is a better, more just police force, some rules on guns, and a few trees. If a family doesn't constantly have to worry for their lives, they might be able to concentrate on getting a job. Gentrification is a choice, sir. You can make a neighborhood more livable without gentrifying it. I'm glad that Thomas Jefferson didn't say that. If he had, I would have lost some respect for him. Guns are machines designed for killing. Think about what a better place the world would be without them. We're not savages anymore, sir. Have you no civility? There's a reason mass shootings happen in gun free zones. They happen in gun free zones because that particular region isn't free enough of guns. They can still be traded around, on the black market. Think about Colorado, home of the Columbine massacre and the Aurora Theater shooting. It might be a region that's opposed to guns, but they're not illegal. No state has yet made guns illegal. Once a state makes guns illegal, we'll see a big decrease in shootings. Guns are for killing. They are not for defense. You reduce the amount of killing machines sold, less people are killed. It's as simple as that. https://en.wikipedia.org... You don't decrease the amount of people dead by increasing the amount of killing machines. That's not how it works, sir. people in schools might get shot, but they'll have gone out not as ferocious cowards, but as symbols of the atrocious nature of guns- and every shooting will make Congress change its mind just a bit more, until the killing machines are banned in every single state. Crime will go down. I'd rather keep a criminal alive. I'm not sure why. I think that prison is bad enough. They don't need to get shot at by insane redneck vigilantes. The wealthy do gain from dead poor people. Dead poor people don't buy products, but they don't provide any competition for rich people. They don't ask for any charity. Rich people wouldn't have to worry if all poor people were dead. that why you give them guns. You know. Like handing booze out to native Americans. They can kill themselves- and you'll be guilt free. The police can stop and frisk. Metal detectors only take a few seconds. Let's say that the criminal isn't even concealing it, because gun laws are so easy. On the other hand, though, they're pretty hard to conceal. But police need to do a better job of searching places for guns. In places where gun laws are easier, criminals can get their guns easily. Also, police can keep records of past offenders, keep a close eye on all gun owners- there are lots of things they can do to save lives. They can also infiltrate the black market. You make the Black Market sound as if it's a supermarket. Police can easily figure out if anybody is buying anything from a black market. this isn't the days of Al Capone anymore. Forensic Science has gotten better and better, almost perfect- and if it isn't, and people can still easily access the Black Market like you say, then we just need to improve forensic science a little more. It's as easy as that. Australia is acting like a safe, sane government when they ban killing machines. If the Government gets rid of all their weapons, they won't be giving criminals free reign. remember what I said? there are no guns in my hypothetical situation. I know it might be a hard concept to wrap your puny little mind around, but let's just say that all trade on guns is shut off, and we blow the things into space, where they can never be accessed again, and police can use bows and arrows and other, less dangerous weapons to stop crime. Things will be much, much safer. Wikipedia is a reliable source. try and vandalize it, and see how quickly your vandalism gets taken down. But you have your doubts- so here's some more articles about Reaganomics. it had nothing to do with Jimmy carter. Reagan made bad choices on his own. https://mises.org... https://www.thebalance.com... Everything I have pointed out indicates that abortions are a good idea for poor families. You simply won't listen. Life does not begin at conception. Life begins at roughly the fifth month. Before that, the thing inside the mother's womb is a lump of cellular matter. All science supports this. I have never heard of science that says a sperm cell and an egg cell have the \"right to live\". I've asked you about this \"right to live,\" several times over the course of this debate, and now I can finally see where it comes from. You made a very weak move, sir. very weak indeed. I didn't know this was a religious debate. Instead of relying on facts, or statistics, or real, undeniable science, what do you rely on? Belief, Religion, plain and simple, and quotes from a 2,000 year old book that was written before abortion existed. I'm a Catholic, sir, but a tolerant one, and if a woman isn't a Catholic, or if she doesn't follow the Bible word for word, and if she has trust in her doctors and her own sense of judgment- well, then she can do whatever the Hell she pleases with her uterus. That's not up for you to decide. it never will be. You don't get to decide what life is- especially not by looking at archaic Gospels and declaring them the truth. If you follow nothing but Religion, then you have no mind. I'll send you part 2 soon. Voters, vote wisely. I'm outta here.", "qid": 13, "docid": "16e0d660-2019-04-18T11:30:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7082358598709106}, {"content": "Title: America should not become more dependent on oil Content: History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient. Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don\u2019t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.", "qid": 13, "docid": "d258aeb1-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7081354856491089}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: For it to be the case that the government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels, if must first be the case that transitioning to alternative fuels is a good thing, which my opponent implied is true, but without giving any logical argument or sources to support the case. My opponent must first prove that alternative energies gives an economic advantage and/or environmental advantage, and if it has one at the cost of the other, my opponent must prove that the advantage of one outweighs the disadvantage of the other. Once my opponent makes that case, then we can discuss whether or not it is worth government intervention to help reach the goal of transitioning to alternative fuels. But until then, it doesn't make sense that government should intervene in something that is not proven to be a beneficial cause in the first place.", "qid": 13, "docid": "57476c75-2019-04-18T16:05:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7080138921737671}, {"content": "Title: Choose a Resolution Debate Content: I'm just going to post what was my previous argument, since I still have it saved and apologize once again, for marring the debate. Please assess and dock me for this in the voting. I would like to also point out, for the benefit of those voting, that I did indeed concede with my opponents first two points, in the previous round. 1.) Nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch. I apologize for any ambiguity. The resolution, as stated, is \": Nuclear power plants should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. (I'm PRO)\". My opponent is attempting to prove that nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. I am simply trying to prove that nuclear power should not replace it. When saying that nuclear power will replace coal as a crutch, I am pointing out that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal for the fact that, though it is safer and more environmentally friendly, as my opponent pointed out, it does not fix the bigger problem that we as a nation face. That problem being that our entire outlook on energy usage is flawed. We need a new approach, one that does not rely on a non-renewable energy source, and one that isn't short term. \"Without further support in showing that coal is superior to show that coal is superior to nuclear, this argument is refuted by itself.\" Just to clarify again, I am not stating that coal is superior. I fully agree that nuclear power, in most senses, is far superior to coal power. But the resolution does not ask me to prove that coal power is superior nuclear power. It merely asks me to prove that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal power in the home. (I didn't do the semantic argument thing did I? If so, I apologize, and ask that I be docked during the voting period by those voting). 2. Nuclear waste My opponent states he expects that scientists would become more innovative with their ideas for nuclear storage. This is valid assumption. But the problem still persists because all you can do with nuclear waste is store it. That's it. And eventually, with the amount of energy that the United States uses, we would run out of space. My opponent has to concede that point. No matter how crafty, how innovative we get, logic simply says that we will run out of space. \"Finally, my opponent brings up solar as an alternate to both nuclear and coal. However, this debate is about whether nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity, not about solar.\" Completely right. I was bringing up solar power to give my opponent a better idea of the outlook we should have on energy usage. We need to utilize a PURELY renewable source, and back out of the faulty energy processes we're using today. I wanted my opponent just to get an idea of a better way. He also said that the pressing need for storing nuclear waste would lead to more jobs, etc. So would the need to commercialize solar energy. In fact, more so, since there are so many more components and needs for expansion inside of the field. Just to wrap up, I feel as if I have marred this debate a little because I'm a noob. To make my opponents last round a bit easier, I'll try and attempt to use a quick little template I've seen on other debates, and ask that he refute my points above ^ and use the set up to get an idea of my thought process and contentions, in order to fix the debate a little. Resolved: Nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. 1. Nuclear Power is another quick fix solution with the some of the same flaws as coal power. - It relies on a non-renewable energy source that will eventually run out. - It loses a lot of energy through the already flawed, multi-stepped energy generation process. - It's too shortsighted, and would only be beneficial until we ran out of materials. 2.) Nuclear Power's on unique flaws prevent it from being readily identified as the standing energy source of the future. - The only means to dispose of nuclear waste, even after reprocessing it and using it again, is storage. Through that idea alone and keeping with the amount of energy used in the US, my opponent has to concede that we will eventually run out of space to put our nuclear waste, if we don't run out of usable materials before the problem occurs. For these reasons, I conclude that nuclear power SHOULD NOT replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States.", "qid": 13, "docid": "42fe39ce-2019-04-18T18:16:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7078386545181274}, {"content": "Title: The US needs to do much more to combat climate change Content: Since my opponent gave a short blurb to define the debate, I will too in order to maintain parity.Basically, the fundamental issue is this: \"Is drastic government intervention on behalf of the environment worth the cost?\" Because solar and wind are expected to be cheaper than fossil fuels by at most 2030 (likely a lot sooner)http://www.businessinsider.com...The question becomes \"Is it worth the tremendous cost to slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions for five to ten years?\"", "qid": 13, "docid": "1dbcd392-2019-04-18T12:01:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7072849273681641}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is the end of the world Content: We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway", "qid": 13, "docid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7066321969032288}, {"content": "Title: The United States should fund alternative energy research Content: \"This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic.\" Don't worry, I completely agree with the eligibility of your stance as Con. First, to address the comment by \"the instigators opening statement seems unclear as to if the government should just fund the initial research or if it should continue to make it viable (eg.Further research, or funding of Infastructure.\", I will present a case that supports the current infrastructure of alternative energies, and the main factor on why they are not more technologically advanced today is a lack of funding. The most efficient manner of researching alternative energy is through the private sector. Directly funding companies instead of government agencies will grant growth in both the economic and technological sectors. \"This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal.\" This is only the case when the government restricts the contracts to one or a few companies, typically known as no-bid contracts. Before granting a contract to the private sector, the companies must compete for the contract not only by giving the government the best deal but also by having the strongest business proposal. There are risks involved in funding the private sector, but if the companies begin to work out of line and diverge away from the desired goal that the government seeks, then the government can pull its funding as a breach of contract. It seems that the both of us agree on the potential of alternative energy reducing oil dependence and rectifying America's long-term future. The solution to alternative energy has been found, however it has not yet been implemented because of a large gap in technology. Solar voltaic cells and nanotechnology are the future of the United States. Professor Nate Lewis of California Institute of Technology presents a lecture series evaluating and assessing both the theoretical and practical yield of power output for several forms of alternative energy including geothermal, solar, nuclear, and wind. He states that the most efficient manner is solar power, which holds the potential of harvesting 600 Terawatts, but can practically yield 60 TW. This is enough power to solve the world's energy for over a century. Dr. Lewis goes so far as to even provide geographical positions where the solar panels may be placed to successfully provide this much power. Once solar power is instituted, it will lower the cost to all consumers worldwide, emit no pollution, and solve the obvious problem of a limited supply of fossil fuels on earth. The annual consumption for the world is 13 TW annually, 10 of which are fossil fuels, and by the year 2050 it is estimated that the earth will consume almost 25 TW per year. At this rate, unless there is significant alternative energy source, the world will not be able to power itself by 2050. The main flaws with solar power are: 1)Perfecting the nanotechnology of voltaic cells 2)Perfecting the preservation of energy 3)Lowering the cost of the cells by improving technology These projects are a main focus for many engineers, businessmen, and corporations in America, as their production capabilities are limited by their available funds to spend on such projects. These projects need not to be started by the government, but provided additional funding. This eliminates a strong possibility of government spending being inappropriately allocated. Your solution, of government funding its own projects, is inefficient because: 1)Current projects already exist, and merely need funding 2)Less economic benefits 3)Less options for success The solution to alternative energy is an increase in funding, a realistic goal that can be accomplished more subsidizing and government spending.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7063865065574646}, {"content": "Title: Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources Content: Global warming is threatening our life, natural environment and modern civilization these days. Many countries and communities of the world are seriously tackling in developing new energy sources like solar, wind and atomic energies. However, I believe their efforts and endeavours are facing serious and difficult problems to promote for the introduction of new alternative energy sources replacing with fossile energies.", "qid": 13, "docid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7061994671821594}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) \"I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government.\" This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) \"Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years.\" I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). \"From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less.\" This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States \"should\" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...", "qid": 13, "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7060110569000244}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy Content: Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal", "qid": 13, "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00081-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7050336599349976}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels Content: Who are these various companies? I ask my opponent to give sources to support this. This source says that renewable energy is more expensive despite government subsidizing it: http://www.economist.com... I don\"t believe this is a catch 22 scenario. There is no demand for alternative energies because it is more expensive. Government should not subsidize a more expensive alternative. I have no idea how it can be said alternative energies have an uphill battle. Alternative energies have had a downhill battle because they have had government subsidies supporting them.", "qid": 13, "docid": "57476c75-2019-04-18T16:05:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7048940658569336}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: With the non-stop hype about blaming CO2 for the warming of the Earth, Renewable resources such as solar and wind have risen as potential substitutes for fossil fuels. However, the renewable energy sources are unreliable and much more expensive. \"While raw forms of energy are both free and practically infinite, the equipment and materials needed to collect, process, and transport the energy to the users are neither one. Currently, the RE costs are generally higher than that of fossil-based and nuclear energy. In addition to this, unlike well-established conventional designs, the advancement in different RE technologies still requires substantial investments. \" [1]. It is also fair to point out something important to this debate: the most common sources of renewable energy are solar and wind. The problem with this is that the Sun won't always be out, and the wind doesn't always blow. This means that you won't always be able to get energy if you rely on solar and wind, as there is no areas that wind and solar energy are stored to be distributed; they must be used right away. So during winter, when the sun isn't always out, it would be much harder to get energy. You would have to place more solar panels to get enough energy to power a country through winter months, which would be very costly. And in order for wind turbines to be useful, the wind would have to constantly be blowing, which is hard to do, since wind speeds are unpredictable. Germany, who's currently leading the world in use of natural resources, spends lots of money because they still need to rely on fossil fuels when natural resources don't come through, which is why their energy poverty rates (people who can't pay electric bills due to a price increase) have rose. [2] \"Wind power is unpredictable and unreliable as it often produces either too much or too little power. This damages a power grid that can\"t function unless demand for electricity exactly matches supply. With conventional power plants, like nuclear or natural gas, having demand match supply isn\"t difficult because they can easily adjust output far in advance of predicted demand for electricity. Solar and wind power, however, cannot easily adjust output because especially cloudy or windless day can\"t be predicted in advanced.\" [3] Fossil fuels came a long way, and thanks to fossil fuels, we have much better air [4] and water quality [5] . In fact we are on the road to obtaining energy from fossil fuels that don't emit as much pollutants. [6]. Fossil fuels currently supply 2/3 (67%) of America's energy [7], roughly the same for the world [8]. Its job is too big to be taken by something as inefficient as renewable resources now. Sources [1]- http://www.renewable-energysources.com... [2]- http://www.forbes.com... [3]-http://dailycaller.com... [4]-https://www.epa.gov... [5]-http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://phys.org... [7]-https://www.eia.gov... [8]-http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...", "qid": 13, "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7046805620193481}, {"content": "Title: The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. Content: I agree that my definition of the United States was a little too ambiguous. You are right that I am arguing on both moral and government policy grounds. As for the definition of fossil fuels, artificial coal would be considered an alternate fuel if the definition of artificial coal is coal created by rapidly applying vibrating pressures to wood (Karweil) and/or rapid application of intense heat (Hill). In Illinois, USA artificial coals are created by heating the lignin to about 150\u02daC in the presence of montmorillonite or illite clays (catalysts). <. http://www.answersingenesis.org...;. With this debate, I would like to prove that we should move away from fossil fuels and move toward renewable energy sources such as biodiesel because: (1)Fossil Fuels such as oil has a finite amount in this world and is not being naturally formed as fast as we are using it. Based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory, once we have reached the point of maximum production, we will experience an exponential decline. As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057. < . http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (2) Oil, coal and natural gas make up of more than 85% of the energy consumed in the United States. Using oil as an example the US in 2004 imported 61% of consumption (13.12 million barrels per day). By 2005, the US imported 67% of consumption (16.54 million barrels per day). We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future. An example would be the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo because the United States resupplied the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the price of oil by 70%. October 19, 1973, President Nixon didn't back down and appropriated $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, which created a negative effect by other Arab states and joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. Since there was a low supply of oil in countries under the embargo, oil had to be increased in price to decrease the demand. Market price for oil rose from $3 to $12. The Middle East has control of a vital commodity, which became known as the \"oil weapon\". The United States needs to not allow room for such vulnerability, by depending less on imported fossil fuels. < . http://www.quoteoil.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (3)From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. In the extraction of oil in cases of offshore exploration, sea beds have been disturbed, which have killed the sea plants that many of the marine creatures need to survive due to the dredging process. In the extraction of coal, there are two methods; opencast mining and Underground mines. The Opencast mining tends to disfigure the country side and produces a large amount of atmosphere pollution due to the surface activity. If the Opencast mining is refilled after the mining project, the soil is usually a mixture of layers which mean that harder elements are exposed on the surface leaving the land almost barren. With Underground mines, roof collapsing of the mines can be felt on the surface level leaving buildings and roadways susceptible to cracks and sometimes disappearing into a hole. Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats. The combustion of fossil fuels has contributed to more than 90% of the United States greenhouse gas emissions. It produces air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Such air pollutants can contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, which can affect habitats and wildlife. Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. < . http://www.planete-energies.com... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <. http://en.wikipedia.org... >. I hope I have provided enough information to prove why I believe that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.", "qid": 13, "docid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7040699124336243}, {"content": "Title: the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\" Content: Let's remember that this debate isn't about me or where I see the future of fuel going. And though, due to innovation, existing infrastructure and the possibility of gradual implementation I believe it will continue to go in the way it has already shown a willingness to go (with plug-in hybrids already on the road and production models hitting the road soon in far greater numbers / get on the waiting lists now... it'll be a while with demand what it is). I was simply pointing out where I see the economy going. We have a massive investment in gasoline and it's going to take years to get away from it. Plug-in hybrids allow for a transition away from gasoline to another readily available infrastructure with energy, the power grid. The higher the price goes the greater the demand. The greater the demand the more people use electricity and buy cars with better mileage and more of a push for electric to be used. The technology used is improving and allows for massive amounts of additional innovation. We're already heading in that direction, and the higher gasoline prices and entrenched oil structure make my points more obvious. People aren't going to replace their cars or shift away from gasoline soon. This is a major reason I think plug-in hybrids are an obvious choice. We need to reduce demand and allow people to shift over to a more electric when the gas prices are high, to allow the gas prices to stabilize. However, this debate isn't about that, this debate is about whether \"Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline\" or \"a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline\" -- Do you recall any argument to this effect? He did suggest, \"Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term\" He did not, however, make an argument at any point as to why hydrogen works. Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's produced by breaking water apart or by converting methane (already a fuel / fossil fuel) into hydrogen. That's hardly an amazing feat. Electricity -> Water -> Hydrogen -> Car -> Car moves. vs. Electricity -> Car -> Car moves. -- or Gasoline -> Car -> Car moves. (we aren't going to lose that paradigm soon) How did Solarman respond to these objections? How are the infrastructure problems overcome? -- Build it. Ship it in containers. Use natural gases' infrastructure. Something something... How is the leaky nature of hydrogen overcome? -- \"Non-issue.\" How is the lack of cars overcome? -- YOU NON-SCIENTIFIC LIBERAL WITH YOUR TREE-HUGGING HYSTERIA! Why is hydrogen better than the current approach? Why will hydrogen work? Why is it the only solution? Why? I'd go to the trouble of refuting my opponent's argument, if he had an argument! All the technical problems with hydrogen which has constantly and consistently kept the technology on the backburner and given people pause is somehow ignored and everything else, even proven technology on the roads in ever increasing numbers, is wrong because... why? Other than matter-of-factly declaring things, solarman has done nothing to establish his argument (whatever it may be). He hasn't met his burden of proof or apparently even tried to argue his side. Problems aren't problems for him and solutions aren't solutions. Hydrogen isn't a bad technology, it simply has a lot of hurdles to get over before it become viable solution to our energy problems. The same can be said for a number of the technologies vying to solve this problem. Why is hydrogen different? This is what solarman would needs to have addressed in this argument and he perhaps should have given that a shot rather than being rudely typical. ------------------------------ -- \"how about aircraft? trucks and buses ? ships? spacecraft?\" Not every solution fits to every problem, there's plenty of room for trucks and buses and ships to store plenty of batteries. I am not aware of any major projects doing so currently. Though I've heard less about hydrogen on the point. Electric alone works fine depending on the range. Comparing hybrids with plug-in hybrids is a little bit off. Hybrids charge up their batteries in order to run the stop and go traffic of day to day life (which they are highly efficient at) without running a poorly suited electric engine for the task. A plug-in hybrid has more batteries and is better suited to accept electricity as energy rather than a buffer. -- \"By the second law of thermodynamics the energy in the hydrogen is necessarily less than the energy we used to split the water. That doesn't make it a fuel\" ---- \"WRONG . hydrogen is a fuel. period.\" What an interesting way of violating physics: declaring it so! -- \"It can also be made from bacteria. and of course water (H2O)\" You managed to escape physics there too? Why don't you just burn the hydrogen resulting in water, generating power, then simply make more hydrogen out of water and start the process over again. You'd have a perpetual motion machine! If you're just going to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, go all out! -- \"CH4 + 2 H20 -- > 4 H2 + CO2 (4 : 1 ratio of H2 to CO2 (plant food) )\" 4 H2 = 8 Atomic weight = 8. C = 12.01 O2 = 32 Atomic weight = 44.01. Though, I'm glad to see you're going by the atom. *smirk* So if you put 1 gram of diamonds on a 10 grams of gold ring it's more diamond than gold? \"In central station hydrogen production from natural gas reforming, the mass of CO2 emitted is 2.51 times greater than the mass of hydrogen produced.\" http://www.getenergysmart.org... -- \"No, hydrogen is a FUEL. It is a GAS. It is an ELEMENT.\" You can't get energy from nothing. It's going to take power from the power grid or from a non-renewable source. -- \"Batteries can be improved.\" ---- \"What this is is simply liberspeak hopefulness- which is fine.\" No I gave you a great list of many of the improvements being made in batteries. Anybody with a cellphone can tell you that massive strides have been made over the years and new technology and innovation comes around all the time. We're already going in the right direction. Hydrogen is simply a battery, and isn't a very good one. Battery technology however is making fantastic strides in the right direction. And can continue to be improved ways elements cannot. -- For the little crap Prius , it is about 57 kW in power 57 kW @ 5000 rpm. That 5000 RPM is pretty important. Your calculations were still based on misunderstanding the term being discussed and it still works out to a bit over a dollar a gallon (as much as that makes any sense when dealing with electric energy rather than an actual volume of something).", "qid": 13, "docid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7038388252258301}, {"content": "Title: The Green New Deal is Ridiculous. Content: You know, I read this thing on the Burden of proof as defined by DDO and it was interesting. They qualify some debates as having \"No burden of proof\" in situations where there are multiple factors involved. I honestly didn't know that burden of proof could be shared or eschewed in some cases. Goes to show that I'm a rank amateur, Lol. Onto the debate. \"First, You said that fossil fuel will eventually run out. Well, So will a lot of things. The sun will allegedly burn out one day\" Sure, But there's nothing that we can do about the sun. We can definitely do something about fossil fuel. I liked the comparison though. \"We have almost unlimited access to fossil fuels, And we are in no danger of running out anytime soon. \" I know that sources aren't posting well right now, But would you be able to quote me some data from a source in your own words? I honestly have no idea how far the \"fossil fuel well\" reaches down and I think it would serve as good evidence if you're correct. I boiled down your next paragraph to two key points. \"Time frame is insufficient\" and \"the problem is exaggerated\" Okay, So you make a good point that the green deal may not be as strong as we would like. But does it meet your standards for the topic of being ridiculous? So on the time frame, I would say that I could grant you limited effectiveness, But no insufficient effectiveness. We have to give the movers a little credit and assume they won't just shut the whole airport system down if they can't handle the aftermath. Same goes for fuel dependency. So you've brought me two probably half efficiency. Can you push me into ridiculousness? If I assume that you're correct and that the fossil problem isn't right around the corner, That means we can safely let them work at a slower pace without being too worried about it. I would probably agree that the problem is exaggerated, This is a big issue that we're seeing out of politicians lately. They want everything to be a crisis. But knowing it's probably not a crisis allows us more freedom in our options as well. \"Next, You said that there are no good other options besides the Green New Deal. This is because this is not (at least right now) a truly pressing problem. Until there is a verifiable danger of energy running out, Another option is not necessary. \" based off your prior statement about the fossil fuel floor being vast, I could be inclined to agree. But let's not just stop there. While we're on this subject. Maybe some alternatives would be a good idea for practicality sake. If you provided me with a viable alternative, It would be very close to an airtight case for you. Not that you want have to drag me kicking and screaming :) to your last statement, I would say that even if the fuel limit is vast, It would still be wise to start some sort of low level program as soon as possible. We don't necessarily want to tap our fuel wells to the bottom due to the effects of pollution, Not to mention our planet will end up looking like swiss cheese. We may not know when it's going to run out, But it is inevitable and we have to think about future generations. This doesn't necessarily have to be the green new deal, But until we can find an alternative, They're the only ones who can fit the part. I think I covered the key points for all the arguments posited thus far. your floor.", "qid": 13, "docid": "74a77292-2019-04-18T11:10:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7037719488143921}, {"content": "Title: go nuclear Content: Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost", "qid": 13, "docid": "53275be8-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7036304473876953}, {"content": "Title: Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better Content: Good luck with your project, I realise the importance of the change to renewable energy resources in the future and that these can be used alongside other resources. I must say your title and first argument slightly misled me into thinking that you were championing this resources alone, saying that it was better than all others. As I personally believe there is no argument against your revised claim I forfeit my opposition to it. Sorry to be unsporting but I agree! Thank you for the debate.", "qid": 13, "docid": "3e86da6b-2019-04-18T17:08:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7034952640533447}, {"content": "Title: Solar electricity cannot significantly reduce dependencies on oil. Content: Solar electricity will not replace oil because it is electricity. Oil is not generally used to produce electricity and solar electricity would generally not replace the main kinds of modern uses of oil (ie. vehicles and transportation).", "qid": 13, "docid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00136-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7033758163452148}, {"content": "Title: government should intervene more with alternative fuel Content: My opponent conceded my arguments so just pull them across. It makes more sense that the government should not intervene with alternative energy, so don't vote for the pro. Thanks! - Matt", "qid": 13, "docid": "45c09d2f-2019-04-18T19:52:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7026946544647217}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy Content: Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels", "qid": 13, "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00077-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7025675773620605}, {"content": "Title: Usage of Solar Thermal Energy instead of Non-renewable Resources is better Content: Hello there, this is my first debate so I am unpractised: hoping that will change. To begin! Now first of all I would like to question what it is you mean by 'better'. -If you mean more efficient at producing energy I am sure you're right as this technique requires no transportation, no mining and little maintenance. -If it is better for the economy I am sure you are wrong: with the age of fracking (essentially mining shale gas) around the corner, already having made a serious impact in America, this solar method is expensive and certainly less tested than fracking. Britain (as I say I'm new I assume we're in the same country) would benefit far more from a concerted effort into mining this easily obtainable and (more importantly) British resource as for too long we have been reliant on foreign fuel which could be stopped at a diplomatic whim (exaggeration I know but true nonetheless). -If you mean better globally we run into another problem: in that this resource is highly dependant on the weather. In hotter countries this is surely a viable and attractive option but in Britain the efficiency will be greatly reduced and thus make the method less cost effective. -If, as I'm almost certain you do, you mean better for the environment then I cannot fault you. Despite some carbon costs in manufacturing and of course the land used up and of course obtaining the materials necessary for construction and, of course, harvesting the salt needed there is next to no cost to the environment. However, clean energy is already something of a British penchant in the form of wind power and yet, despite extremely concerted efforts, this only accounts for around 5% of energy production. -If you mean that it is renewable and will therefore last longer I direct you to the newly discovered shale gas, to scientific predictions that more oil will be found and of course to nuclear power which I personally believe to be a far more viable option, it being so very efficient at energy production - producing thousands of times more power per unit mass than fossil fuels. In short I believe that such a system would be inefficient in many areas of the world, it would be cost ineffective in those areas, there are more viable candidates for clean energy (let's not argue about nuclear - if everything is done properly there is no risk whatsoever, it even creates large natural habitats because of the required space for dumping etc.) and that as interesting the method of production this energy source is just one of the many forms which are considered renewable, as most rely on the sun, and should not be singled out for promotion. How was that? :)", "qid": 13, "docid": "3e86da6b-2019-04-18T17:08:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7013294696807861}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US. Content: haha... your last argument made me laugh... but I will make 3 points as to prove why this round belongs to PRO. 1) My opponent forfeited the debate in his first round... His first two words were literally \"I forfeit\" 2) My opponent did ALL of this by his own free will (including MY round 2 argument)... We were eating lunch together and I was asking people if they wanted to take my debate and he said he would so that he could run a counter-warrent. Then he got lazy and started typing essentially nothing (as I went and got lunch) he posted his \"argument\" and then got on my computer and posted my \"argument\"... 3) The only argument in this round is ridiculous, has no links, is not significant, does not apply to the resolution, has no effect on if you pass my plan or not (he even admitted to that), and does not outweigh my advantages PROVEN in solvency. And besides, if we stop using fossil fuels, I'm pretty sure that means we stop having to destroy the environment as we can then use the RENEWABLE recource known as fusion energy. Even if it doesn't, it still has NO additional negative effects against the squirrels. Therefore my opponent stands on no ground... Thanks for a laugh but if people actually want to take this debate it is currently in the challenge period right now...", "qid": 13, "docid": "f1a21d96-2019-04-18T19:45:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7012280225753784}, {"content": "Title: Corn ethanol is merely a part of the equation in replacing oil. Content: Very few people argue that corn ethanol is THE replacement for oil and the solution to global warming. Rather, they argue that it is merely a part of the equation, or that it is an element of a diversified portfolio in both reducing foreign dependencies on oil and solving the problem of global warming. To argue that corn ethanol can't fully replace oil is to miss this point.", "qid": 13, "docid": "2d219ef-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00069-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7010151147842407}, {"content": "Title: Choose a Resolution Debate Content: Resolved: Nuclear power should not replace coal as the primary source of electricity generation in the United States of America. I would first like to stress that I agree wholeheartedly with my opponent on his contentions. I agree that Nuclear Power is more environmentally friendly AND safer in general. However, there are aspects of Nuclear power that remain to be considered, and will found my contentions, which are as follows: 1. ) Nuclear power simply replaces the crutch that coal based electricity generation has become. Electricity generation as it stands is a very flawed and highly inefficient process. It comes from using a source of energy to boil water and use the resultant steam in order to do mechanical work, turning a turbine to produce electricity. The many different steps of the process hold it back this form of electrical generation back in and of itself. Looking into the future, we also see that though coal is plentiful, it is bound to run out at some period in time. This is the same for the sources of energy behind nuclear fission; though the resources are plentiful (by some standards. There are those who, like I, debate whether or not you can even consider nuclear power a renewable energy source [2]), they are also bound to run out at sometime, be it even 1,000's of years from now. [1] 2. ) Nuclear power has certain flaws that prevent it from being a long lasting energy source for the future Nuclear power may not pump carbon into the air, but it has byproducts that need to be dealt with; I'm speaking of nuclear waste, of course. We just simply have nothing to do with it, other than essentially sticking it in different places [3]. I mean, this is a huge flaw in and of itself. The primary pollutants of coal are indeed dangerous, but not as hazardous as nuclear waste. And once we run out of space to store it, or enough of it collects to emanate harmful radiation through sure to come shoddy management practice, we'll run into some real problems. ________ To close, I'd just like to say that I agree with my opponent in his obvious sentiment that coal is obsolete and harmful to the human condition. However, I don't think nuclear power (fusion, maybe. definitely not fission) is the way ahead. We're just going to run out of space to store our waste, or materials to generate heat. And then, we're left to scrounge around for the next viable energy source. What we should instead do is develop technology to redefine our energy production and consumption, not simply supplant faulty techniques with duplicate faulty techniques. I truly feel that the way of the future in energy production for the world is solar power [4]. Even with the solar panels of today, it would take less land usage than the area of Spain to power the entire world [5]. The problem with solar power simply lies in our inability to effectively and economically harness the power of the sun to positive ends (I read somewhere that if we could get solar panels to optimum efficiency, the United States would need only 10% of the area of Montana to power the entire nation). We need to continue to work on efficiency of photo-voltaic cells and improve battery life and size in order to really send our society into the future of energy production. I thank my opponent and look forward to his coming argument. 1. ) . http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2. . http://www.renewableenergyworld.com... 3. ) . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 4. ) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 5. ) . http://gizmodo.com...", "qid": 13, "docid": "42fe39ce-2019-04-18T18:16:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7007225155830383}, {"content": "Title: Conservatism vs Liberalism! Content: Yeet has made some very good points in this last round. 1. To address your very first concern, I think that the alternative to fracking is the clean energy you so clearly are doubtful about. I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say that \"We don't have the knowledge at this point to complete such a task\". I think that you mean the government is not putting enough time and energy into it. I live in Hawaii. On our island of Kauai (with a population of nearly 70,000) 60% of our daytime usage is covered by just three solar fields, which produce 30 megawatts of electricity (just look up 'KIUC'). One solar field costs $40 million (KIUC). There are about 1.7 million fracking wells in the US (http://www.fractracker.org...), which cost from $8 million to $14 million (http://breakingenergy.com...). So, for the price of four fracking wells about one 10-megawatt solar field can be built. Jobs would be made to build and maintain the solar field, the US would lose a good amount of it's dependence on foreign oil, there would absolutely be no ecological downsides, and the US would become the world leader in renewable technology. I know that the solar fields would not supply the whole nation with power, but 425,000 solar fields would be created (1.7 million / 4), and if three produce enough power to supply at least 70,000 people with 60% of their daytime needs (such as it is on my island), a minimum of 29.8 million people would have to pay 60% less for their power bills (425,000 * 70,000). So, THAT is the alternative to fracking. 2. Why do you say that Obama and Hillary are controlled by the oil industries? Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill, which obviously goes against the interests of oil companies. In a 2007 democratic debate, Hillary said: \"I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies. . . And we could spend about $50 billion doing what America does best. . .We can solve these problems if we focus on innovation and technology. Alternative forms of energy are important. So is fuel efficiency for cars and so is energy efficiency for buildings.\" Hillary Clinton is advocating for renewable energy, and so I don't see why an oil company would pay Hillary to say this. Obama and Hillary have traditionally been pro-renewable energy. 3. What you say about healthcare doesn't make sense. You say that if someone refuses Obamacare and uses a different, private company then they get fined. In reality, someone would only get fined if they did not have health insurance at all. 'healthcare.gov' says that \"the annual fee for not having insurance in 2016 is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child\", which is capped at $2,085. For taxes, that may be substantial for some people, but if they don't want to get fined then they should get healthcare, either from a private company or the government. I covered in my last argument why it is better for the American people if everyone has healthcare. Additionally, if you really want to end the problems with institutionalized health care, we should just have the government pay for it. That way it won't put stress on businesses to provide for their employees, or create a \"monopoly\" as you suggest. And why would you believe 'Forbes' over the people who helped create the program (healthcare.gov)? 4. Well, as it turns out jobs may be leaving the country, but more are being created here at home. The unemployment rate has dipped below 5% for the first time since before the financial crisis of 2008 (http://money.cnn.com...). I agree with you that the TTP bill was a horrible decision, but every presidency has it's low point. This for Obama, the wars in the Middle East for Bush, the Monica Lewinsky affair for Clinton, and the Iran-Contra Affair for Reagan. However, I think that the NAFTA increased cooperation and alliances among our two major North American allies. Investopedia.com says that about one third of our exports go to Canada and Mexico, while about one fourth of our imports come from those two countries. NAFTA has spanned three administrations, each one making it's own changes to the deal. In 1994, Clinton believed that it would initially create 200,000 jobs, and in January 2008 Bush implemented his own version (http://www.investopedia.com...). Obama is merely continuing this old North American agreement. 5. I think that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that those who are not as fortunate can have a decent life. Workers would help stimulate the economy because they would be buying more and therefor putting more money into the economy. And in response to your Walmart claim, they (1) never actually 'said' that, and (2) 'heritage.org' is a conservative website that argues for conservative principles, which leads me to (3) the fact that they didn't give any examples are facts behind their claim. This is very similar to what is happening here. Yeet is appealing to the fear or anxiety of people by saying that our leaders are corrupt, or saying that things cause inflation when they really don't, or putting 'non-truths' in all caps. The sources that Yeet have cited have been from Forbes, whose majority of articles are opinion (which I have no problem with, just don't quote them); and heritage.org, a conservative website which is of course slightly biased (and no real facts supporting Yeet's claims came from the article). I urge Yeet to use facts, not hunches, and sources when tying to prove his/her claim. I really enjoyed this debate and I am looking forward to seeing what people say in the comments! Thanks again, Yeeet2016:)", "qid": 13, "docid": "63a11c9c-2019-04-18T13:27:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7006670236587524}, {"content": "Title: Environment Over Economy Content: Rebut: My adversary has not made any strong stand with an example or neither did he rebut my argument. He states that fossil fuels are better as of now, Contradicting his own argument and tends to support the con side. Also, He stated the mass amount of energy is required theoretically is just for human's convenience, However, He did not provide any concrete data to prove his thesis statement, Not only that, By debating on this website, Doesn't he enjoying the benefits of the internet too? And if like what he said, This will take up much of the energy, So why is he debating here? Here he is trying to show life is more important than money and technology, On one hand, It's out of the debate topic, On the other hand, Without money and technology, How are we supposed to maintain our own lives, And even have the luxury to care about animal lives? Thus, Since my opponent hasn't made any solid argument, I will not have any new comments or argument and will stick to the previous argument. Thank you.", "qid": 13, "docid": "4bb40bff-2019-04-18T11:21:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6996548175811768}, {"content": "Title: Cellulosic ethanol is sustainable bridge while new technologies are built. Content: Kelly Tiller, director of external operations for the University of Tennessee\u2019s office of bioenergy programs asks, what are the alternatives? \"There is no perfect solution. This is a sustainable bridge while we develop new technologies.\"[1]", "qid": 13, "docid": "251db9fe-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00032-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6995893716812134}, {"content": "Title: Wind energy Content: Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "qid": 13, "docid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00053-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6995211243629456}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: Please accept if you are willing to have good conversation I stand to negate the following: \"Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.\" 1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer. 2. The resolution calls for \"alternative fuels\", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. 3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution Thanks and good luck. Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.", "qid": 13, "docid": "c98fe9a7-2019-04-18T19:33:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6987978219985962}, {"content": "Title: There is no such thing as totally RENEWABLE energy. Content: Valid point, however, we don't deplete it's energy but what am saying is that in the same that fossil fuels won't last FOREVER neither will solar energy!", "qid": 13, "docid": "ff095b00-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6986321806907654}, {"content": "Title: To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming Content: I agree with my opponent that The technologies are advancing steadily but They are not so economical : 1)I agree it could have resolved itself but due to human activities that have completely disturbed e bio geochemical cycles which are carbon cycle , nitrogen cycle and oxygen cycle- it is not likely possible. 2) it's not to total extent possible at advancing the technology , which we are doing to completely stop the exhaustion of Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It's will better option for us to use biofuels which exhaust no gas at all and can be used wi current car engines by mixing them to some percentage of gasoline. Electric car are also a cheap solution and many major manufacturer are putting an effort to get electric cars in market. Hybrid cars with ability to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water and using hydrogen as a fuel are also developing and are currently present in the market. 3) Plants and Ocean surface bacteria have a major role in carbon cycle. Human hunt for deep sea fossil fuel and traveling on ships through marine routes have resulted in depletion of half of the ocean surface bacteria from the pacafic ocean which has harmed the whole world in some way or the other. I have to just conclude here that it is just because of us humans that the situation is getting out of hand and we may not be able to recove r from it if we don't react immeadetely and efficiently. 4) Launching mirror into the space to deflect sunlight is very expensive.it is much cost efficient to just move from fossil fuel which is non renewable source of energy to renewable sources of energy. To conclude I would just like to say that it is because of the greediness.of us human that the resources which takes millions of years to refurbish which available to us are depleting and we have to take a good cause against money and solve and get out of this situation.", "qid": 13, "docid": "bb33e2b7-2019-04-18T18:22:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6985986828804016}, {"content": "Title: Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels Content: We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy.\"- PowerPikachu21 I highly doubt there are as reliable, considering the world's energy consumption only consisted of 1/3rd renewable energy [1], . \"By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants.\"- PowerPikachu21 \"Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses.\"- PowerPikachu21 Geothermal energy has alot of problems with it. It only works for areas with specific conditions and isn't developed enough to help power the world [1]. \"We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.\"- Powerpikachu21 Biomass is also very expensive to convert and transport, and is also very inefficient when compared to fossil fuels [2] We can rely on them to be around, yes. But we can't rely on them for energy. The processes to convert renewable resources into energy cost alot of money, and they can only do a third of the job of coal. Sources [1]- http://www.tsp-data-portal.org... [2]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... [3]- http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...", "qid": 13, "docid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6984184980392456}, {"content": "Title: Horses Should be Used Widely in the US Content: Thank you for clearing up the definition of \"Peak Oil\". However, the scenario that I mentioned (with the oil running out) will eventually happen, as my opponent has admitted. As I suspected he would, he suggested alternatives to fossil fuels as a good substitute to them. I thought that I got them all (aside from the theoretical ones like Hydrogen or saltwater). I thank my opponent for bringing up another source of energy: electricity. He mentioned electricity-powered cars, many of which are commercially available and fairly cheap. But here's where his argument falls short: electricity needs to be generated by something else. According to these statistics, the large percentage of electricity in the United States is supplied by non-renewable energy sources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solar power. http://www.ehow.com... So really, if the fossil fuels run out, electricity will run out in a lot of places too. My opponent mentions the fact that a drought (which could kill horses) is much more likely than an EMP Attack (which would wipe out cars). I admit that this is true. HOWEVER, a drought that covers the entire United States would be needed to wipe out all horses. And even then, if Americans were not all killed off by the drought, then they could share the water with horses. However, also considering that there are underwater sources of water which we have the technology and resources to access, this wouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Let's contrast an EMP and its widespread effect on vehicles. Perhaps 3 or 4 EMPs (or less) being used on the United States could incapacitate the entire nation, excluding certain military devices that are designed to withstand such attacks. http://www.newsmax.com... Interestingly, this article also mentions geomagnetic storms being capable of having the same effect. Such a (minor) storm happened in 1989, leaving 6 million Americans and Canadians without power for 12 hours. A considerably bigger storm like this one could completely wipe out power for millions of Americans. Then, my opponent mentions allergies to horses. This is true; not everyone can ride a horse. But I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits (then they'll be used on a larger scale). However, since you brought the subject up... Some cars have leather seats. http://www.ehow.com... Many cars are made out of plastic. http://www.ehow.com... Sometimes that \"New Car Smell\" can be deadly. http://theweek.com... My opponent turns proceeds to bring up the fact that horses do not provide shelter from the rain. I will just say this: getting a little wet or being outside in fairly high temperatures usually won't kill you. It'll provide discomfort, but if it actually does provide a health hazard, you can just get back inside your car. As stated before, horse paths would actually be quite cheap to make. I live near a woods and I can make a small dirt path in those woods by kicking straw to the sides and uprooting some small plants. It's easy, really (or at least compared to building an asphalt road). Finally, animal cruelty: A. A path in the woods will likely be shaded. B. Horses walk on concrete during parades, so they can withstand walking on it to an extent. C. The horse paths would be in the woods anyway. D. There are horses that are bred for carrying heavy loads. https://answers.yahoo.com... Or, you can use a mule for that. E. Most of these places where horses are used would be away from big cities like New York. Oh, and here's another thing about horses which I forgot to mention last time: They are environmentally friendly. No sources needed to back up that claim.", "qid": 13, "docid": "43c0ed40-2019-04-18T15:54:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6980733871459961}, {"content": "Title: Hydrogen vehicles Content: Alternatives to hydrogen exist to lower foreign oil dependencies.", "qid": 13, "docid": "2e721803-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00029-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6974520683288574}, {"content": "Title: Should the world stop using Oil/gas Content: Due to the fact that fossil fuels are easily combustible and have a high calorific value, it's one of the most efficient energy sources in the world. [1] It has the highest energy output levels bIt's also the cheapest form of energy in the world as shown in the graph below. [2] Engines can be run on rather small amounts of gas. For example, cars can be taken tens of miles on a couple gallons, because the engine is powered by exploding gas farts in the cylinders. That's kind of a funny way of saying it, but really, gas ignites and powers machines very easily.2) Fossil fuels are highly reliable. This is what I mean. Every time you light a bucket of gas on fire, that thing ignites on fire. If you ignite gas in a cylinder, that gas will explode. If you put up a windmill Colorado Springs, you might get 1 kilowatt of energy per year. Since I'm using windmills as an example, I should point out that it's actually one of the least reliable forms of alternative energy known to man. You have to have the right wind speeds to operate with an 11 mile per gap to work with for effective energy production. [3] As far as other forms of energy go, we know solar energy would only work in the UK for three days out of the year, and Arizona would get nothing out of hydro energy. While it's possible that some of these alternative energies might work sometimes in these areas, it's impossible to say that we would have energy year round. Fossil fuels are the most reliable form of energy.3) Nuclear energy has large disadvantages. Nuclear energy is great as an energy substitute as far as energy output and cost go. However, it has a huge drawback, which is nuclear waste. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to boil water. But these radioactive materials eventually decay past the point of use. When this happens, we have to find a place to put it. If you start to use nuclear energy for everyone in the world, we would have plenty of power, but storing that waste would be a nightmare. If just a little plutonium leaks out of a storage tank due to natural wear on the storage unit and that plutonium gets into water, that piece of plutonium could easily poison a city. Just specks of plutonium can kill anyone who inhales or ingests them. [4]So the alternative energy sources so far are either deadly or unreliable and inefficient. Sources:[1] . http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...[2] . http://www.theenergycollective.com...[3] . http://www.wind-power-program.com...[4] . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "qid": 13, "docid": "9d6aeb41-2019-04-18T14:17:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6969453692436218}, {"content": "Title: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck Content: I would first like to point out that my opponents arguments are invalid as they only attacked the term \"mandate\". The government mandating this resolution will help the environment, seeing as alternative fuel powered vehicles are proven to help the environment due to the fact that they release fewer polutents. He never even defined mandate (which shall now be defined as a direct order to do something) And now on with my case. America's oil supply is becoming increasingly valued and needed every day. America relies largely on foreign countries for oil and other necessities. If we don't do something about the dwindling oil supplies soon we could come to a point where we don't have enough gasoline to power our cars. This is why the switch to alternative fuels is not only an option it is a necessity. As of right now it is estimated that we have enough oil to last us only until the year 2030. Thus I must agree with the resolution that by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. There are two main reasons we should convert to alternative fuels: Air Pollution and Oil Dependence. The need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one. Steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, and the switch to alternative fuels is clearly next in line in this succession. Please don't be deceived into believing that alternatively-powered cars have to be small, slow and as dull. There are quite a few vehicles that already are powered by alternative methods such as the Telsa Roadster which is powered electrically, the Honda FCX Clarity which is run on hydrogen, or the RUF Porsche 911 which is also run electrically. There are already many vehicles in production that are run by alternative fuels. These vehicles are helping our environment. Contention 1: Oil Dependence: The United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil. Our economic engine is now 70 percent dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. So basically if we anger the countries we depend on then the United States will be cut off from its oil supply. If that happens and we don't have alternative fuel run cars the results would be disastrous. Plus, The scientific concenses concludes that Peak oil will happen soon. Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline according to dictionary.com. We all know that oil is not infinite, it will run out one day (most conclude it will peak on the year 2010) When this happens, our economy that is 70 percent dependent on oil, will be immediately shot resulting in an economic collapse. Katherine A. Siggerud says, \"Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transportation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation's oil consumption\". It is easy to see that our oil dependency threatens our economy greatly. Rising demand and shrinking domestic production of oil means that America is importing more and more oil each year\u2014most from the worlds most unfriendly and unstable regions. We are spending more than $13 million per hour on foreign oil and more than $25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone. The answer is simple; end this oil dependency by switching to alternative fuels. When we can do that we can have a stronger, more independent economy. Right now our economy is tied up on something that will run out someday, and that day is too soon for comfort. According to Senator Richard Lugar, large industrializing nations such as China and India are seeking new energy supplies, so oil and natural gas will become more expensive. In the long run we will face the prospect that the world's supply of oil may not be abundant and accessible enough to support continued economic growth in both the industrialized West and in large rapidly growing economies. As we approach the point where the world's oil-hungry economies are competing for insufficient supplies of energy, oil will become an even stronger magnet for conflict Contention 2: Air Pollution According to Naturalgas.org Global warming, or the 'greenhouse effect' is an environmental issue that deals with the potential for global climate change due to increased levels of atmospheric or 'greenhouse gases'. There are certain gases in our atmosphere that serve to regulate the amount of heat that is kept close to the Earth's surface. Scientists theorize that an increase in these greenhouse gases will translate into increased temperatures around the globe, which would result in many disastrous environmental effects. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts in its 'Third Assessment Report' released in February 2001 that over the next 100 years, global average temperatures will rise by between 2.4 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit. The principle greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and some engineered chemicals such as cholorofluorocarbons. While most of these gases occur in the atmosphere naturally, levels have been increasing due to the widespread burning of fossil fuels by growing human populations. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become a primary focus of environmental programs in countries around the world. Switching to alternative fuel powered vehicles will cut back on the emissions of greenhouse gases a great deal since the fuel they are powered by at this moment is one of the main contributors to the increase of greenhouse gases in the environment. Contention 3: Longer Vehicle Life According to ezalternativefuelvehicles.com The use of alternative fuels can extend the operation life of a vehicle. The process of corrosion and build-up will slow down if your car is running on cleaner fuel. Vehicles using alternative fuels will operate more efficiently and will have fewer maintenance problems and will ultimately save people money on maintenance costs. The Telsa Roadster, an alternatively powered vehicle, has a motor with just one moving part, the rotor, when in comparison the typical four-cylinder engine of a conventional car consists of over a hundred moving parts. When the engine consists of fewer parts the car becomes significantly lighter and its parts wear down much slower. Contention 4: Health Motor Vehicles in America have become such a huge issue due to the amount of pollution they emit. Areas where there are enormous amounts of people, such as Los Angeles and New York, are having major issues with health due to the pollution. The lung capacity of children growing up in Los Angeles is 10% to 15% less than that of the children growing up in cities with cleaner air. Alternative fuels can make gigantic and immediate improvements. The pollution caused by motor vehicles is also known to cause asthma. According to CNN.com 17 million people suffer from asthma right now and if we cut back on the pollution by switching to alternative fuels we could reduce the number of people with this horrid disease.", "qid": 13, "docid": "9ba9f4d0-2019-04-18T19:31:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6963632106781006}, {"content": "Title: By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels Content: Fine, you want evidence? (Otherwise known as quotes from media stories and random reports that have no credibility) I can give you \u2018evidence' I know how to use google! Look all you do is this: \"Corn-based fuel is bad\" (http://randomlink.com...) For that style of debate you should at least do something like this: (I am using my arguments) Who says they have to be corn-based it is any and all alternatives, a good alternative is biodiesel, which is recycled: \"Instead of requiring new resources like its corn-based cousin, biodiesel can be made from the millions of gallons of cooking oil that are discarded by restaurants, cafeterias and households each year.\" (http://www.cbsnews.com...) We could also use PHEVs, because although not a perfect solution, removing oil based cars off the market immediately (to buy us some time) and selling PHEVs would help while we come up with better solutions. Plus if we find a way to make green energy, the cars will immediately become green as well: \"The \"well-to-wheel\" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewable. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower\" (http://www.calcars.org...) On to the debate: See my opponent has neglected to mention the fact there are other alternative fuels then just biofuels. While it is true that some biofuels can have negative impacts on the environment, there are many more developed and undeveloped alternatively powered vehicles that could be used. Solar power, hydrogen, etc. The way you are debating is just giving quotes from random stories, saying they are fact, and comparing them with mine (if I had any \u2018quotes' but all I had was \u2018logic' which just isn't worth your time) while not defending the quotes with any of your own logic. So let's just compare quotes now from other people, and not really argue back and forth. We'll just let some random people we don't even know do the leg-work, while we just type a few words into google and have our arguments finished. In fact, what if we just chose two people to debate for us, two \u2018experts' count as good evidence, don't they? Is that what debating is to you? Just pasting quotes from other people and comparing them with quotes I paste from other people? Because I thought it was writing quotes from yourself and arguing about them with your opponent. Evidence isn't just good sounding quotes from random sources, evidence is showing why those quotes are true, and evidence is showing people why you are right. Debating isn't copying and pasting, it is philosophical discussion and you seriously appear to lack in the discussion and opinionated areas. \"There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem.\" Just like I said only 40 of them are climatologists. Not only that but several died before the petition even came into existence. And even more don't exist in the first place. And that's your solid evidence? Really? You should check your sources before you rely on them so heavily. What's interesting is that the sources you used have turned out to completely be false. Perhaps a lot of your sources could be just as false. (http://www.sourcewatch.org...) \"far exceed the count of UN IPCC \"scientists\"\" Actually, IPCC had over 300'000 conceding scientists, and most of them were actually studying things like Climatology and knew stuff about global warming before just signing a petition online. \"Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume)\" Anyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist, actually 16, I can send you a copy of my non-profit's license, it has my name on it as a director and president, yes that is a course you are required to take, I took college level last year, not all types, but I understand the basics. 1.Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins Actually, biodiesel, electric, hyrdrogen, are all still very plausible alternative fuels. 2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!! Why do people tell me I have conceded? Perhaps I haven't explained my argument clearly enough yet, but when did I concede? I am still arguing here, and your telling them I agree with you... Kyoto, green electricity development, more research into hydrogen cells, and btw, you just added new evidence, the plan you never argued plan before, therefore I am allowed to add new evidence into this as well. 3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won't have choice to argue them and they're abusive You just abused it, I have the same rights, why are you allowed to add new evidence and I'm not? This is the last round for both of us and I don't have enough room to respond to new evidence. All that con did this entire time was repeatedly paste quotes from unreliable sources. It might be evidence, but not very good evidence. Not until the very end did con officially start attacking my arguments and not my character, and failed pretty miserably at that as well. To tell you the truth I don't care whom you vote for, this was just a funny debate for me, because con was officially the most ignorant buffoon I have ever talked to in my life. And buffoons can say some pretty funny stuff sometimes! Think of it as a metaphor, he slinged poop at my face throughout the entire debate, and then finally grew smart and decided to sling it at my words, and in the very end, tried to keep me from having enough space to react. So really, I could care less whom you vote for, I just hope you think this debate was as much of a crack up as I did. Like we could really trust the media's take on something to be completely true and unbiased, just look at what they said about Barrak Obama, HAH!", "qid": 13, "docid": "c98fe9e5-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6959202289581299}, {"content": "Title: Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA Content: Well, that's really too bad. I had hoped that this debate would be very substantial, and sadly kingkd has forfeited again. There's really not much left to say here. I've established that there is a significant environmental harm. For those who are not convinced, there's little more I can say. The reality is that Con is right that, at the very least, natural gas releases less CO2 than oil and coal, and therefore it looks like a better alternative. However, it only serves to extend our dependence on fossil fuels. Con would have to have shown that my point about how green energy will be held back was faulted, but he couldn't. The low cost of natural gas has made it so cheap for companies to use that many are just abandoning green tech projects in favor of using natural gas. That means that they're going to be dependent of fossil fuels for longer, which means that we will eventually use every bit of oil and coal we can, along with all of our natural gas. He's also losing on the economic debate. I've shown that the boom and bust cycles it creates are net harmful to the region, as is the economic damage that results from environmental harms. As such, we can only conclude that any transient benefits we might receive from getting this gas are going to cause more harm than good. Now I leave it to the voters to decide this debate.", "qid": 13, "docid": "fc220308-2019-04-18T16:28:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.695837676525116}]}
{"query": "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple.", "qid": 14, "docid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8271604776382446}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8207347393035889}, {"content": "Title: People are Born Gay Content: People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.", "qid": 14, "docid": "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8094427585601807}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: \"You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are.\" This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.", "qid": 14, "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7973799705505371}, {"content": "Title: Gay adoption Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality", "qid": 14, "docid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00022-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.796614944934845}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, \"hey, I don't really like anyome\" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.", "qid": 14, "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7950289249420166}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: \"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....\"[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "45198ce6-2019-04-18T18:35:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7945154905319214}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.", "qid": 14, "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7926937937736511}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is not a choice Content: All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the \"signal\" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.", "qid": 14, "docid": "e815f813-2019-04-18T13:09:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7838672399520874}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;", "qid": 14, "docid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7784096002578735}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: \"Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. \" Well I understood that you had, and by accepting this challenge you have agreed to debate from that position. \"Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. \" Sexual orientation is not dependent upon reproduction. All you have done is to reiterate without defence your position, that you are claiming that homosexual desires arise from a deliberate choice. Is this consistent with any experience, logic or facts. \"ANY sexual act is a choice\" This is irrelevant to the debate as we are not discussing acts but feelings. \"Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument. \" No, by accepting this challenge you have agreed to argue that sexuality is a choice, it is now irrelevant whether or not you have actually argued this previously. You could have asked for the terms of the debate to be changed, but you accepted them. In conclusion my oppoent has failed to argue for the Pro position and is in fact distancing himself from these views. Thus my opponents position is negated. Thank you.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7fc54c65-2019-04-18T19:18:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7760457396507263}, {"content": "Title: Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...", "qid": 14, "docid": "2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7743910551071167}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as \"an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender.\" -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes \"no round as agreed\". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl", "qid": 14, "docid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7733476758003235}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7720968723297119}, {"content": "Title: Your not born gay Content: Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the \u201cgay\u201d genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said \"You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund\" and that their findings offered \"a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. \" A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called \"fraternal birth order effect\" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that \"the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. \"Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.", "qid": 14, "docid": "67148c4d-2019-04-18T18:48:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7714576721191406}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: If it matters, I would like to point out that my opponent has used the same wording for all her opening arguments. So I will rebuttal all that she has argued, and encourage her to rebuttal on the points I do not use this round, but used in the previous round. Thanks to my opponent for responding quickly.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...1. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE Homosexuality is a choice, do not let my opponent fool you with her response, it is a CHOICE. My opponent will give some somewhat scientific website related to health that says being gay is something determined by genetics. In a previous argument, my opponent stated: \"If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on.\"Gender, hair color, eye color, etc., are all determined by genetics and God. A difference though is that these are all genetic, passed down from generation to generation. Here is where it gets interesting to me... If being gay is genetic, how are gay people even on this earth? I ask this because it takes a MAN and WOMAN to make a baby. I can cite a source if needed. So if it takes a MAN and WOMAN (straight parents) to make a baby, where does the gay ancestor carrying the homosexual gene come in? Because the family tree will be made of a MAN and WOMAN all the way to Adam and Eve. Does this mysterious homosexual gene just appear out of nowhere? No. Let's be realistic. Being homosexual is a learned behavior. Here is a study that promotes homosexuality is a choice.\"A new scientific study of 409 pairs of gay brothers could put to rest decades of debate over the existence of the so-called \u2018gay gene\u2019. Research conducted by the NorthShore Research Institute in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work \u201cerodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice\u201d. The study is three times larger than any previously done and highlights two genetic regions that have been tied to male homosexuality in separate research: Xq28, first identified in 1993, and 8q12, spotted in 2005. However, Sanders does not claim to have identified a single gene which \u2018causes\u2019 male homosexuality in humans and stresses that with complex human traits like sexual orientation there are many influencing factors, both genetic and environmental. For the study Sanders and his team collected blood and saliva from 409 pairs of gay brothers and analysed their genetic code for markers known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Although Xq28 and 8q12 were the two regions that were most frequently identified as home to genetic markers common among the 818 gay men, three other SNPs were also highlighted. Speaking to the New Scientist, neuroscientist Simon LeVay commented: \u201cThis study knocks another nail into the coffin of the 'chosen lifestyle' theory of homosexuality.\u201d \"Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else's idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with,\u201d said LeVay, who previously claimed to have found a region of the brain that was smaller in gay men.\"(A) I proclaim that homosexuality is a learned behavior. You are not predetermined to be a racist, a sexist, a homosexual, etc. These are all learned behaviors. My opponent uses a quite interesting comparison, telling straight people to try and picture a world with gay people everywhere and want to like other men. I'm not sure about my opponent's brain, but in my brain there is no barrier in what gender I am sexually attracted to. I am not attracted to men, I am not a homosexual, but I do not feel as if my brain is \"hard wired\" to women. We are given free-will in this world by our Creator, we are given the choice in what gender we are attracted to, it is not predetermined and the experiment above proves that. My opponent also uses a interesting statistic that in all societies the amount of gay people typically ranges around 5%-8%. Very interesting, but I am not sure that is a statistically significant fact relating to whether you have a choice of being homosexual or not . That is like saying the amount of Native Americans per state in all fifty states is about the same, x%-x% (not a real statistic, just an example).My opponent gives three statistics which all have to do with the bullying and academic success of gay students. She then blames it on the \"gay gene\" saying do you think these students want this? My answer to that is uncertain... Once again I am not gay, nor have I ever harassed a gay person. Ultimately, it is the choice of the homosexual, and that homosexual has to ask himself/herself is being gay is worth it. I also have to add that Christians love everyone, if someone has ever harassed or bullied you for being gay I am so sorry. They are not fulfilling what Jesus has taught them.\"Jesus died and rose so that homosexuals could be forgiven and sanctified, just as surely as He died and rose for you and me. We want to give our full support and pure love to true Christians who struggle with this awful sin. Jesus Christ came to this wicked, sin-filled world to make a holy people for Himself, and let us praise God, who transforms sinners into His saints.\" (B)2. EQUALITY AND SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Typically, gay marriage is fought for by groups such as the LGBT community because they feel unequal. I would once again like to use the same example I used earlier from the Declaration of Independence.\"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\" -Declaration of IndependenceNow, if the founding fathers were certain that homosexuals needed to be equal don't you think they would have established that same-sex marriage should be legal throughout the United States? Quite possibly they might have thought about it, gay people were around even at the time of Jesus (hints the Bible's teachings). \"...our founding fathers would have been outraged that homosexuals would be out in the open. They knew that such perversion would both undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization.\"(C)The creators of the free world believed this. During their lifetime same-sex relations were a capital offense in Britain. What they did do, however, is leave hard decisions like same-sex marriage to the states.So, my opponent brings up the separation of church of state. She is correct, the first amendment denies the government of establishing a religion. However, the 10th amendment reads:\"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.\"Therefore, the power to decide same-sex marriage resides with the states. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, they made a inaccurate ruling in 2015.CONCLUSIONOnce again, I ran out of characters. The last two points my opponent made about economic benefits and adoption are not relevant to what I initially argued. I believe that the \"traditional marriage\" between one man and one woman is the backbone of the United States of America. I ask my opponent to rebuttal my arguments and provide a quality debate. Thank you.(A)http://www.independent.co.uk...(B)http://www.biblequery.org...(C)http://freedomoutpost.com......", "qid": 14, "docid": "6335c4fa-2019-04-18T13:04:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7705011367797852}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America Content: Thank you for the very strong rebuttal. I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of \"... it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference,\" and correlated it to one of my statements. I most certainly did not intend to put \"words in your mouth.\" One of the numerous foundations of my argument is the mutually agreed fact that one cannot simply ascertain that genetics do not and cannot alter an individual's sexual orientation. However, my argument inferring that epigenetics, not genetics, can fundamentally influence an individual's sexual preference, is still completely valid. The following definition, that you acquired from Wikipedia, states: \". . . epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, some of which have shown to be heritable.\" (I am assuming you simply \"forgot\" to include the 'caused by' part of the definition). This is only one of the two verified definitions of epigenetics, and is not the focal-point of my argument. If you were to respectfully investigate my first source, Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development (a factual scientific paper), it would be clearly implied that the psychological definition of epigenetics is to be used. The psychological definition, also acquired from Wikipedia (your favorite source for definitions), states: \"Epigenetics in psychology helps to explain how nurture shapes nature, where nature refers to biological heredity and nurture refers to virtually everything that occurs during the life-span (e.g., social-experience, diet and nutrition, and exposure to toxins). Epigenetics in psychology provides a framework for understanding how the expression of genes is influenced by experiences and the environment to produce individual differences in behavior, cognition, personality, and mental health.\" The latter suggests that behavioral epigenetics, a psychologically and biologically established scientific discipline, explains how one's social-experience, environment, and experiences shape the expressions of genes and produce differences in behavior and personality, two key characteristics that dictate sexual orientation/preference. This proves that a predominately homosexual developmental environment generally shapes the sexual behavior and orientation of a child (with respect to conscious choice, hence the psychological definition of epigenetics).For a different perspective on the same proof, feel free to read the Article, Homosexuality & Choice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Not only does a homosexual marriage threaten their adopted children with the potential inheritance of a manipulated sexual preference, the absence of a paternal and maternal figure of the opposite sex negatively influences the upbringing of a child. By stating,\"PRO mentioned that 'Girls who are raised without a father figure are at a higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.' You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent.\"MilkyChocolate is suggesting that a mother can play the role of a father and vice versa. Each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development. Where does it say that my statement, regarding girls being raised without a father figure, is only valid if the girl has just ONE maternal figure? I simply said \"without a father figure.\" The absence of a father figure cannot be remedied by the installment of another mother... the father is unique to the raising of a child, as is the mother. \"While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have \"greed for life.\"\u2014Your implied definition of \"different\" is not clearly articulated, I can only assume that it refers to your accusation that \"we do not all have greed for life.\" Although everyone's reason for self-preservation, the equivalent to \"greed for life,\" may be different, the fundamental instinct of all humans is to self-preserve, i.e. be greedy for life. You stating that procreation ensures our survival, then subsequently stating that we do not all have greed for life, is extremely hypocritical and inappropriate. Gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination. As to your assumption that \"the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct,\" this is an outrageous accusation! I never suggested that gay marriage would lead to the extinction of the human race, I am simply proving that gay marriage does not benefit society nor the future of our society. Please refrain from any further unjustified accusations! By the way, if you think overpopulation reduces the chances of extinction, you're wrong (see http://www.biologicaldiversity.org... for more information). Unfortunately, I also have to burst your opaque political bubble. The First Amendment text that I quoted was not from Wikipedia, it was from the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov...). The First Amendment does not state or imply that \"your freedom ends once you intrude on the others' freedom.\" I have managed to disprove your arguments once again. Yet, your detail regarding the Ninth Amendment's text is extremely intriguing, but fallaciously unsupported. The current legal interpretation of the Constitution, with respect to the Ninth Amendment, allows for regulation of marriage by States. However, in United States Constitutional law, a particular Federal Principle called \"Substantive due Process\" allows courts to protect certain fundamental rights from governmental interference, marriage being one of them. Thus, your argument suggesting that gay marriage should be a government-regulated liberty in accordance to the Ninth Amendment would be valid if it were not for the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, both exploiting Substantive due Process to prohibit governmental interference of the fundamental rights of the people.Illegalizing gay marriage not only serves as a safeguard for prevalent child development, it reduces homosexual's composition of population and fundamentally benefits our society's advancement, without infringing any Constitutional rights or liberties. As this is my final argument, I would like to say that it has been an absolute pleasure debating with you on such a challenging and controversial subject! It has been both a learning experience and an opportunity to practice my skills as a debater. Thank you for debating with me.", "qid": 14, "docid": "5c2b5def-2019-04-18T17:19:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7703406810760498}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7692023515701294}, {"content": "Title: people are born gay Content: By born gay I don't mean that people are born with a sex drive, that develops later in life. \"What you ARE born with is a predisposition to what you will be attracted to when you begin your sexual awakening. \" \" \"American Medical Association Official Website:\" http://www.apa.org... (You'll want to read each section of this article on homosexuality divided into the drop boxes) \"Here is an article from Cornell University : https://confluence.cornell.edu... \" here is the article released by The American Psychoanalytical Association Official Website:\" http://www.apsa.org... \"is a link to The American Pediatric Associaton Official Website's article on Homosexuality:\" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... \"of these sources say that homosexuality is not a choice. \"It is something you are born with. \"Can I see your links now? \" Take or leave the one from Cornell University or any other University. \"Similar conclusions have been found by Yale, Oxford, and several other Ivey League Schools. \"Those articles are also publicly available. \"The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Pediatric Association Trump any University statement anyway. So many world leading doctors, scientists, biologists and psychologists say being gay is not a choice. (Let's hope I can get a decent opponent this time)", "qid": 14, "docid": "83991946-2019-04-18T13:42:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7659735679626465}, {"content": "Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: \"evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved\"[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: \"A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight\" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...", "qid": 14, "docid": "62827e8d-2019-04-18T16:10:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7640845775604248}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America Content: I have never claimed to accept the corresponding statement you've used and I am unaware as to why you'd actually make it up out of nowhere. PRO is putting words in my mouth and I would like to assure the readers that I have not, in any way implied that \"these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation\". It hasn't been definitively proven that Genetics do not and cannot change an individual's sexual orientation just as I've mentioned prior to this argument: \"While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact\". Also, it hasn't been proven that if society learns to become more lenient toward homosexuals and accords them the right to marry each other, more and more boys, for example, will suddenly decide to prefer men over women. Hence, proof is weak on both sides of the bargain and you can't just jump into conclusions. I do, however, have the following proof of homosexual heredity: \"James I of England (James V of Scotland) Son of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) had a gay father, Lord Darnly and was also gay himself. \" \"Charles I of England (1625 King of England) Son of a gay father James I of England and had a gay grandfather Lord Damly. \" SOURCE: . http://gaylife.about.com... Upon doing a little bit of research, I have stumbled upon an article that goes: \" If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay\". SOURCE: . http://www.hollanddavis.com... The abovementioned sentence would sound illogical to anyone who's versed in the basics of Genetics. There is more than just one type of twins, such as twins conceived separately, half identical twins, mirror image twins, etc. The study has been conducted only on very few cases, if not only one. As for your saying that it's not related to Genetics but Epigenetics, I'll have you know that the latter is merely a subbranch of the former; thus, if we were to think of it from a semantic perspective, then whether you'd use the term \"Genetics\" or \"Epigenetics\", it's the same thing: \"epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype. .. \", the key word here being \"gene\". Thus, there is not enough scientific proof to confirm that sexual preference can be artificially determined and I do not know of any person to have been so physiologically altered. While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have \"greed for life\". Gay marriage does not restrict our ability to procreate; besides, I'm sure you would agree that the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You seem to approach the manner solely from a scientific view, which is why I'm doing the same and suggesting that you don't bring ethics into this since the two aren't linked. The first amendment states, beside what you've copied from Wikipedia that your freedom ends once you intrude on others' freedom, which you are doing right now. Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? I've managed to disprove your arguments once again. While the first amendment does not particularly mention homosexuals, we have the ninth amendment, which \"addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. \" Homosexuals can also have families and raise children properly if given the chance to. By illegalizing gay marriage, they would be denied their rights as an actual married couple. For example, they are required to testify against each other in court even if they're been together for dozens of years. They also can't interfere in their partners' situation in terms of medical emergencies and much more. Paternal and maternal figures don't have a huge impact on the lives of children as much as the first 7 educational years do. In fact, homosexual couples would be more likely to encourage their children to be lenient than heterosexual couples, as you can also agree that most homosexuals have been subject to personal belittlement and denigration. Then again, I can't even speak in regards to the majority; as I've previously mentioned, we are all different, complex beings with all sorts of (sometimes) uncanny and queer psychological traits. While one children may be devastated by the fact that both his/her parents are of the same gender, another might not care at all. PRO mentioned that \"Girls who are raised without a father figure are at higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. \". You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent. Legalizing marriage wouldn't put anyone at risk. Civil unions are completely normal and it only ensures homosexuals their deserved rights as human beings. It won't damage society in any way, be it theoretical or practical. There are a lot of homosexuals with integrity out there and sexual preference does not make a person entirely.", "qid": 14, "docid": "5c2b5def-2019-04-18T17:19:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7634737491607666}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error. [b]\"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex.\"[/b] This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist. [b]\"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b] Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities. [b]\"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?\"[/b] Homosexuals are not sterile. [b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b] Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it. The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.", "qid": 14, "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7606241703033447}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: ~\"My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender.\" Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. ANY sexual act is a choice. Sexuality (heterosexuality) is not a choice but a default setting. Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7fc54c65-2019-04-18T19:18:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7567190527915955}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Twin StudiesMy opponent claims that because identical twins share the same DNA, they should both have the same sex orientation, but they don't. Therefore, he claims, it must be environmental. This has a number of problems to it. First, making a point against the notion: \"Homosexuals are born that way\" does not automatically prove your argument. For example, I could say \"Because identical twins don't have the same sexuality, it can't be genes, it must be flying dinosaurs.\", and it would still follow the same logic you have used. Second, people who have gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for these types of scientific studies, which can cause the results to become skewed.I agree, sexual orientation is not entirely due to DNA. That does not mean, however, that it is automatically environmental. Hormones play a major part in determining gender as well as sexual orientation, namely, the hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. When in the womb, all babies are female, and in order to become male require hormones, namely testosterone. It is entirely possible that in the case of twins, one twin is exposed to less testosterone than the other. This is how you get fraternal twins. If for whatever reason onebaby was exposed to less testosterone than the other but both came out as male, the one who received less testosterone is more likely to be gay. The flip side applies for girls. Gay ParentsMy opponent claims through this study that gay parents are more likely to have homosexual kids than straight parents do, and therefore the gay parents must somehow influencing their kid to also become gay. There are also a number or issues with this conclusion. First, again, gay people are more likely to volunteer for/agree to these kinds of studies, again making the test pool skewed. Second, it is also entirely possible that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, and that \"homosexual gene\" (to kind of over-simplify it) may have been passed down to the child.Reorientation TherapyThe way reorientation therapy works is that they give the \"patient\" a positive stimulus when they have lustful thoughts for the opposite sex and negative stimulus for when they have lustful thoughts for the same sex. They also may fill them up with estrogen/testosterone in an attempt to make them find the opposite sex more attractive. However, it has been shown time and time again that this does not work. The first and main reason is that homosexuality is not psychosis. Again, if my opponent is saying that homosexuality is mutable, he is also implying that it is some sort of disease. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, if it was a disease, psychologists or doctors would be easily be able to discern them from straight people. But they can't, as seen in a study of I can't recall the name but it was mentioned in a This American Life's episode 81 words. I will however, provide a similar study below.A recent APA task force did a study on this and found in their 2009 report that the participants in their study went through gay conversion therapy and came out negligibly more attracted to the opposite sex and remained just as attracted to the same sex. On the other hand, what did change was the patients state of mental health, as the side effects of such therapy's were loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.A lot of these studies that my opponent mentioned have a number of issues. From 1960 to 2007 only 83 studies confirm my opponents case, of which most had biases such as a court ordering that compelled them to take the therapy or a very small, low budget test pool. Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? Because if you did, please stop, I will not debate with a website.Animals \"There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans.\"This statement has a number of issues. First, there are known animals who have long term homosexual relationships, a lot actually, namely geese and duck (who mate for life), dwarf chimpanzees (all of which, that's right, all, are bisexual), swans (also mate for life), domestic cats (mate for life), and lions (mate for life), to name a few. Second, my opponent forgets that humans are also animals. What applies to animals may also apply to humans, we are not suddenly above anything animal relate just because we are humans. This is why we do drug tests on mice; they 80% related to humans.I forgot to put sources last time, I put them here this time. Sorry!http://listverse.com...http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wehonews.com...http://www.thisamericanlife.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7555667161941528}, {"content": "Title: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the... Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully \u2013 which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.", "qid": 14, "docid": "2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00010-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7535971999168396}, {"content": "Title: There is no such thing as gay \"marriage!\" Content: Thank you for you argument. Your points are very valid. \"Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second,\"I don't buy into this \"psychological gender\" thing. Sure a male person could have female characteristics or a female person have male characteristics and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, BUT just because they feel they are something else does not mean they are. A person can think they are a dog but does that make you a dog. the mind can be decieving. Just because you think you are male/female does not mean you are.\"If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on.\"The reason why the amount of homosexuals is roughly the same is due to the fact that still many homosexuals remain in the closet afraid to come out because they are afraid of their parents disowning them or being looked down upon by soceity (ps. I am not condoning people crude behaviour towards homosexuals).Homosexuality is not predetermined because there are many ex-gays who now live heterosexual lives. However, you cannot change your eye colour, hair colour or gender. You may be able to get contact lenses, dye your hair or become transgender but no matter what you do, your genetics can never change. Your blue eye contact lenses will not replace your natural brown eyes, you blonde hair dye will not replace your natural brown hair and you getting a few more hormones injected into yourself will not get rid of your XX or XY chromosomes. However, with homosexuality, how come their offspring never become homosexual themselves? How come they always come from straight parents? This comes to prove homosexuality is a choice rather than a predetermined factor. And also, Christians as well as other religious people and God would not condemn homosexuals if homosexuality were actually hereditary.\"Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality.\"If most other people in the world were gay, this would spark a huge problem. We would have an ageing population and then very soon after the human race would crumble away. The phrase \"I can't help myself,\" is what everyone uses when they do something bad. Let's say the adulterer says to their spouse, \"oh I just couldn't help myself,\" does that make it acceptable? Most people would say no. Only you are in control of your emotions and you can't let them get the best of you. And I always see homosexuals trying to use the race card when it comes to justifying their lifestyle. Yes you can't pick your race, but like I said above, if homosexuality were hereditary, Christians, the Bible and God would not condemn those who were. It would make no logical sense because God loves everybody regardless of their sexual orientation.\"I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight.\"You can choose to be straight. No one is stopping you. You just choose not to because you accept the fact that this is who you are. I garuntee if you spend time with the Lord in prayer, he will help you.\"But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!\"I agree. I hate it when people dicriminate against homosexuals- especially Christians because that is not the attitude they should be having. As Christians we are supposed to love others, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not. But you've got to remember, no all Christians who disagree with homosexuality are being discriminatory. Discrimination os the unfair treatment of someone in favour of another that can be based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation as well as other factors. If you simply disagree with homosexuality, there is no discrimination nor prejudice in that, just like if you simply disagree with abortion does not mean you're discriminating. It all depend on how you carry out your beliefs.\"Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.\"About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year.\"\"The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students.\" [2]\"Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?\"Of course not. These cases are unbelievable and should no be tolerated, but pro-gays and gays think they are the ony ones affected by this. Chrststians can be discriminated against as well:1.) \"Gay' activists kill cash sources for Christian charities. Internet-based campaigns scare away corporate donors with 'hate group' charge http://www.wnd.com...; 2.) \"Police are searching for the culprits who threw concrete bricks through the door and windows of a Christian facility in Illinois as it prepared for a banquet for a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda . . . LaBarbera notes that a left-wing website with a letter from a group of homosexuals taking credit for the attack warns that more will follow if the host site for the banquet does not disassociate from its featured speaker, Scott Lively, and AFTAH. http://www.onenewsnow.com...; \"Homosexual activists are pressuring PayPal to not handle donations made to groups that promote traditional values . . . Founder Peter LaBarbera [of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] refers to it as \"homofascism in action,\" as it asks people to stop financially supporting Christian groups, which the homosexual activists refer to as \"hate groups.\" http://www.onenewsnow.com... \"PayPal officially states that its users \"may not use the PayPal service for activities that [ . . . ] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance\" but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate. http://allout.org...; But people seem to ignore discrimination Christians face. \"The Declaration of Independence states that \"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\" [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty.\"Note that the Declaration of Independence- a secular decleration uses the term, \"Creator\" and even in a capital C, I have a feeling this might be God as only He is called the Creator. And you're right. Everyone deserves liberty- even homosexuals, but liberty does not mean giving people something they simply cannot have.\"Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?\"Gay couples can have Civil Partnerships (though I also don't agree with them) or a domestic union, whatever you want to call it, but those are not the sme as a marriage. Marriage is about more than just signing a contract, living together and loving each other. The real defintion of marriage is bout bring each other closer to God, raising children in an Godly environment as well as dwelling with each other and loving one another unconditionally for life. \"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.\" [6]\"So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state.\"You don't have to be religious to oppose gay marriage. There are lots of secular people who disagree with gay marriage. The government could have barred in in a state because of this.\"Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [11]\"\"We simply could stop it there, as the definition does, in fact, include same-sex couples,\"Yes but note it says, \"in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex.\" This comes to show that even though humanity has redefined the defintion of marriage, it has been and will always be primarily thought of as between one MAN and one WOMAN. And besides, just because the government thinks they can redefine marriage does not mean they actually can. I don't buy into that. GOD created marriage, not man. We have NO authority to redefine it. No matter what the Crown Court or Supreme Court says, the REAL definition of marriage will always be between a man and a woman.I wish I could cover your other arguments but I am running out of characters. So for my conclusion. I don't believe ther is such thing as gay marriage because that is not the way it has always been. Marriage before recently was always seen as a union between an man and a woman.", "qid": 14, "docid": "242d821e-2019-04-18T13:14:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7529809474945068}, {"content": "Title: Gay Rights. Content: I'd kind of agree with that. My theory is that gays are born gay. I think that maybe you can decide that you're gay if you're questioning but for the most part they are born with it. Haha this is more like a conversation not a debate!", "qid": 14, "docid": "924a24b2-2019-04-18T17:55:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.751691997051239}, {"content": "Title: homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else, including marriage Content: There is no evidence that people are born gay. Until anyone can prove that there is a definitive \"gay\" gene, then I will always believe that no one is born homosexual but that it is a choice.", "qid": 14, "docid": "cf9a2f61-2019-04-18T19:58:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7514975070953369}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I am against the notion that a person's sexual orientation is a choice. I would like to debate this topic with an opponent and see what has to be said by an opposing view. The debate will go as follows Round 1: Opening statement Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statement", "qid": 14, "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7512617111206055}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: Con begins his round by trying to establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and subject to a large number of variables. While I do think that biology plays a part in sexual orientation, I definitely agree that nature AND nurture play a role. The study Con presented (Exotic Becomes Erotic) explains the same thing, with the author noting that children's temperment is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors that contribute to their childhood gender identity. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. What causes homosexuality is not up for question; whether or not gay people can be good parents is. As such, I don't need to respond to any of this unless Con explains why it's relevant. Con tries to divert attention away from the resolution and focus on other anti-gay sentiments, such as suggesting that gay people have a higher suicide rate than others, and then demanding I prove that social stigmas aren't to blame. Let me be clear: If Con really wants to debate why the suicide rate for LGBT people is higher - in other words, if he thinks discrimination and social stigmas aren't to blame - I would love the opportunity to inundate him with fact after fact from innumerable sources explaining why he'd be embarrasingly wrong. Let's debate that next. However again, this has nothing to do with the current resolution unless Con's point is to suggest that gay parents are likely (not more likely) to kill themselves. In that case, I welcome him to find cases where gay parents committed suicide, and include them as sources in his next round. I will address them then. Otherwise, this has been a complete waste of time and character space.Now let's move on to my contentions and I'll highlight my opponent's rebuttals. 1. PRO: Gay people are functioning members of society... None of the qualities associated with good parents are exclusive to heterosexuals. CON: That is generally not the case... --> If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro. 2. PRO: A parent's sexual endeavors have little to no impact on their ability to raise a child.--> Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro. 3. PRO: Two parents are better than one - it doesn't matter if the parents are gay (study confirms). CON: \"Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant.\"--> No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro. 4. PRO: Gay parents tend to exude greater commitment and more involvement considering 50% of heterosexual's pregnancy's are unplanned.CON: \"This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship...\"--> Basically Con just negated the entire idea that gays would make subpar parents due to potential depression (as he insinuated at the beginning of the debate). If Con doesn't think we should consider this fact, then Con cannot take anecdotal instances of depression or any negative factor and apply it to gay parenting as a whole. Instead, we must look at how one's sexuality in general affects the ability to parent. I will agree to drop this contention on the basis that Con's response to it has negated several of his own arguments anyhow. Also, I messed up with numbering in previous rounds, so let's drop this and move on to the other #4...4. PRO: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life.CON: \"Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter.\" Fathers and mothers are not interchangable... --> The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits. Con mentioned that \"rough and tumble\" play with their fathers provides children with a variable resource. In looking at the source from Con, there is absolutely nothing in there that explains why a child's biological father is necessary or even more valuable than having simply a male figure and role model around. For instance if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be preferable male role models. Con also notes that \"presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls.\" However other studies note that compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They also have higher self-esteem and confidence, and tend to break rules less, indicating that teen pregnancy is likely not in the cards [7]. This debate is about one's sexual orientation affecting their ability to parent - not whether or not you can have the same biological ties to someone who is not related to you (obviously not). As such, I haven't seen any evidence that fathers and mothers aren't interchangeable insofar as being positive male/ female role models. 5. PRO: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited specifically to the parents. Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior.--> Con dropped this. The point goes to Pro.6. PRO: Potentially teasing the kids is a terrible and irrelevant contention... --> Con dropped this, so he must agree. 7. PRO: \"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures...\" I included multiple sources noting that just about every study on gay parenting found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. CON: \"Copied and pasted from source.\" --> My opponent pointed out that I copied and pasted a sentence from a source. Considering I sourced the sentence, that isn't remotely problematic. On the other hand, it's really sad that Con dropped every single study and every single fact backing up my case for no apparent reason. As we can see, these studies are the meat and potatoes of the debate. My opponent cannot compete with the fact that science and psychology are on my side. [ CONCLUSION ] Con hasn't denied that the vast consensus of ALL studies show that there is NO inherent harm in same-sex parenting. He hasn't denied that homosexuals can possess any quality a heterosexual can in terms of attributes that contribute to good parenting. He hasn't remotely contested the legitimacy of the studies, considering there are dozens that take into account hundreds of cases of kids with gay parents. Ergo, Con acknowledges that research indicates that kids of gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures. Meanwhile, the research also incidcates that there are BENEFITS to same-sex parenting. Con's only rebuttal included the notion that fathers are important for rough and tumble play and to decrease the chances of teen pregnancy. I pointed out that you can have the benefits of male and female role models without having them be parents. It takes a village to raise a child, as indicated by my study that parents aren't the be-all and end-all in terms of development. The resolution has been affirmed.[7] http://www.care2.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "b258b83b-2019-04-18T18:10:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7508001327514648}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hi, I will be arguing that homosexuals are \"born that way\"When my opponent says that homosexuals are not \"born that way\", he is implying that such a sexual orientation is artificial in one way or another. He says that \"Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop\". Now if this were true, we would see a certain demographic of homosexual people. For example, if exposure to, say, pine trees gives people a higher chance of being gay, then we would see people who live near pine trees or are otherwise regularly exposed to pine trees would be statistically \"more gay\" than people who aren't very much involved with pine trees. My point is, all gay people would have something in common environmentally, be it where they live or how they were raised, etc. However, we don't see that. There are homosexuals from an enormous range of demographics, such as from poor gays to rich gays to Chinese gays to American gays to famous gays to celebrity gays to atheist gays and to religious gays. If homosexuality was not inborn but was affected by environmental factors, there wouldn't be homosexuals with such a diverse array of backgrounds. All homosexuals do have something in common with each other, however, and that is their chromosomes. Scientists tested 400 gay men and found that homosexuality can be associated with at least two chromosomes, which affect a man's sexual orientation. In 1993 Dean Hamer studied the family history of 100 gay men and found that homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were also gay (compared to 3% of the population), and uncles and male cousins on the mother's side also had a higher chance of being gay. Hamer, upon analyzing the X-chromosome, found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers had similar marks on a certain region on the chromosome. That is not to say that homosexuality is entirely genetics, it also involves other factors such as the amount of hormones the baby was exposed to in the womb.If homosexuality was affected by environmental factors, lesbians would be the same in every way biologically to straight women, and gay men would also be in every way biologically the same as straight men. However, this is not the case. Testosterone is commonly associated to spatial reasoning. When put under a spatial reasoning test, gay men tended to do worse than straight men, and lesbians tended to do better than straight women. Gay men are 31% more likely to be left handed than straight men, and lesbians are 91% more likely to be left handed than straight women. The more older brothers a male has, the higher chance that male has of being gay. This is because after giving birth to a male, the mother's body may resist the production of another male baby and can change the sexual orientation of that baby. The way this happens was explained above throughout the chromosome region. In gay men and heterosexual women, the two sides of the brain were about the same size, while in gay women and heterosexual men, the right side of the brain was slightly larger. What does this all suggest? Gay men share traits with straight women, and gay women share traits with straight men. As such, homosexuality cannot be a product of the environment.When my opponent says that homosexuality is mutable, he implies one of three things: 1. Homosexuality is a choice 2. Homosexuality is a disease. 3. Homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous.My opponent clearly states that he is not arguing that homosexuality is a choice, so #1 is out. Homosexuality is definitely not evolutionarily advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate, so #3 is out. What we are left with is #2, which says homosexuality is a disease. Now this may be a little provocative, and I hope not to insult anyone, but this is what I have deduced from my opponent's claim that homosexuality is mutable. This was my thought process:-Opponent claims homosexuality is mutable, or can be changed-Other things that are also mutable in terms of humans are choices, diseases (both biological and psychological), and some evolutionary adaptations.-Opponent clearly states that he is not arguing homosexuality is a choice. Cross choice out-Homosexuality is not evolutionary advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate. Cross that out-Disease is left. -Ergo, the statement \"homosexuality is a mutable\" implies that homosexuality is a disease.Now I don't know if Pro meant to imply this, and I'm sorry if he didn't, but homosexuality is clearly not a disease as proven by the above evidence. Gay conversion therapy exists, but these programs have a 3% percent \"success\" rate, and these success tended to be religiously correlated, whether it be the \"cured\" converts to a religion that disallow homosexuality or he/she is already involved in a religion that disallows homosexuality.To extended the diversity argument, over 1500 species have been found to have homosexual tendencies. Now these animals range from dwarf monkeys to lions to bison to geese to penguins and to dolphins. Now all of these animals live in completely different parts of the globe. How would it be possible that homosexual tendencies can be found in 1500 species from all over the globe if environmental factors are responsible for it?", "qid": 14, "docid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7499785423278809}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more \"men on men\" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.", "qid": 14, "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7494332194328308}, {"content": "Title: born gay Content: Being born gay means that you at birth are attracted to the same sex, which, is not true. Being gay is about how you perceived life and your ethics and codes that you now live by.", "qid": 14, "docid": "21910622-2019-04-18T13:51:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7491476535797119}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S. Content: Pro says that homosexuals are born that way, despite giving no evidence to support the claim. 1. People aren't born homosexual The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence denies the existence of a \"gay gene.\" This is illustrated through the following report by the daily caller. \"Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate. The scholars I interviewed for this essay were variously dismayed or appalled by this trend. For example, historian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said \"no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.\" And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: \"Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it\"s impossible that that\"s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.\" While biology certainly plays a role in sexual behavior, no \"gay gene\" has been found\" [1] 2. Even if people are born with homosexual urges, they shouldn't act out on them. My opponent didn't address the point I made in my last speech, showing that some people are born with tendency to become angry more easily. However, just because a feeling exists does not mean you should act on it. Pro asks how I know homosexual behavior is destructive. I will refer my opponent back up to my conceded first contention, where i demonstrated that homosexuality increases STD's, suicide rates, and damages the immune system. Furthermore, it is gateway toward the legalization of beastiality and polygamy. Sources 1. http://dailycaller.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "9b60ca6e-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7483890056610107}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is not a choice made by the individual. Content: Seriously? For real. Are you serious? Obviously being a homosexual is a choice. No one is born gay. You said ones sexual orientation is based on their parents. You are right That doesn't mean that it is not a choice. It is their parents choice thast they make their kid gay. As for the kid. As young as 12, they know that being gay is a very controversal thing, and their parents have no right to tell them whether or not they can dig Women, or Shlongs. I am keeping this short, so heres a summary. 1. The parents decide if the parents are gay 2. The kid can decide his own sexuality 3. The parents choice doesnt matter 4. And it doesnt matter because this isnt only about children, but gayness in general 5. That being said, I know plenty of gay people who decided to be gay on their own accord.", "qid": 14, "docid": "4e4efcc0-2019-04-18T17:45:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7464869022369385}, {"content": "Title: People can be born Homosexual. Content: I disagree that people can be \"born homosexual\" because it doesn't make sense for a baby to have feelings towards their same gender at their time period. Its imposable to be born as anything. If people are homosexual maybe its because of their experiences in their life but it makes no sense for a person to be born as a homosexual.", "qid": 14, "docid": "ea863988-2019-04-18T15:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.746343731880188}, {"content": "Title: People are Born Gay Content: My opponent has failed to provide any proof to his claims. A person is not born gay. It is out of choice for a person to be gay. I will leave it at that. Hopefully the Pro/for can provide a better argument that I may counter.", "qid": 14, "docid": "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7459243535995483}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is a choice, God did not \"make\" them that way Content: Your position is wrong in three critical ways. 1) Homosexuality isn't a choice. In fact, fMRI scans seem to indicate a very directly that there is no choice involved. There are actually brain differences which result in the attraction to one gender or another and those difference can be in either sex. Just as I never choose to be straight, I'm certain other people didn't choose to be gay. There are probably a few genes which may increase the chances of being born homosexual just as there are genes to increase the chances of being left-handed, but nothing to imply that it's a chosen behavior. 2) There is no God. It's part of the topic and relevant to note, but to say that God did something requires a considerable amount of evidence and I am certain you do not have any evidence, much less the considerable amount required to make such a claim. 3) Although, it is rather tangentially to the topic at hand there is an underlying impression that if homosexuality is a choice that it is somehow evil or wrong or something. Whereas even if it were a choice, it would still be an acceptable choice. Some genes tend to control one thing directly, other genes tend to work in a number of subtle ways in conjunction with other genes and piecing them together is going to take a long time. However, we can be sure that brain scans are accurate and that there is no conscious triggering of attraction cues. It takes about half a second before people can make a conscious choice, however faster than that a number of attraction cues and neural activity triggers. These triggers to an attractive male stimuli are the same for heterosexual women and homosexual man and all occur prior to conscious reaction. Furthermore, there are many examples of homosexual activity in nature, from monogamous male penguins to purely bisexual bonobos. A couple years back we even found a single gene trigger in fruit flies which makes them gay. Honestly, gene one way it would mate with a female fruit fly, the other way and it goes after male fruit flies. Firstly, there is no fault in being gay, there is just being gay. Fault implies there's something wrong with it. Secondly, we can tell through the biological tools we have today that homosexuality is biologically based, with perhaps some genetic components, but is, in fact, inborn and probably takes place during brain development. The youngest son a woman has, has an 5% chance rather than the typical 3% of being born homosexual, in a statistically significant study published a year ago. I fully understand and respect your need to toss around God this and God that in order to find justification for your bias and bigotry. However, the underlying facts simply aren't there. Homosexuality is an inborn neural quality of many species and your mythological characters don't change the facts behind the issue. Moreover, to say that homosexuality is a choice because God wouldn't create homosexuals homosexual, because that would be against God's law. This actually makes every claim needed to provide a good argument that your God doesn't exist. All one needs to do is look at the iron-clad evidence that homosexuality is not a choice and your bigoted view of a God who hates homosexuals and would never create them, to realize that there is a contradiction here. And when you're choosing which premise to knock down the one with the iron-clad backing is not a good choice. Perhaps there is a God, but it certainly wouldn't be your hate-filled gay-hating deity, because we live in a world where homosexuality is not a choice. Finally you rest this argument on some rather silly logic that if God was creating homosexuals this would make no sense because why would God create people just to burn them in hell? Well, if this actually was your God's goal, why not have one shred of reasonable evidence for his existence? I mean, such a deity shouldn't allow for reasonable unbelief when any unbelief results in eternal punishment and torture. In fact, your God shouldn't make anybody who will not end up in heaven. If God knows what a person will do, and knows that they will end up in hell because of disbelief or homosexuality they shouldn't be made in the first place. You're condemning people on the grounds that you're God is twisted and makes little logical sense. You are resting your opinions about homosexual on theological reasons. Even if you ignore the tortured theology which got you there, you can't dismiss the overwhelming evidence that you're simply wrong. There is very good evidence that homosexuality and heterosexuality is inborn, exists in nature, and establishes itself during brain development.", "qid": 14, "docid": "88fc8c51-2019-04-18T20:02:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7456048727035522}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender. I have argued consistently that is utterly false. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous asexual period where we made a cold calculating deliberate choice to establish our sexuality. From what I can tell from personal experience sexual feelings arose unbidden. My opponents argument denies the existence of homosexuals who are wracked by fear or guilt and so keep their sexuality hidden. If sexuality was a choice why would they just select one more pleasing to their friends, family, or society. If sexuality were a choice might not certain liberally minded people chop and change on a whim, or choose permanently to be bisexual to experience as much as possible? What of paedophiles who are able to understand that their sexuality is 'wrong' and so demand treatment, or beg not to be released at the end of their sentence. If sexuality were a choice why not simply choose one more becoming? My opponent however is adamant that sexuality is a choice, so I look forward to his argument and rebuttal.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7fc54c65-2019-04-18T19:18:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.744728684425354}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, \"Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all.\" That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the \"gay gene\" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, \"Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body\" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, \"How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?\" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, \"Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of \"homosexual?\" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That \"someone\" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, \"Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place.\" Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, \"As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution.\" Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.ejhs.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.rainn.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7444107532501221}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations \" gay, straight, and bisexual \" work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come \"naturally\"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.744216799736023}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: are you also saying that your not born with a personality??? none of my family members or friends are trans or gay and I have always been gay. Yes it's in the genes Most homosexual people are in fact born that way, others may pick to be gay or have things that occur during their life that takes them that direction sexually. There is so much proof that people are born gay these days that people that do not believe it really just have their heads stuck in the sand, we need to be more open and loving to everyone's sexual desires as long as they are legal. Only straight people don't think so. The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay.", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7436667680740356}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said \"I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone\" You're making a change. You said \"As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are.\" No, that's one changing their ways.", "qid": 14, "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.742518424987793}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: As the Pro did not post a third round rebuttal, this argument will be a closing statement. Homosexuality, being the attraction to a member of the same sex, is not a choice. There may not be definite concrete evidence to directly prove it to be genetic, but, there is definitely more than enough to indirectly prove it to not be a choice. That is the argument here. To start, there is all of the scientific studies done which were listed previously. The twin study, which concluded with results (a 52% chance of the second of an identical twin set to be gay if one is gay, and a 22% chance for the second to be gay in fraternal twins) that would just not have been the case if genetics played no role in sexuality. (1) Homosexuals also have different brain structures than heterosexuals. Gay men's brains more resembling that of a straight woman and lesbian women having brains resembling those of straight men. (1) How is it even humanly possible for someone to make a choice on their own sometime during their teenage years and then manage to reshape their brain structure?! It is simply not a possibility. The difference in brain structure from homosexuals to heterosexuals is believed to be caused by both environmental and genetic factors. A combination of the two. This is because in twin studies, the identical twins were only both gay 52% of the time and that is a higher result than the 15% of two children who are not related whatsoever. The 22% in fraternal twins also points to a genetic cause as it would \"run in the family\", so to speak. (2) Lastly, conversion therapy (the next best thing to \"making the choice\" yourself) scarcely has success in turning a gay person straight. If it were a choice to be homosexual, then wouldn't it just take a bit of convincing, persuading and maybe some homophobia statistics to convince that person otherwise about their \"choice\"? If it were that simple, then there definitely wouldn't even be any gay people on the planet! Why would anyone choose to have a certain quality about them that would subject that person to judgement, hate, and even in some cases, violence? In samples of patients of conversion therapy, the best success rate found in converting homosexuals to heterosexuals was 0.5%. This occurred in eight out of 202 people who looked to Schroeder & Shidlo to change their sexuality. Unfortunately, those who claimed to manage to change had already been \"ex-gays\". Most other \"ex-gay ministries\" and other groups have success rates of a shockingly productive rate of 0%. (3) Again, if homosexuality was a choice, wouldn't it be fairly easy, or at least somewhat successful, to convince the person otherwise? Shouldn't there be something more than a generously reported 0.5% success rate?! The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Paediatrics, and The National Association of Social Workers all state that homosexuality is not something that can be treated with conversion therapy, is not a mental disease at all and therefore does not require any treatment, that sexuality is unchangeable and is not a choice. Along with all of those scientists, so many people will tell you that being gay was never a choice for them. Heterosexuals can of course say the same that it was never their choice to be straight. Tons of people know this for a fact in their hearts, and if you ask yourself the question, \"When did I ever choose what gender I am attracted to?\" you can find the same answer. There was never a choice. There never will be a choice. People discover their sexuality and a choice is simply not something that occurs, and people can know this even without the mounds of scientific evidence that proves the \"Choice\" theory blatantly incorrect. 1. http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net... 2. http://www.thetech.org... 3. http://www.religioustolerance.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "4af6a77e-2019-04-18T19:07:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7422716617584229}, {"content": "Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: Since Pro has not set the BoP, we can assume that the BoP is placed on Pro. All I need to do is provide a reasonable case homosexuality is something you are not born with.My Case:I would like to assert homosexuality is caused by nurture; not nature. In biology, we learn that we have traits. These can be determined by certain factors. These factors are physical, environment, and spiritual in nature. A physical factor would be a certain level of melanin causing pigmentation. An environmental factor could be growing up in a bad place in town; causing the person to be on constant alert. A spiritual factor could be someone keeping their virginity until marriage for their religion. While some traits are brought on by physical factors, our behavior is mostly shaped by our environmental and spiritual factors. A human's sexuality falls into this category of being shaped by environmental factors. Eight major studies in identical twins show that homosexuality is not genetic. As quoted by the article:\"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. \u201cBecause they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,\u201d Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. \u201cIf an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.\u201d Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. \u201cNo-one is born gay,\u201d he notes. \u201cThe predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.\u201d The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by \u201cnon-shared factors,\u201d things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. \u201cThese individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,\u201d he says.\" (1)\"Humans display a wide range of sexual feelings and behavior. Nowhere is this more prominent than in American culture which is saturated with images and references to sex and romantic love from television advertisements to billboard displays. Often, our identities as individuals are wrapped up with our romantic tendencies and how these play out in our relationships. Sometimes an individual\u2019s sexual behavior is used as a barometer for his or her moral or religious beliefs. Our collective sense of how human sexuality should be expressed is revealed through the rights and liberties that structure our lives as citizens. We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are. Each of the above areas of research displays findings that hinge on the assumption that a given individual\u2019s sexual expression neatly fits into the categories \u201cstraight\u201d and \u201cgay.\u201d By not considering evidence of human sexual fluidity, debates regarding origins and biology are not substantial or complete. Current efforts fail to tell the whole story. And even if we were to accept that the assigned sexual orientation of the individuals participating in these studies accurately reflected their lifelong expression, conclusive proof of a link between this and their genes has yet to be found.\"(2)It is clear that I have made the point that homosexuality depends on factors that are determined outside the womb. Thus, I have fulfilled my BoP. However, if my opponent still wants evidence, I'll be happy to provide Pro which such material. How can you change a person's sexuality? You can change it under the right environmental conditions. Rebuttals:Addressing opponent's 1st and 2nd argument:\"But all of this evidence rests on the notion that sexual orientation is fixed and that individuals are either \u201cstraight\u201d or \u201cgay.\u201d Researchers in these studies did not indicate whether individuals in their sample provided an extensive account of their sexual histories and tastes. Rather, individuals in the samples were simply asked to define their sexual orientation. In doing this, researchers set up a false dichotomy whereby the individuals studied are forced into one of two categories neither of which may accurately account for the full range of their sexual expression. Additionally, it is difficult to conclude with certainty that because a trait shows up more often among biologically-related siblings, it is inherited. In fact, many such traits appear to be linked to distinctly non-biological factors. Diet, drug addiction, religious and political orientation, and career paths are just a few of the behaviors that cluster in families due to shared social influences. Indeed, a shared environment can often produce a clustering of all types of behavior patterns. It is doubtful that any study could be designed with sufficient sensitivity to exclude this possibility. The methods used in family linkage studies, which depend upon recruitment from gay and lesbian magazines, websites, and organizations, carry a clear risk of ascertainment bias. Gay brother pairs may be more interested in responding than gay men with straight brothers, given the potential for homophobia among siblings and the substantial number of homosexuals who are \u201cin the closet\u201d toward their families. Twins or siblings who are both gay might find the subject interesting or already suspect a genetic basis of their shared sexual orientation, thus making them more likely to participate . In order to exclude these potentially confounding factors, more recent studies have drawn participants from random samples. A study in 2000 of 4,500 twins from the Australian Twin Registry by Bailey and colleagues showed only a 30% rate of homosexuality shared between both male and female identical twins.\" (2)Also, sources. Provide them. However, this proves such sources to be unfit to use.Response to argument 3:I have addressed this in my earlier argument.Response to argument 4, 5, 6, and 7:Thus, you admit some do change. This contradicts your stance that homosexuality is set from inside the womb. Also, source. Provide them.There are stories of people changing their sexuality in time; whether it be to heterosexuality of homosexuality. (3) (4) Again, this contradicts your claim. To sum them up, these are stories where the therapy actually worked and when people decided to be gay. In fact, a woman in source number four is a homosexual; yet acknowledges said therapies work in some occasions. Response to argument 8 and 9:Refer to my earlier argument.As for the \"God\" argument, I used to be Catholic. They taught in the Church that humans were given the right to autonomy; which is the ability to make an unbiased decision. With certain decisions, environmental factors could arise causing homosexuality; fulfilling God's right for our autonomy.I'm out of characters. I appreciate your time. Anime OP:1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7408013343811035}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may \"experiment\" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now.", "qid": 14, "docid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7403068542480469}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: In this case, I do agree with my opponent to some degree in that sexuality is a birth trait, however, I do not agree that is a \"mental defect\" as my opponent so blatantly put it. I propose that there is a biological component to sexuality, however it is not a choice, and is not just a LGBTQI thing, this is a human thing, a biological human trait. Sexuality is about so much more than just sex. Sexuality also encompasses how one feels about their body, their biological sex, one's gender, one's gender identity, one's sexual orientation, one's sexual behaviors, one's values and attitudes toward sexual relationships, and any desires or fantasies or sexual preferences. This also does not include just the LGBTQI community; this also includes heterosexual individuals. Sexuality is a human trait; it is a part of everyone's life to some degree. The DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, defines a mental defect as, \"mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning.\" However, with sexuality, we cannot classify it as a \"mental defect\" as everyone has or identifies with at least one, if not all, components of sexuality, which I defined above, and sexuality is not a dysfunction, nor does it impair at least one important area of an individual's functioning. Therefore, I propose that because sexuality is a HUMAN trait and it does NOT interfere with an individual's functioning in one important aspect of that individual's life, we absolutely CANNOT classify it as a \"mental defect.\"", "qid": 14, "docid": "e843d75f-2019-04-18T15:06:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7400450706481934}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: I feel that yes people are born a certain way and shouldn't be judged by that, it is not a choice they made, it's how they are. acceding to pink news, \"Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else\"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.\" and for me, I was born this way, God chose this path for me to take. according to CARM \"HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition, such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people c", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7399437427520752}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is natural. Content: My opponent has not at all supplied factual evidence that homosexuality is biological or of genetics. If homosexuality IS genetic, and the offspring of a carrier to the DNA marker carrying the gay gene is born gay, or homozygous gay, (no pun intended,) then the mother and the father would have to be at least heterozygous gay gene carriers. Homo meaning like, and hetero meaning passive. For instance, if gay is genetic, like hair color or something, than every gay person would have to have a few gay ancestors that were homozygous gay. Surely you dont believe that you can ONLY be gay if your ancestrial lines were also gay? ? Also wouldnt homosexuality been eliminated or \"bred\" out for the lack of reproductive homozygous gay gene carriers? One could not take the position that Homosexuals commonly reproduce in heterosexual manners in order to \"pass\" the gay gene on, for that theory would be in direct contradiction with the very defintion of homosexuality. The factual evidence that proves homosexuality is in fact UN-natural is the very definition that defines NATURE. My opponent seems to take the platiform position that the basic fact that homosexuality occures makes it natural. We are not in disagreement to the fact that homosexuality occures, but the cause for these occurences. Again, the occurences of homosexuality in other societies and species does not disprove that it is UN-natural. As I said before, two squirrels of the same gender having sex is just as un-natural as two humans having sex. The behavior patterns of animals or \"incubated\" societies of humans do not define nature. By the way, if these societies were truly secluded, then how do you know so much about their sexual behavior? As the defintion of sex according to Merriam-Webster is: >The sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females. < This proves your assumption that sex is not based on reproduction is false. If one could be considered homosexual, yet not be \"intimate,\" with the same gender, than my beer drinking buddies could argueably be gay. For it does require intimacy to be considered sexual in any sense, homo or hetero. Sexual behavior IS social, in every species! Social as the word is DEFINED means: `marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with one's friends or associates; `of, relating to; `the interaction of the individual and the group, or interaction of individuals; www. merriam-webster. com By the above defintion, sex IS social, in fact it requires it, or it would just be considered masterbation. As they say,\"it takes two to tango! \" (not necessarily just two. ) In closing, By the very DEFINITIONS of the word natural, in fact contradict the definitions of homosexuality. The BASIC FACT that homosexuality does not have \"potential,\" or \"necessity,\" proves that homosexualty is NOT of nature, and the \"occurences\" of homosexual behavior is the act of two of the same gender and species bieng sexual, is IN FACT, SEX out of its PRIMITIVE state, there fore, UN-NATURAL. Thank you,. .", "qid": 14, "docid": "bc820b56-2019-04-18T19:43:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7396802306175232}, {"content": "Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: I will argue people are born gay. I look forward to viewing your points in the next round and debating with you. Thank you.", "qid": 14, "docid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7395700216293335}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Content: See Debate: Homosexuality Sample argument: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Ted Olson. \"The conservative case for gay marriage.\" Newsweek. January 12, 2010: \"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed.\"", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00188-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7395102977752686}, {"content": "Title: People are born gay Content: I can't take it when people say gays were born gay. As con I will be arguing that people aren't born gay but become gay over time. As pro you must argue that people are indeed born gay. You may choose what you would like to do for each round. Free country!!", "qid": 14, "docid": "b2e1c509-2019-04-18T17:47:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7390841245651245}, {"content": "Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I'm going to defend the following point: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology. I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong.", "qid": 14, "docid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7388874292373657}, {"content": "Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: Humans cannot be born gay it is a choice. Your brain is naturally influenced to lust after your opposite gender. If being born gay was true it would have to consider being a mental disorder.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7b58b49f-2019-04-18T15:10:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7379478812217712}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: I. Homosexuality is NOT a choiceIn this rebuttal, my opponent says that things I previously referenced (gender, hair color, eye color, etc.) are determined by genetics and God. He also claims that being gay can't possibly be genetic, as it takes a man and a woman to have a child biologically. However, this is simply wrong. How so? Take a look at this excerpt. \"That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.\"While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.\" [1]In other words, it is, in fact, genetic.Also, the study my opponent quoted suggests that being gay is genetic. In fact, here's what one of the scientists who worked on the study said, regarding the results.\u201c'This study knocks another nail into the coffin of the \"chosen lifestyle\" theory of homosexuality,' says Simon LeVay, the neuroscientist and writer who, in 1991, claimed to have found that a specific brain region, within the hypothalamus, is smaller in gay men. 'Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else\u2019s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.' \u201c'Much hard work now lies ahead to identify the specific genes involved and how they work, as well as to find equivalent genes in women,' he adds.\" [2]You know what the funny part is? My opponent actually quoted this part in his rebuttal. My opponent then goes on to say that a homosexual must ask themself if the abuse is worth being gay. To me, this makes no sense. Why should a gay person have to question if being open about their sexuality is worth the bullying? I'll create a scenario in which it involves a straight person. Say that you're a man. You're in love with a woman. Should you be bullied for the gender you love? No. So why should it be different for gay people? Whether it's a choice or not, who you love is your business. No one should be allowed to try to convert you or change your mind. Why? Because it's not their life. II. Equality/Separation of Church and StateFirstly, my opponent says that if the Founding Fathers wanted homosexuals to be equal to heterosexuals, they would've made it legal throughout the U.S for gay people to marry. However, wouldn't the Founding Fathers also make slavery illegal if they truly wanted everyone to be equal? What about women being able to vote? They certainly would've made that legal to. And what about women being able to join the military in combat, rather than just for cooking and nursing purposes? Homosexuals, women, and black people have all been discriminated against in the past, which shows inequality. However, should we always stick with our old ways or strive to make the United States equal for all?My opponent drops my arguments on economic benefits and adoption, so keep that in mind when voting for either side.Closing StatementMy stance on gay marriage still stands, as I believe that it can aid everyone, whether it means through equality, economic growth, or adoption increase. The treatment LGBT people of the past is something we can make up for, just like we did with other similar civil rights issues. While discrimination may never go away, we can do our best to help oppressed people have equal rights to others in America, or eventually the world. To end, I present a quote from Mackelmore in the song \"Same Love\".And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it allBut it's a damn good place to startNo law is gonna change usWe have to change usWhatever God you believe inWe come from the same oneStrip away the fearUnderneath it's all the same loveAbout time that we raised up... [3]Thank you for the quality debate. Best of luck to you. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://www.natureworldnews.com...[2]https://www.newscientist.com...[3]http://www.azlyrics.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "6335c4fa-2019-04-18T13:04:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7365978360176086}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a choice Content: Firstly, my opponents mentions the Human Genome Project and claims there has been no findings of a gay gene. However, recent reports say otherwise: . http://www.medicaldaily.com... Male homosexuality may actually be genetic while female homosexuality is more questionable at this point. My opponent also mentions that many people may turn to homosexuality as a result of child abuse. This is also inaccurate as statistics in the US about child abuse are estimated at 16% for male sexual abuse and 27% for female sexual abuse. Only about 1.51% of the US population identifies as homosexual. . http://www.pandys.org... More common consequences of child abuse and neglect include shaken baby syndrome(only if the child in question is a young baby obviously), impaired brain development, depression, anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drug abuse, abusive behaviour themselves, and other. . http://www.childwelfare.gov... My opponent mentions a university study about a homosexual man turning straight after therapy. He has failed to provide sources therefore we know nothing about the man. Was he displaying homosexual traits in his behaviour from a young age? Was his mother pressuring him to be homosexual from a young age? These all of course bring up another point worth mentioning. Many children from a young age show traits that are perceived as being \"homosexual\". Just very recently there was a five year old boy in Germany being teased for wearing dresses by his own free will. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Unless this is just a simple case of a child ignoring gender roles(which most children wouldn't really even grasp the social concepts surrounding these in the first place) it's likely he is either homosexual or transsexual. If a child was doing such things after puberty then there could be a case perhaps that homosexuality is a choice, but this boy is pre-pubescent from what I understand. As for people \"switching\" their orientation maybe they were never truly homosexual in the first place and maybe bisexual? However, both my opponent and I agreed that bisexuality will not be discussed in this debate. My opponent then goes on to mention how the numbers of people claiming to be born homosexual has risen over the years. One factor contributing to this could be the fact that now with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted more people are willing to be open about these kinds of things. As we all know society evolves and so do the values represented in society. Next my opponent mentions the religious perspective. It is pretty much universally accepted among all religions that God is loving. Now one may be wondering that if God is loving why would he make gay people and then condemn them? There can be a pretty simple answer to this; just like how unmarried straight people are expected to control their urges the same could be said for homosexuals as well. Maybe it's just another test from God? Lastly, my opponent mentions pop culture and it's perceived affect on gay culture. One notable example used is Lady Gaga. While she does have many songs with pro-gay messages she does represent the overall general message of just being yourself. THis is an overall positive message and shouldn't be blamed for people \"becoming gay\". If they did so then they wouldn't be \"being themselves\" as Lady Gaga says now would they? As for suicides and bullying, if one chose to be gay wouldn't they just stop being gay so the bullying would stop? Yet they don't. Why? Is it because they can't help who they're sexually attracted to? I certainly think it could be a major factor. I now hand the reins over to my opponent. Good luck in round 2!", "qid": 14, "docid": "8532ca4-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7354861497879028}, {"content": "Title: Born gay part 2 Content: I do not think being gay is as simple as a choice, but I believe that when you're a child you are still trying to form connections and gather facts about the world. During this time you form your basic fundamental traits, although some genes do make some traits prominent than others, but you form what you think is socially acceptable, and you aren't even close to figuring things out about sexuality. I believe that during this time when you are so open to what you're parents tell you and what facts you are gathering, later in life you may develop certain personality traits that may make you homosexual, due to the basic fundamental connections you have formed as a child.", "qid": 14, "docid": "4b0ccd12-2019-04-18T13:50:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7352588772773743}, {"content": "Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: \"You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women\" My opponent is appealing to a personal experience instead of using a compelling argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent has not offered enough evidence to prove his claim. Until he does, his BOP is not yet fulfilled and we have literally no reason to vote for him.", "qid": 14, "docid": "62827e8d-2019-04-18T16:10:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7348133325576782}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is not a choice Content: Hello, I would like to join this Debate with you. Please note before we proceed, I would like to bring to your attention that I do not have any prejudices against sexuality, and I believe each human has their own preferences and settings. However I believe that Sexuality is a choice, and that is what I would like to debate with you. I would also like to state that even if you do not have a counter-argument, I would prefer to see a round of \"I have no counter argument\" as opposed to a forfeited round. Debate : I Believe that Sexuality is a Choice. You provided an example regarding apples and bananas - I would like to use this in my Example. Very accurately, you pointed out that one person who is actually gay, may have picked apple while another straight person also picked apple. This very argument is proof that regardless of tastes or backgrounds, people prefer different things, and will do them. Sexuality I have a feeling you believe is something that a person has when they are born (Please correct if this assumption is wrong, I can modify to cover this) - I cry false to this. I believe that this develops due to a persons own tastes, and is affected by their own likes. (Unproven, no one has monitored a persons interests as they grow) - This goes around things such as if the person has preferences to Tall people, muscles, brains, hair color, beliefs, etc. Now, those decisions are all subconscious, i.e. it is happening in the background without the person knowing this directly. However to act upon those decisions, THAT is a choice. I am not stating this as in they have chosen to like a certain person, but to physically react to their urges - that is the choice. I am not saying the above statement ignorantly, as I have myself had to make this choice (I am straight, so there was not additional pressure of peer judgement). However until the point that I was confident enough in myself, I never acted on those urges - It doesn't mean that my sexuality was non-existent, just I Chose not to action. Thank you for this Debate, and I hope we both grow and learn from our discussion. Thank you.", "qid": 14, "docid": "6458ea0b-2019-04-18T14:01:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7342343330383301}, {"content": "Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: People claim they are born gay I think it's absolute BS! If that's the case I can be a pedophile and be sexually attracted to children and use the same cop-out that I was born this way and have a genetic disposition to be attracted to minors!", "qid": 14, "docid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7341665029525757}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: It is true what my opponent says about people saying that they're gay for attention, but that does not mean that they actually are, and were not able to choose to have an attraction to people of the same gender. \" My opponent has agreed here that people turn gay for attention, this therefore means that he also believes that people do choose to be homosexual, going against what he's supposed to be debating. 2) \"Homosexuality is not a germ at all, in fact is it genetic\" I am quite aware of this, but I could not think of the word, that I can now, so I stated \"So to speak\" after the words. I am well aware that it is genetic, and not a germ. 3) \"While my opponent has his example of Ricky Martin, my point in this debate is that the state of being homosexual, meaning the physical attraction and not the lifestyle, or love life, is what I'm arguing for\" That is exactly why I brought it up. Ricky Martin is a living example of having the choice to be straight. He chose to be straight for so long, and therefore this living proof should get PRO the win. 4) \"People can not make a choice to be homosexual or not. It is a biological occurrence and is not a choice that people can make. \" This is not true at all. Answer me this con. Why is it that we have so many people that choose to be homosexual, when they aren't really? We can all choose what we can be, not just because you are homo means you have to be that way. You may deny it, and go with the flow, as happens so long. And I quote Ann Landers and a website (last one shown in my sources list) Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data's not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene \"linkage\" studies. (6) Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results. (7) Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality. (8) Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X- chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first. (9) Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition. This should prove that the PRO should win this debat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACKS. My opponent did not defend his case, therefore please cross-supply my attacks to his case in the first round. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . http://www.mentalhelp.net... . http://www.suite101.com... . http://www.religioustolerance.org... . http://lesbianlife.about.com... . http://www.dosomething.org... . http://www.leaderu.com...;", "qid": 14, "docid": "4af6a77e-2019-04-18T19:07:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7337746620178223}, {"content": "Title: Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared) Content: Sexuality is not gender. You are being stupid with that rebuttal., I know you are born with a gender but I think your sexuality is not inherited, I think you gain it as you grow, so I neither hold the view of it being born with you nor the religious view of it being a choice. I think it is your childhood experiences of male and female humans that shapes your sexuality, if you find females to be more appealing, you will be attracted to females, if you grow up with very appealing males and barely see attractive females I am pretty sure you'd grow to be gay. Additionally, as I said in the last round, if you grew up amongst wolves, you'd be sexually attracted to wolves, humans would seem like an alien species to you since you consider yourself to have the sexuality of a wolf due to your environment (nurture versus nature).Sexuality: a person\u2019s sexual orientation or preference.[1]Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. Additionally, exposure to omega 3,6 and 9 (all present in fish) largely affect IQ. This is ironically why even in poor regions of India, because so much of India eats fish in its curries, as do the Japanese, these countries generally produce individuals with jobs requiring high IQ (such as doctors, engineers and computer technicians). Environment is far more influential than genetics on IQ. The reasoning behind adopted babies having different IQ to each other is also relatively simple to explain. Two children brought up in the same household would still have had to have different in childhood. If one child befriended a smart child at school (smart for reasons of their upbringing) they would naturally compete to become smart, if the other grew up befriending less intelligent friends they would possibly dumb down to fit in. This is a common psychological trick of conformity. You will almost always adapt your IQ to fit that of your friends in the area in which you grew up. It isn't about genetics, it's about the urge to relate to them. If you grow up befriending the group of kids who are raised by rich 'upper class' parents then you will constantly debate as children and understand the concepts of economic success and why grades matter, thus causing you to have an in-built urge to study. As for the other sibling, they probably had a natural urge to befriend other types of people (yes this would be genetic) but apart form the natural tendency to befriend a type of people, they would have then adapted their IQ to that group of friends, often siblings don't like to befriend the same types of friends for the simple reason of competitiveness and rivalry. So if the older sibling befriended nerds, the younger child would hate to for simple rivalry. As for why the full siblings had similar IQ this is because they most likely had the natural urge to befriend the same type of people, but in the end that is not true for all siblings, not all biological siblings have same IQ, neither do all adoptive ones have differing IQ there are too many variables to draw conclusions from this.The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "2c397b27-2019-04-18T18:05:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7336492538452148}, {"content": "Title: people are born gay Content: Let me ask a clarifying question. By \"predisposition\" do you mean that they have a certain likelihood to be gay, or do you mean it's more or less CERTAIN that they'll be gay? To make it more concrete, say a child is born. Would it make sense to you to say that the child might end up either straight or gay, but the odds are 70% towards gay? (weak version) Or do you mean it more like the child is pretty much 100% going to go straight or gay, and which one is already determined? (strong version) If you take the weak version position, you might want to reset the debate. I don't intend to dispute that. If you take the strong version position, then it'll be a pleasure to debate you.", "qid": 14, "docid": "83991946-2019-04-18T13:42:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7325528860092163}, {"content": "Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: Please Note: I'm NOT attempting to offend anyone, nor am I against those who are other than heterosexual. I wish the best of luck to me and my opponent. Sexuality in my honest opinion isn't wired into one's brain at a very young age, nor do I believe one is automatically heterosexual when born. I believe it was taught someway, somehow weather through society or media. I seen people go from straight to gay vice versa, I've heard many say biologically it's naturally weird into one's brain, but honestly I find that false due to the fact a child doesn't yet have the knowledge on the meaning of sexuality. When children view television, magazines, movies, cartoons, etc. It's influencing children in some kind of way.", "qid": 14, "docid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7324588298797607}, {"content": "Title: People can be born Homosexual. Content: My opponent claims: \"Its imposable to be born as anything.\" This is in fact false. You are born female or male. Now the reason I say people can be born to be homosexual is because their is a disorder called hermaphrodite. A Hermaphrodite can be defined as: \"an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite.\" or \"combining two opposite qualities. \" *a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues When people with this disorder are born, they can be sexually confused. They are born with man and women traits, resulting in the fact they may be attracted to their own sex. So, if they are born male and female, they would be attracted to a gender, causing them to be homosexual since they are women/man. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "ea863988-2019-04-18T15:13:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7317135334014893}, {"content": "Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.", "qid": 14, "docid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7314120531082153}, {"content": "Title: Is being gay wrong Content: ***Disclaimer: As a straight male, I support gay marriage and those who are homosexual. That being said, As a straight male, my preference is towards women. This would then infer that I think being homosexual, for me, is wrong. I will show these reason why I believe it is wrong for me. (Other than, I do like girls, I do not like boys)My opponent states \"We are born this way.\"Science has only suggested that homoesexuality may start in the womb. \"homosexuality might not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This benefits the unborn child, however if these epigenetic changes persist once the child is born, and has children of its own, some of these offspring may be homosexual.\"[1]\"It's not a choice\"Are you speaking solely for yourself, or do you believe no gay person has made a concious choice to be gay?I believe there are some people, based partially on their genetics, environment, and upbringing have no choice other than to be homosexual. But I also believe there are others who, later in life, have gone against there heterosexual beliefs and have \"turned gay\" by choice.My argument to why homosexuality is wrong(aside from my personal preference) is based on the human anatomy.Homosexuality, among men, usually involves anal sex. This goes against the human anatomy and has proven hazardous to the health of the participants. The points made (in the article below are summzarized as follow) [2]The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina hasThe anus was designed to hold in fecesThe anus is full of bacteriaThere are few health risks for women who engage in homosexual acts. But, both the male and female reproductive organs are going unused (which does happens in heterosexual relationships) meaning you are wasting a significant portion of your anatomy. One of our instincts, as humans, is sex. \"The instinct to have sex is one of the most potent we possess. It\u2019s vital if we are to produce the next generation.\" [3]Like other animals we crave the ability to reproduce. Our intellgience has made selection of mates increasingly difficult and can hinder our instinct, but the craving still remains.Sex in its natural state is between a man and a woman.[1]http://scitechdaily.com...;[2] http://www.webmd.com...;[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": 14, "docid": "9921710-2019-04-18T16:01:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.731342077255249}, {"content": "Title: being gay has to do with genes Content: \"Nobody has ever found a \"gay gene\". The very idea that a single gene could control sexual orientation is ridiculous.\" scientific studies show that being gay has to do with genetics. But im not saying people cant choose it either. scientists believe the sexual orientation has to do with genetics, hormonal and social factors. Have you ever heard of the twin studies? Being gay has to do with genetics with out a doubt but its not the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "de96f288-2019-04-18T16:37:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7310036420822144}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive) [IMG]. http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG] . http://www.funnypica.com... In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. . http://www.nytimes.com... Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual. . http://www.nature.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7308061718940735}, {"content": "Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with \" Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay\" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "7b58b49f-2019-04-18T15:10:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7305773496627808}, {"content": "Title: Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided Content: Even though the topic is not very clearly stated, it can be boiled down to one statement: Homosexuality is a choice, in which my opponent is pro and I am con. In this argument I will first address the arguments made by con, after which I will give my own arguments. However, I will acknowledge that it is a very complex topic. There are undeniably environmental factors that have an impact too. However, genetics are also very relevant, and people most certainly don't choose to be gay. Pro starts of with some polls of what Americans think. Those can be entirely ignored, because opinions (which the polls measure) are completely irrelevant where facts are concerned. Even if a poll showed that 100?% of people thought the earth was flat, it would still be round. Similarly, even if 100% of people thought that being gay is a choice, that would simply mean that all people are wrong. After this pro mentions a report by Ugandan 'scientists', who made a report for the government. The government is notoriously anti-gay which causes an enormous bias, and the paper is not peer reviewed. We can therefore ignore this too. A random rapper is an even worse source, so can be ignored too. The only valid argument that Pro made was the referencing of the study by Neal E. Whitehead. However, this is by no means definitive prove. It's just one paper. I could easily give you opposing papers that gives an opposing argument: Look for instance at the paper by Sanders, A R et al, called \"Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation\" (published in Psychological medicine, May 2015, Vol.45(7), pp.1379-88 [Peer Reviewed Journal]), which states that \"Our study results provide further evidence for early (prenatal) biological influences on variation in male sexual orientation.\". (Full disclosure, it also mentions that environmental factors have an influence). Another clear indication that homosexuality is natural and something you're born with is the behaviour of rams: Up to 1 in every 10 rams is homosexual. I think that it is extremely unlikely that the rams decided to become gay, and a natural explanation makes most sense. There are also some other indications that this is the case, such as the fact that there were observable differences in the homosexual ram's brains: https://www.newscientist.com... Finally, a logical argument: Being gay is not easy. There are gay people even in countries where it's punishable by death. There is no logical reason for anybody to become gay voluntarily. This leaves two options open: Somebody forced them to be gay (highly unlikely) or they were born gay (possibly in combination with some environmental factors). With that I have countered all of Pro's arguments and given my own. I look forward to Pro's response.", "qid": 14, "docid": "755d079b-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7302571535110474}, {"content": "Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: This is going to be easy lol I shall first refute my opponent's arguments many there may be. My opponent claims we naturally lust the other sex, what about asexual people whom have no sexual desires at all and in 2004 the British population was 1% asexual (1). So clearly we don't naturally lust for the other sex. My opponent then went on to say \" If being born gay was true it would have to consider being a mental disorder\", like this is some kind of argument. Whilst I certainly do not agree with the statement my opponent has taken a step back here as he concedes that one may infact be born gay with a mental disorder but nonetheless still born gay, thus this argument puts my opponent in a worse position than he started in. To start my argument I would ask my opponent the common question in the gay debate, when did you choose to be straight? Now on to the science there is something the scientific community has recognised lately and it is called the 'gay gene' Research conducted by the NorthShore Research Institute among many other studies in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work \"erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice\"(2). This was also the largest ever study conducted on the matter. Homosexuality is well known but we also know the behaviour is extremely common across the animal kingdom, from insects to mammals, as of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors. According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species; thus proving that homosexuality is indeed just a fact of nature and thus natural (3). Ladies and gentlemen brothers and sisters these are my opening arguments, not many I know but it is still more than enough prove that homosexuality is not a choice. I would love to see what my opponent is gong to argue now I doubt anything good or anything at all. reference: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.independent.co.uk... (3) http://www.bbc.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "7b58b49f-2019-04-18T15:10:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7299396395683289}, {"content": "Title: Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights. Content: Hello there my friend. This is my first debate in a year, so I'm excited to debate this. First off, I would like to state I'm an atheist, so I have a lack of belief in god or gods. Second: Yes sexual orientation is static, your gender (whether your gay or straight or bi) is what your born with. Also, Jesus Christ, whether or not he existed, didn't ever, once, say anything about homosexuality in the bible. However isn't Jesus not only the Son of God, but God himself? I end my opening statements: Good luck!", "qid": 14, "docid": "f15d0350-2019-04-18T12:57:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7298963069915771}, {"content": "Title: Gay Adoption Content: Thank you for responding! I know that school must be tough. I hope you did well on your test. Before I go on with refutations, I would like to add another case.Case 5: People Can Choose To Be GayIn basic Biology, we learn that there are certain conditions that determine certain characteristics. These may be physical, environmental, and spiritual. Let me give you an example. A physical condition causes you to release adrenaline in times of trouble. An environmental conditional could be growing up in a bad neighborhood causing you to be on guard constantly. A spiritual condition could be not giving your virginity up for your religion. Doctor Ben Carson has been labeled as infamous for saying being gay is a choice. However, he may not be so far off. (1) In the article, Carson asserts that many men go into prison heterosexual; but come out gay. How could this be? Their environmental conditions favored them to be gay; since there were no females in prison. A number of studies analyzed twins in different countries. A quote from the article:\"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. . . . \u201cIdentical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. \u201c\u2018Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,\u2019 Dr. [Neil] Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. \u2018If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.\u2019 \u201cBecause identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. \u2018No-one is born gay,\u2019 he notes. \u2018The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.\u2019\u201d (2) You may ask yourself:\"How does this tie into gay adoption?\"If an individual wanted a child so badly, if said individuals took the necessary steps, they could become heterosexual. Therefore, they must either not want a child that badly or would rather have a gay lover. This is where a common phrase comes into place.\"You can't have your cake and eat it too.\"Refutations:In Response To Case 1:This is the authors opinion. If anything, it hurts your case. It doesn't say that evidence against gay parenting suffers significant methodological limitations. It says that advocate evidence for gay adoptions suffers such limitations.In Response To Case 2:If anything, you did nothing but strengthen my case. If living with a LGBT family as a child for more than four years messes the children up that much, how much would the children be messed up if they were raised there for a lifetime. If anything, that does nothing but strengthen Mark's study.In Response To Case 3:I did provide a source. Both of the arguments I wrote should be in source number four in the previous argument.That doesn't change the relevancy of said study. The entire human psych didn't morph into a totally new thing in a decade. Unless you can actually provide me with evidence that the study is flawed, don't try to challenge it. Then you go on to accept the study saying that kids are indeed more likely to try homosexual behavior in the future. You then ask; \"What's wrong by that?\" before acknowledging that gay people have higher depression and suicide rates. Another study confirms that homosexuals have an increased risk for mental disorders and aggression. (3)\" Psychological Aggression is a common and serious problem in LGB relationships. \u2022 We reviewed psychological aggression among LGB individuals. \u2022 We identified several definitional and methodological concerns. \u2022 Several recommendations are offered to advance this area of research.\" \" 19% to 29% of gay and lesbian students and 18% to 28% of bisexual students experienced dating violence in the prior year. 14% to 31% of gay and lesbian students and 17% to 32% of bisexual students had been forced to have sexual intercourse at some point in their lives.\" (4)As you can see, homosexuality poses a problem for impressionabl, young children and teens. Why make them go through so much stress for a choice they made? In articles, people always say\"Be supportive!\"However, if there was no problems with being gay, why do homosexuals feel as if there is? People don't need support for being heterosexual; white, black, boy, girl, ETC. So why is it that we just have to be so tolerant if said act is wrong. Pro asks later in the argument if depression statistics are because of stigma. He admits right there that my statistics aare correct. I assert that it isn't hte case. However, if we assume that it's because of stigma, that's one more reason wy kids becoming homosexual isn't a good thng.It still applies to gay adoption. In fact, in advocates heterosexuality. It refers to:\"Mothers an fathers.\"Refutations of Case 4:Bro... This was my source for number six...http://familyinamerica.org...This was its citation:(Charles Q. Lau, \u201cThe Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage,\u201d Journal of Marriage and Family 74 [October 2012]: 973-988.)The date doesn't change its reliability. It was analyzed over a long period of time; thus showing a trend. Refutation to Pro's Argument: Many of the studies that try to show that there is a benefit or show that there's no difference is skewed in many ways. I brief summation of one of my sources:\"However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the \u201cno difference\u201d findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date\"From Round 2. (5) In Conslusion:Being homosexual is a choice that can be changed. If homosexuals want to get children, they should be in a heterosexual relationship for the wellbeing of the children.There are many downsides to being a homosexual. Children of homosexuals are likely to become homosexual; thus experiencing these problems.The marriages and relationships of homosexuals are unstableDomo! Sayonara!Anime OP:Corpse Party OP: Guilty Crown OP: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...;4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9-12\u2014Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001-2009.MMWR. 2011.5. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "e22856f2-2019-04-18T13:40:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7297343015670776}, {"content": "Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: No, there's no gay gene. There's no \"male\" gene either. Most complex traits are governed by multiple genes, the womb, and their epigenetic interaction. Talking about a gay gene is a red herring. What we do know is that there is a strong heritability component: one way of proving this is by comparing the concordance rates of identical twins with those of fraternal twins. Heritable conditions occur more frequently in identical twins. Being gay occurs more frequently in identical twins. But of course it's not all genetic. It's just that research shows no consistent link between any childhood factor and becoming gay. (There is some research linking sexual trauma to being gay, which is an inconsistent finding, however many of those subjects identified as gay before the trauma occurred). And since we do find correlation to prenatal conditions, the evidence is that it is an accident of birth. And given the overwhelming failure of conversion therapy to achieve its ends (and the experience of most gay people that they don't change even when they try), we are left to the conclusion that as far as we can tell it's both innate and immutable. I can't speak for the very few \"success\" stories of conversion therapy; maybe a very very few people have some interceding quality that lets them change, but the simpler explanation is that they were at least somewhat bisexual to begin with (since not all bisexuals favor both genders equally).", "qid": 14, "docid": "4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7295726537704468}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: First, I will establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and is subject to a large number of psychological variables. This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not \"natural\" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct. I point three facts that seem to contradict modern conception of attractiveness:1. Apes tend to be attracted to older females due to their having more experience raising young and surviving. In modern society we observe th opposite.2. People used to find overweight or heavier females attractive, the logic being that such women were better fed and had a larger chance of surviving. This is still prevalent in some societies.3. In Elizabethian England pale skin (possibly signalling health because a clear and pale face probably didn\u2019t have smallpox) and a large forehead was considered attractive (the hair was plucked to make the forehead appear bigger).Second, there is a large body of evidence that supports an \"exotic-becomes-erotic\" theory (which states that whatever sex is seen as \"exotic\" or different later becomes erotic, thus gender-nonconformity during childhood causes sexual attraction to the same-sex later in life). In a 1987 study, 75% of gender-nonconforming boys became bisexual or homosexual in later years compared with only 4% of gender-conforming boys. Homosexuals overwhelmingly report sex-atypical activities and had opposite-sex friends growing up. [1. http://dbem.ws...]Peer rejection, a distant or belittling father and an emotionally smothering or needy mother (for boys), low self-esteem, and sexual abuse are major causes of homosexuality. Often a child will be unable to connect to others of the same sex, resulting in unstable and unhealthy sexual relationships. It is well established that gays have much higher rates of suicide or mental illness than straights; to dispute this my opponent will need to prove that these are directly caused by social stigmas or discrimination.\"Like most heterosexuals, most gay people are fully functioning members of society. A good parent is responsible, competent, loving, trustworthy, etc. None of these qualities are exclusive to heterosexuals. There seem to be no qualifications of a good parent that a gay person can not possess.\"I sincerely hope you aren't playing semantics with me. Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case. If you are saying that it is \"possible\" that gays can raise well adjusted children, I point out that it is also possible that beating kids is a good method for discipline (seeing as there must be at least a few success stories in the world). Wasn't this mentioned in the comments? Furthermore, whether or not children have mother and a father is not irrelevant. \"Rough-and tumble\" play with their fathers influences a child's social development and teaches them how to be physical without being inappropriate or hurting people. [2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...] A study in the U.S. and New Zealand found that the presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls. [3. Bruce J. Ellis, Child Development May/June 2003, 74:3, pp. 801\u201321] Children who are have good relationships with their mothers have higher self-esteem, and from better social connections with others. In a another study, 77 18-month old-children were exposed to stimuli (such as a robot clown or a puppet show). Cortisol levels for the (frightened) children varied depending on their bonds with their mothers. Children who had secure attachments showed no increase while children with insecure attachments showed an increase. [4. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...]Fathers and mothers are not interchangable. Children of same-sex couples are forced to seek male or female role-models elsewhere. The reason why they show little difference in \"social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths\" is because the traditional model of the family is being destroyed. Children today are not raised by their parents; they are raised at school or other environments away from their families. Mothers or fathers are not the biggest influence in the children's lives; rather, they hardly seem to have one at all. Parents, who are supposed to be role models and form close connections with their kids only spend a fraction of the time they used to with them, with unfortunate results. The rate of increase of depression among children is now 23%. [5.http://www.upliftprogram.com...] I wish I could elaborate on this right now, but I have only fifteen minutes left. \"There have been numerous studies indicating that children raised by 2 parents have more success and less emotional or behavioral problems than their single-parent counterparts.\"Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant.\"I expect my opponent to make the argument that kids with gay parents might get teased more.\"Are you serious? Please give me a little more credit than that.\"On that note, much like adopted parents, gay parents typically have to go out of their way to have kids (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Meanwhile 50% of heterosexual babies are unplanned. Psychologist Abbie Clark explains, \"That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement\" [4].\"My opponent here says that gays can make better parents by avoiding a flaw in straight relationships (that many pregnancies are accidental). This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship, nor does it mean that such a flaw will never be fixed or that unplanned pregnancies will never be stopped. By this logic the argument about kids getting teased is perfectly legitimate.\"There are plenty of people raised by gay parents who have had great experiences and turned out very well adjusted. Zach Wahl's speech about family (he also has two lesbian moms) went viral on YouTube, and I encourage my opponent to look it up. He is a very successful and admirable young man. However, I mentioned that I don't want this to turn into a debate over anecdotal evidence. We need to consider not individual cases, but how much sexuality in general influences parenthood.\"Anecdotal evidence only shows the limits of what is or can be possible. Pro concedes this later on and I'm baffled as to why she brought it up in the first place.\"In a 2010 review of virtually EVERY study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.\"Copy-pasted from source.I look forward to my opponent's reply.", "qid": 14, "docid": "b258b83b-2019-04-18T18:10:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7293769717216492}, {"content": "Title: Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality Content: \"And you tell us that \"born this way\" is scientific fact, but have yet to cite this.\" I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent. I also provided the unanswered logical argument that homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex by citing their own self-reports of their experiences. If homosexuals were attracted to the opposite sex, wouldn't they find no satisfaction in having sex with people they are not attracted to? How many people would abstain from sex with women if they were attracted to them? Even though I don't have to provide scientific evidence because my logical evidence is strong enough, I will provide some anyway. In the latest research gay brothers are more likely to share Xq28 genes than strait brothers. There is also a genetic region on Chromosome 8 what seems to predict being gay. Studies have found that being gay is 30-40% genetic while the rest is environmental such as the hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb (4,5). \"Instead, you demand I provide evidence it isn't.\" Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up. \"Moreover, I informed you the American Psychological Association does not support \"born this way\" but you choose to ignore this.\" Please site is source. Is Anal Sex is Dangerous Honestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks. Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1). Anal Sex and Disease As mentioned before, the risk of disease is much more tolerable than never being in a fulfilling relationship with a partner you are sexually attracted to. This argument went unrefuted. Also unrefuted is the argument that safe sex can reduce disease. Heterosexual sex also has risk factors for STDs. 65 million Americans have an STD and 1 in 4 Americans will get an STD in their lifetime. 45 million Americans have genital herpes (2). In order to reduce your risk of AIDS whether your are gay or strait or reduce your risk of STDs in general you should follow some common sense tips. First, be monogamous. Having sex with a lot of people is going to increase your risk. Get tested and know your partner's status. Use condoms consistently and correctly (3). We don't have to have the high rates of STDs whether gay or not. Gay people do not have to give up sex with people they are attracted to. By the way, you don't have to give up running to avoid the potential health risks or running. You don't have to give up sex to avoid it's health risks. While my opponent certainly has a lot of interesting opinions, I would not consider him medically informed on anal sex and sexually transmitted diseases. One interesting point is that promoting gay marriage will also promote gay monogomy and will reduce the rate of STDs among gays, so why are people against gay marriage again if they constantly cite STDs? Whether conservatives like it or not gays will have sex, lets make this marital sex. Gay Marriages Work I have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample. In Denmark gay divorce rates are significantly lower than strait couples. In the UK gay divorce after 30 months is less than 1% (6). In the UK, 2.5% of gay couples divorce after 4 years while it is 5.5% for strait couples (7). 1: http://www.webmd.com... 2: http://www.stdtestexpress.com... 3: http://aids.gov... 4: http://www.theaustralian.com.au...# 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6: http://en.wikipedia.org... 7: http://www.advocate.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "66c39af3-2019-04-18T16:23:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7293351888656616}, {"content": "Title: Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society Content: I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors. Similar to being left handed or situs inversus, there doesn't seem to be a monogenetic trait which leads to homosexuality. Which is far from saying that homosexuality is not inborn. In fact, studies have shown that homosexuals attraction parts of their brain works like those of females, prior to the conscious thought. Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn. It's common to find brains wired up to be attracted to men, typically these brains belong to women but there's nothing exacting about human development. Gender identity, gender attraction, and even genital formation have shown a good amount of ability to do pretty much whatever. You only need it to work some of the time to propagate the species. Also, there's some speculation that homosexuals help their nieces and nephews enough to make the trade off worthwhile. In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed. So homosexuality may not be evolutionarily helpful for the individual but rather helpful to the larger family and matriarch of the family. The theory seems tenuous, but does make a good amount of sense. However, all of that aside, what does it matter why a person is gay? If somebody were gay for the fun of it, that would still not warrant restricting their right to marriage. Why they are gay doesn't matter one jot. You have the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another person. If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies unless you can really show that there is something to fear. Humans are animals, so humans marry animals all the time. However, for the most part there's a real argument against marrying someone/something that doesn't have the ability to consent. A marriage is a contract between two people of sound mind and body who enter into an arrangement which is recognized by the state and conveys certain rights to the other person. Boys and horses don't really have the ability to enter into contracts because they aren't able to consent legally. As for polygamy, there's a real argument there. I don't see anything wrong with such a contract if everybody involved is fully aware of the situation. The main objection to polygamy is that it often is implemented as polygyny and involves teenage girls being divvied up by church elders. That obviously fails, but additional spouses isn't by default objectionable and would be up to debate. The line is drawn at consenting adults. If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a contract and the state has no right to restrict who can enter into a contract and who cannot. Yes, I believe those claims are absurd and they are exactly what people were saying about interracial marriage 50 years ago. What's next? I'd assume a complete set of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and no special privileges for anybody. Your horse has no ability to agree to a marriage. This is perhaps the dumbest argument against gay marriage. Most of the arguments just come down to religion. If the only arguments against something are religious arguments, then that is simply saying that there are no good arguments for something.", "qid": 14, "docid": "73560691-2019-04-18T19:50:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7286509871482849}, {"content": "Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: I can not find the citations for your source. Also, you admit some do change; which contradicts your argument that sexuality is fixed from the womb.You, again, provide no citations for your argument except for the statistics with gay conversion therapy.From source two of my previous arguments about the supposed \"gay gene\" and chemical exposure in the body.\"In 1993 Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, claimed to have discovered a gene for homosexuality. Their study, published in Science [17], used a sample of 40 \u201cgay\u201d brother pairs whose sexual orientation was said to be maternally inherited. Hamer and colleagues found that 83% of the pairs shared the same markers on a region of the X chromosome called Xq28. Interestingly, a follow-up study including lesbian sister pairs did not show the same occurrence of shared markers [18]. Though the original study was never replicated,Time magazine featured an article the following week with a bold cover entitled, \u201cBorn Gay: Scientists Discover a Genetic Link.\u201d In 1999, in the largest study of its kind to date, George Rice, George Ebers and colleagues at the University of Western Ontario failed to reproduce a statistically significant linkage to the Xq28 marker in a sample of 52 gay brother pairs [19]. Another unpublished study led by Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago produced inconclusive results [20]. Further evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality has not been produced.\"You leave my studies untouched. Your word does not hold more validity than studies that show the links. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem.Anime OP:;", "qid": 14, "docid": "4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7276661396026611}, {"content": "Title: born a way Content: Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. \"Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive\" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7271178960800171}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word \"homosexual\" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument \"As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice.\" I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, \"If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all.\" I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that \"Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution\" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say \"Pitching a perfect game is possible\" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word \"situationally\" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no \"alcoholic gene\" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.727083683013916}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is a choice, God did not \"make\" them that way Content: There are tests which show that homosexuality is natural. Several, in fact, any test which shows gender attraction pretty well shows that it's not a conscious choice and that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. You may however be surprised to learn that children at the age of 2, 4, and even 6 aren't sexually attracted to people. Toddlers can spot a pretty face, but there has been no such gender attraction test for that age as you suggest. Secondly, even if there were a such a result, it wouldn't prove that being gay is a choice. Children manage to get much taller in that same time frame, clearly God did not \"make\" them that way and they chose to become taller! I'm not being a gay-basher either and I do *not* believe they have the same rights. They are certainly entitled to the same rights which is why the Gay Marriage issue is so pathetically inane, but you would need to be deluded to believe they actually currently have the same rights. Also, if you are suggestion that there is some set of circumstances which could allow me to choose to be gay, you're just wrong. I didn't choose to be straight, and I can't change who I am. It isn't something you choose. You really seem to be extremely confused here. You are saying that gay people can choose to be with the opposite sex and \"grow up being straight yet prefering[sic] the same sex\". I hate to break it to you, but preferring one gender is the core of gender preference. It doesn't matter how much sex a gay man has with a woman, if he is attracted to men and not to women he's still gay! In fact, the entire idea of that scenario you suggest goes to the heart of the matter. Gender attraction is not a choice! For that matter, neither is attraction in general, as sometimes there just isn't any chemistry. -- \"I honestly do feel a little atraction for the same sex but I'm gonna spend my whole life with the opposite sex because thats what God wants.\" Um, are you at least attracted to the opposite sex? Because, you might just be letting theology ruin your life (and perhaps the women in your life), because it isn't a choice. If it were, Ted Haggard certainly wouldn't have chosen it, Larry Craig wouldn't have, and I'd think you wouldn't either. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to. And certainly there isn't some choice involved. If there were we wouldn't see homosexual activities in animals. Can I see the wind? Yes. I can see the wind. I can see tornadoes, hurricanes, leaves moving, trees swaying, smoke wafting. I can feel it on my skin. I can hear it rush passed my ears. I can feel the chill it brings. I can see the blue of the sky (a diffraction property of the atmosphere). I can go sailing. I can use wind turbines to power my house. Yes. The wind exists for every reason your God does not. Wind is trivial. In fact, your argument would make no sense if it were something like \"can you see leprechauns?\" -- Unlike wind, your God and leprechauns are exactly as detectable as each other (which is to say not detectable). The invisible and the non-existent look very much the same. You say there are records of things science can't explain? Where? Or are we talking second or third hand sources here to which no records exist? Also, just because something isn't explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. It certainly doesn't mean that, therefore, God did it. I only mention this because it's part of the topic. Certainly your argument fails if God doesn't exist. Homosexuality isn't a choice. And outside of suggesting gender attraction sets in at around six, a point which is unproven and moot to the issue of choice, you've done nothing to prove your case.", "qid": 14, "docid": "88fc8c51-2019-04-18T20:02:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7269061207771301}, {"content": "Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women.", "qid": 14, "docid": "62827e8d-2019-04-18T16:10:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7263662815093994}, {"content": "Title: Prop 8 is Constitutional Content: Thanks for the debate kenballer. I begin with the understanding that, like race and gender, sexual orientation is not a choice. For example, the overwhelming scientific consensus suggests that sexual orientation is determined biologically. If my opponent wishes to debate this point, he is free to do so, but unless an argument is offered to challenge this view, I will proceed with the view that homosexuality is a form of self-identity that is beyond choice. What's more, in Frontiero v. Richardson the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation \"bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.\" This ruling was backed up by a considerable body of sociological and scientific evidence, and was reaffirmed in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court overturned state regulations that discriminated against gays. The facts presented by these cases suggest sexual orientation is an irrelevant aspect of self-identity for the purposes of law and public policy. Prop 8 denies gays the right to embrace their sexual-identity and choose who they marry. These are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. As such, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When a fundamental right is being denied, the burden is on the state to justify this discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means the law must extend the same legal benefits to every U.S. citizen. If marriage is a fundamental right (as Con himself argues), then it must be extended to everyone. And this means that if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The Due Process Clause guarantees \"[no State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\" This means that each individual has the liberty to marry the person of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. Prop 8 clearly violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives gay people the fundamental right to choose who they marry. In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Court invalidated a Wisconsin law that prohibited the right to marriage to any resident who failed to fulfill court-ordered child support obligations. The Court opined that the Wisconsin statute \"interfered with decisions to enter into ... marital relationships\"; because the Wisconsin statute \"absolutely prevented\" the desired ritual, it was held to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. The same logic (not allowing people to enter marital relationships) could be applied to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage. As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify discrimination of gays. My opponent offers two arguments in support of a case for state-sanctioned discrimination: (1) that marriage is heterosexual in nature; and (2) that marriage is reserved for procreation. These arguments are two sides of the same coin, so I will address both of them together. My opponents says the true purpose of marriage is to procreate. But if the purpose of marriage is procreation, individual gay persons can procreate through means such as artificial insemination and surrogacy arrangements. My opponent argues, however, that it is the biological procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself. This argument is a non-starter for a number of reasons. First off, it is not clear that the state must sanction discrimination of gays if our species is to procreate and survive. Therefore, if gays are allowed to marry and have families, there is no reason to suppose our species would stop procreating. As such, my opponent has provided a compelling justification gay banning gay marriage that overrides a competing state interest in not discriminating against gays. Second, no couple has ever been required to procreate in order to marry. Sterile couples and old couples can marry. Couples physically able to procreate but who do not want to procreate can marry. This proves that marriage is not essentially about procreation because procreation is not essential to any marriage. My opponent says only allowing fertile couples to marry would be impractical. Actually, it is not as impractical as my opponent seems to think. All it would require is that prospective married couples sign an affidavit stating they are able to procreate and intend to do so. If it is found, after a few years, that a couple has been unable or unwilling to procreate, the marriage could be immediately dissolved. Of course, the fact that this has not been made a law demonstrates that procreation is not essential to marriage. My opponent says that \"children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement.\" This point is irrelevant because of one simple fact: no serious opponent of gay marriage advocates removing children from gay parents. The facts are simple: gay families exist. As of today, over 1,000,000 children are raised by gay parents. The important thing here is that gay families are not the top-down creations of government bureaucrats or radical visionaries. They are bottom-up facts of life. It is for this reason that no serious supporter of Prop 8 would suggest taking children away from gay parents. Because individual gays have access to procreation (through artificial insemination, for example), it should be evident that the optimal partnership theory is irrelevant for the purposes of law and public policy. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and shown why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In closing, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court has never said that the purpose of marriage is procreation. In fact, there are many reasons the state has an interest in marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. For example, marriage provides the married person with a primary caretaker, channels sexual activity into monogamous commitments, stabilizes households, and serves a role signaling familial commitment to one's community. These are all legitimate reasons that the state has an interest in marriage. Prop 8 clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Prop 8 denies citizens access to fundamental rights, the burden is on my opponent to justify state-sanctioned discrimination of gays.", "qid": 14, "docid": "b95f933-2019-04-18T18:13:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7262459993362427}, {"content": "Title: There is a biological cause to homosexuality Content: Resolution: homosexuality is mostly caused by biological factors The reason \"mostly\" was selected is because all behaviors have some genetic impact, even if its small. Definitions: Homosexuality - in this case, a human being sexually attracted to those of the same sex Biological - in this debate, biological will be defined as genetics (\"gay-gene\"), hormones (a second theory which I call the hormone hypothesis argues hormones in the womb cause SSA), and brain differences (see LeVay 1991 for details). SSA - same sex [sexual] attraction Don't change or use definitions in your argunment. Don't didley with the resolution or definitions in the debate, however you can ask for a change in the comments. Rules : Round one acceptance (contender only , I have to do all this) No semantics Drops = concession forfeits = loss /end", "qid": 14, "docid": "adf167fb-2019-04-18T18:06:21Z-00007-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7255812883377075}, {"content": "Title: Born gay part 2 Content: Though I agree that it should not matter how we are oriented, whether from birth or from choice, and that our access to equal rights should not be contingent on us being 'born this way,' I do believe people are born gay for this reason. If it was a choice I'm sure people would opt out. There choice to do so but statistics say people do have a choice and some peoples choice would have not chosen this for their own reasons.", "qid": 14, "docid": "4b0ccd12-2019-04-18T13:50:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7255645990371704}, {"content": "Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Burden of proof will be on me.", "qid": 14, "docid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7253376245498657}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: I would like to state that as my opponent said, it is my goal to prove that the state of being homosexual is not a choice and purely a natural occurrence. The purpose of this argument was to have someone debate the fact that people choose to be attracted to people of the same gender. \"Contention 1\" Homosexuality is not a \"germ\" as my opponent stated and people can not \"turn gay\". It is true what my opponent says about people saying that they're gay for attention, but that does not mean that they actually are, and were not able to choose to have an attraction to people of the same gender. Homosexuality is not a germ at all, in fact is it genetic. (1) There are many factors which play into sexuality such as having older brothers, having a gay twin and brain activity to name a few. (1) However, there is no exact reason for why people are gay, but, many organisations such as The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Paediatrics, and The National Association of Social Workers all state that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental disorder that they oppose attempts at conversion therapy and that sexual orientation is not a choice and can not be changed. (Video 1 [Source 6] from 2:30 to 3:02) \"Contention 2\" While my opponent has his example of Ricky Martin, my point in this debate is that the state of being homosexual, meaning the physical attraction and not the lifestyle, or love life, is what I'm arguing for. My argument is that people can not choose to what gender they are attracted to. The article that my opponent provides is not fact based, rather, an outing done by Ricky Martin's skin beautician. Therefore, it might not be entirely true. The article also states that, \". .. he was never publicly seen in the company of any potential girlfriend. .. \" and does not say that he ever DATED a woman. There is no proof in this article that he chose to charade his sexuality in a falsified relationship or that he's even gay at all. Now, my article (2) is an actual statement from Ricky Martin confirming his sexuality. It also states that the birth of his children convinced him to come out. The children, he had through a surrogate mother. (3) The next article I have (4) talks about (and proves the existence of) his girlfriend, Rebecca De Alba. The relationship was not a charade for the press as the article states and merely Ricky discovering his sexuality as many men do since most have a hard time accepting it. There are also a lot of risks to the process which force people further into the closet and keep people from admitting it, which may be why Martin didn't come out. (5) I for one had two relationships with girls before I came out, both very long lasting, but there was no physical attraction to them and they ended up being friendships rather than dates. It does not mean that the person chose or chose not to be gay. Attacks: My first round argument was to state that this belief in homosexuality being a choice is a problem, not to state a case. 1: \". .. there are others that take the choice to be homosexual. .. \" People can not make a choice to be homosexual or not. It is a biological occurrence and is not a choice that people can make. (See \"Contention 1\" and \"Video 2:30 to 3:02\") 2: \"Who are we to judge by saying that it is not a choice for everyone? Everyone is different, you can't judge for them. \" Actually, if you ask a homosexual, they will state that they did not have a choice to be gay or not. Besides, who would want to choose a life where they encounter hatred, violence, bigotry, and judgement all directed at them on a daily basis? The only choice that homosexuals have is to be out or not and I am not arguing that. I am arguing that homosexuals have no choice in their attraction to members of the same sex. If the viewers of this debate would like some examples, please feel free to view Video 2 (Source 7), or Video 3 (Source 8), or Video 4 (Source 9). All of these videos are from actual gay people (or bisexual) speaking out against the ignorance of people assuming \"gay is a choice\". I would say the same thing these people say and I have always been gay. It was never a choice whatsoever. I await my opponents response. 1. . http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net... 2. . http://www.tmz.com... 3. . http://www.tmz.com... 4. . http://justthedish.blogspot.com... 5. . http://gayteens.about.com... 6. . http://www.youtube.com... 7. . http://www.youtube.com... 8. . http://www.youtube.com... 9. . http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 14, "docid": "4af6a77e-2019-04-18T19:07:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7250418663024902}, {"content": "Title: Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality. Content: I believe that no one can determines someone's real sexuality because sexuality is just unique. Sexuality is not about black and white. Let say for example,somebody who got same-sex experience probably they are still claimed themselves as straight because they just do experience or curious. It doesn't mean you are truly gay or lesbian because you don't have any chemistry while you did it. In my conclusion, sexuality is a personal thing that only known personally. So i think people must be careful when they judge somebodies as \"Gay\" or \"Lesbian\" because what they had done.", "qid": 14, "docid": "b4960ddc-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7238988876342773}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice", "qid": 14, "docid": "d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7231204509735107}, {"content": "Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: Ask yourself this \"when did you choose to be straight\"? A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other. There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, \"Hmmmm\" should I be gay or straight?\" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science. So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary. https://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.pnas.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, \"there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.\" From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.", "qid": 14, "docid": "eada3b89-2019-04-18T12:09:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7224496603012085}, {"content": "Title: Men should prefer gays to lesbians Content: 1. Introduction- It would appear that my opponent has chosen to frame his rebuttals in an alternative framework than a typical line-by-line. I do not wish to make this debate unclear and I want for the voters to follow the round easily as possible; to this end I will adopt my opponent's structure as of his last rebuttal and point out crucial drops at the end. 2. Rebuttal- Concerning the Kinsey scale analysis, My opponent seems to have ignored the fact that individuals who are an absolute 6 or 0 are very rare as most people are at least a 1 or a 5 What this means first and foremost is that most people who identify as being 'gay' are usually predominantly gay and incidentally straight as opposed to being exclusively gay. Furthermore the nurture versus nature debate[5] has shown that while each individual has inborn characteristics about them that make them naturally want to gravitate to certain things, nurture still has a very strong effect on human sexuality. Or in clearer terms; Nature is the biggest influence but nurture can have a big effect. [5] . http://allpsych.com... A classical example of this would be Dr. Robert Heath's[6] experiment where he hooked electrodes to the brain of a homosexual man to incite a pleasure response when experiencing heterosexual stimuli. The homosexual man eventually slept with a female prostitute. [6] . http://www.wireheading.com... Concerning the two provided pictures, The woman in Artifact A is 91 year old author Helen Thomas This is a picture of her in 1932: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The man in artifact B, is from an article talking about ugly Irishmen: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The point is that providing a picture over the internet is neither an accurate estimation of one's looks nor is it proof that anyone wouldn't find a person attractive. It's just shallow and mean. Here's a picture of Katy Perry: . http://ia.media-imdb.com... Here's another: . http://i.telegraph.co.uk... Here's anoth. .. oh goodness: . http://girltalk247.files.wordpress.com... An unpleasant picture of someone is not proof of, well anything. Especially not that men should prefer Gays to Lesbians. Furthermore my opponent logic following these pictures is non-sequitar to the pictures in the first place. 3. Drops- My opponent drops quite a few arguments in the previous speech, I won't try to cover them all because that would be a waste time; instead I'll focus on the more important drops. First: Equality, I speak on how preferring one group over the other because of their sexuality harms equality. This went unrefuted Second: Friendship, I speak on how Gay men are more likely to build a friendship with some-one who can relate to their problems. This went unrefuted. Third: Relatability, I speak on how a lesbian is going to know what a woman wants more than a gay man.", "qid": 14, "docid": "b1e0e666-2019-04-18T17:57:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7220580577850342}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: It's too late for him to reply to dropped arguments. My opponent begins, \u201cI was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities\u2026 Homosexuality is not \u2018natural\u2019 in the sense that it is unavoidable. .. \" Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species [8]. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con\u2019s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality, and Con never proved that there is (he rightfully dropped the point about suicide). Now onto my points\u2026 1. There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person can not. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word \u201ccan\u201d in the resolution (based on Mirza\u2019s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i. e. , responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant. 2. Whether a parent has sex with a man or woman doesn't affect their parental judgment. Con dropped this in R2, and in R3 responded that it's \u201cirrelevant. \u201d Clearly it isn\u2019t \u2013 it proves that one's sexuality doesn\u2019t impact their ability to parent effectively. 3. While 2 parents are better than one (Con agrees), it doesn\u2019t matter if those parents are same-sex (Con disagrees). I included a study validating that 2 same-sex parents provide the same benefits to parenting that 2 heterosexual parents do: double the resources, emotional support, etc. Con said this too was irrelevant, but it proves that what parents provide and not their sexuality is what matters. 4A. I dropped the point that statistically, gay people tend to make better parents given the fact that they choose to become parents and therefore don't have an unwanted or unexpected responsibility imposed upon them like many heterosexual couples. 4B. I explained that kids with gay parents can turn out perfectly well-adjusted and why. Let\u2019s break down Con\u2019s rebuttal\u2026 a) Just because someone CAN turn out well adjusted doesn't mean that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence. --> The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees. I included a plethora of evidence indicating that the vast majority of kids with gay parents turn out just fine. b) Fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else\u2026 --> Con never mentioned this before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact. c) You can\u2019t rely on anecdotal evidence like drug addict fathers\u2026 --> I never said that a single example should dictate the norm, so Con is wrong to suggest that I used fallacious reasoning. There was nothing in Con\u2019s source that explained why a child's biological father is necessary or more valuable than having a positive male figure around. For instance, if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be a preferable role model just because they shared DNA (this is an example - NOT a generalization). Having a positive figure in general is far more important than biological ties to the child. 5. Pro: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited to parents (indicating the importance of role models). Con\u2019s reply: You've avoided any real debate by straw manning me. I have stated that it was an unhealthy relationship and the lack of a father or a mother that affected children. Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it. First, because Con didn't respond to several arguments when I typed my last round (notably 2, 5, 6 and 7), I assumed he wasn\u2019t going to challenge them due to agreeing with me rather than exhibiting poor conduct by ignoring them. That's why I suggested he agreed - I wasn't straw manning. Con hasn't proven these reasons as remotely being legitimate causes of homosexuality, and neither have his sources. Also, it seems that by saying \u201cSexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it,\u201d that Con has basically conceded the entire debate. But back to Con\u2019s reply\u2026 Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. He presented a study that demonstrated the quality of care infants receive affecting their development. This source never said that the care had to come from biological parents. The same thing applies to Con\u2019s other sources-- the study indicating the benefits of rough and tumble play never mentioned the importance of the father figure\u2019s DNA. Instead it noted the benefits of the interaction, but did not discount the same benefits from similar interaction experienced by kids with two moms or two dads. 6. Just because the child may get teased has nothing to do with a homosexual's ability to parent. Con dropped this contention twice, therefore the point stands. 7. Innumerable studies confirm that kids with gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures of success. Research also indicates that there are benefits to same-sex parenting which Con never challenged or denied. Con brings up several objections my studies; however, never specifies which study he is referring to that is allegedly flawed. He mentions the absence of comparison groups and their statistics as a problem, but clearly that is not true of all studies - ones I've brought up already and others [9 - 16]. These criticisms come directly lifted from Science Journal\u2019s critique of studies from the American Psychological Association. However, my sources included studies other than the ones utilized by the APA. I never used any of the sources listed as problematic on the chart. As such, none of Con\u2019s proposed faults apply and the results of my presented studies must be acknowledged by the audience. Con didn't present any studies indicating harms attributed to gay parenting, which is good because I could have easily discounted those based on bias, faulty sampling and other mistakes. But all we've seen in this debate are studies affirming the resolution. Sources: . http://www.debate.org...--------CONCLUSION1. Gay people are not any less likely to exhibit good parenting traits.2. What parents do in the bedroom doesn't affect their ability to parent.3. The care the child receives is important \u2013 not the sex or sexuality of the caretaker. None of Con's sources proved that biological ties are necessary in order to be positive role models, or that kids of gay parents are missing those role models. 4. The majority of every study done on gay parenting indicates no negative discrepancies in parenting styles or ability. I've included many sources; Con hasn't (and can not) discredit them all. 5. At best, research indicates that intact families are superior for raising children. Non-intact families are inferior regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents. Again, sexual preference is irrelevant to good parenting. Arguments: PRO Sources: Some of Con's sources were irrelevant. Others helped establish my case. He cited the same source 3x in the last round, and failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. S/G: Con had inferior s/g by his own admission, and a hard to read/understand format that didn't align correctly with my arguments. Conduct: Wrongly accusing me of using fallacious reasoning multiple times resulted in my opponent's own red herrings. Further, completely unnecessary comments like \"I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response\" is rude and borderline ad hominem - insulting me in general as opposed to dissecting the arguments.", "qid": 14, "docid": "b258b83b-2019-04-18T18:10:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7210443019866943}, {"content": "Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Again, thanks for accepting. Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own. As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out. Now, onto the points I made last round: 2-. Suicide Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have \"the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex.\" Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child. However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains. 3-. Living in Seclusion How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of \"homosexual\"? 4-. Sedation Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture. 1+. Rape As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay. 2+. Being These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined. 3+. Biology Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced. Conclusion: Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops. Counterexamples: I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON. With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO. 1. http://www.Debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 14, "docid": "843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7206754684448242}, {"content": "Title: CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes. Content: Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments | by Eav | 7/11Rebuttal ongoing numberingR3: Misinterpretation I did not misunderstand a thing when I said that Con wrongfully claims that people are born straight. And I am still right, that he hasn\u2019t given us any prove for this claims but his own assumptions (au contraire de moi). \u201cThis is why naturally you are attracted to the opposite sex. You have to choose to be gay, not to be straight.\u201d (Con, Round 3) = You are born straight and you choose not to be. This can only mean that at some point you acquire the knowledge what being gay is and you choose to be it. If we were naturally straight nobody could become gay without know about it. Meaning that Con\u2019s main problem with CHIPS can only be that it encourages kids to become gay, because it teaches about gay people. But as (see R1, Round 2) people are not born straight, this is ridiculous. And on Con\u2019s claim that he never said that CHIPS could make kids gay, I\u2019ll point out this quote:\u201cJust imagine the increase if too many young children are made to join the \"party\" before they find out what is really going on.\u201dR2: ImitationsIn 1a, Con again is jumping from conclusion to conclusion. Just as linking the suicides to the example story. It\u2019s of course likely that gay people decide to kill themselves if they feel like they are rejected by society (see A2). When CHIPS lessons assign to behave gay, this only means that they make a role play where there are two mothers. They are not pointed out to kiss or act like the stereotypical gay from a bad movie. This is not the intentions. Nobody will \u201cplay gay\u201d while the teacher says \u201cbe gayer\u201d.R3: Too young and BullyingAgain, kids are not too young to understand that bullying and homophobia is wrong (because it\u2019s mean and excludes nice people). They are too young to understand homosexuality. And I pointed this out: CHIPS is not about homosexuality, it\u2019s about homophobia. That\u2019s why it\u2019s called: Challenging Homophobia not Checkout Homosexuality. Kids learn homophobia at home. They learn that having a mom and a dad is right, and not having is weird. And that\u2019s how kids start bullying other kids. They know better because children are naturally likely to be hostile against unknown. That\u2019s an evolutionary mechanism like eating only specific foods. Parents cannot just \u201creplace\u201d a view. They influence it strongly but a kid that once learned that homophobia is wrong is much more able to decide whether he/she will go with the parents\u2019 opinion forever. If they learn about alternative views early, they\u2019ll earlier challenge the parents views. R4: Accusation / Behaviour ChangeIt\u2019s quote-time: \u201cThey won't be told the negatives of being gay, only tricking them into a happy life.\u201d (Con9I am sorry for adding the \u201cdangerous\u201d, but Con certainly said negative. And all the negative Con brought up (bullying and bullying related suicides, drop-outs) are actually what CHIPS goes against. And on the matter of change behaviour: People change. It happens. Even to those not being gay. I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s bad personal experience but it\u2019s not a gay-exclusive-thing to change. And on the matter of choosing to be gay: Lack of scientific prove. Still. Pro Arguments most briefly mentioned before in RebuttalsA1: CHIPS is agains homophobia and bullyingCHIPS only point is to fight homophobia. They read stories about animals that are non-sexual, they make role plays that are non-sexual, they have vocabulary being non-sexual and pro-diversion and pro-community. And by fighting homophobia we achieve that kids reduce their fear of different family structures (meaning that it is not only beneficial for kids from gay families), reduce bullying. Which is important with kids from LGBT background being three-times more likely to be bullyied {5}There is no age-minimum for bullying and therefore nobody is too young to learn why not to bully. That's why CHIPS is age appropriate. APA lists as main common feature of bullies is that they \"show little empathy toward students who are victimized\" {6}. And the CHIPS assignments are all about learning empathy. Which is important to learn as early as possible when they still are willing to (Primary School Kids > High School Teens). A2: CHIPS can reduce suicidesSeveral attempts on suicide reasons uncovered realtions to depression, physical abuse and social isolation {7} {8}. But not being gay itself. Therefore relating to A1, that CHIPS helps to reduce bullying (=physical abuse and social isolation) it can help to take pressure from (gay) teens that had CHIPS. When they hit puberty and discover their own homosexuality they benefit from others being less hostile and develop less fear of their desires. Ergo: Reducing their suicide risk. Sources{5} http://nobullying.com...{6} http://www.apa.org...{7} http://www.suicide.org...{8} http://www.nhs.uk...", "qid": 14, "docid": "a4c7773d-2019-04-18T15:36:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7203338146209717}, {"content": "Title: Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood Content: I will be arguing for the position that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. As opposed to an innate or inborn personality trait. This is not an argument about whether there are people who are tempted sexually by those of their own gender. Please do not accept this debate if you intend to argue that people are tempted therefore they are gay. The argument I am making is that there is no such \"person\" as a homosexual separate from a person who chooses to engage in a particular act or set of acts. For example: \"John is American because John was born in America\" or \"Danny is black because he was born with dark skin\" or \"Jack is a man because he was born with male body parts.\" As opposed to: \"Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness,\" or \"Sam is a baseball player because he chooses to play baseball,\" or \"Junior is a homosexual because he chooses to have a boyfriend.\" Logic only. No arguments from emotion. I feel this way therefore... Be respectful.", "qid": 14, "docid": "2a60e12c-2019-04-18T18:35:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.720318078994751}, {"content": "Title: Causes of homosexuality Content: FULL RESOLUTION: Evidence among HUMAN subjects (twin studies, brain, HUMAN gene etc. ) on balance shows homosexuality is genetic. ==> Clarification <== I am not interested in animal homosexuality, only what studies say on human homosexuality. Argunments saying \"animals are gay\" are irrelevant. My opponent argues based on the evidence amongst humans, homosexuality is likely genetic. I argue other factors are likely the main reason (non-genetic factors are the main reason). We do not need to argue the one reason is ___. But the main reason is ___. ==> BoP <== BoP on Pro (my opponent). This is non-negotiable. ==> Definitions. <== Homosexuality: human sexual attractions to the same sex. ==> Rules <== No trolling or semantics. *** I am doing this debate as the forums have had many argunments on this, and I want to defend my \"bigoted\" views.", "qid": 14, "docid": "faa638a4-2019-04-18T18:12:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7198107242584229}, {"content": "Title: Sexuality is a choice Content: Contention 1- The Scientific Factor In 1990 began the Human Genome Project. It was completed in 2003, two years ahead of schedule. The purpose was not to find a gay gene in the human genome, but to identify and map out 20,000-25,000 genes in the human genome. Approxamatly 23,000 genes were identified. Not a single one was identified as a gay gene. My opponent now has the burden of proof as to whether the gay gene actually exisists Conclusion- The gay gene just does not exist so homosexuality cannot possibly be biological or genetic Contention 2- The Psychological Factor There are plenty of psychological factors in the \"Is Sexuality A Choice\" Debate that point to yes, it is a choice Abuse- Many people, gay and straight, have been victim of abuse as a child. This abuse can range from, mental, emotional, sexual, physical and even neglect. The responses to these forms of abuse are different from person to person. It can range from acting out violently toward the opposite or same sex, promiscuity, self abuse, and even homosexuality. In a study done by the Masters-Johnson Institute a 25 year old homosexual man revealed his first sexual experience to be with an older gay man arranged by his lesbian mother. after 3 1/2 years of treatment due to the desire to be straight, his sexual interactions were now exclusively heterosexual. Alfred Kinsey, a prominant biologist conducted many psychological tests on groups of homosexuals. One of the studies by the Kinsey Institute in 1970 showed 81% of 684 gay men and 93% of 293 lebians shifted their sexual orientation. In 1940 a study of 1700 homosexuals only 9% claimed they were born gay. In 1970 a similar percent was said of 983 homosexuals. It was not until 1983 when the gay movement really took off, that the percent of homosexuals who claimed to be born gay rose to 35% Going back to the abuse claim. A girl who identifies as lesbian says she was largely ignored by her father as a young child and now, at the age of 16, says the same thing of him She admits that while she knows he loves her, he has never actually said \"I love you\" or shown any kind of affection towards her. However, her mother always did. She says her mother has always stuck by her no matter what. When she was diagnosed with Juvinile Rhumadoid Arthritis, it was her mother who took her to the doctor. It was her mother who comforted her. It was her mother who took her to her check ups. Her only other role model is a lesbian woman who is best friends with her mother. She has no male role models in her life, be it significant or insignificant. It is obvious from a psychological standpoint that the girl's father neglected her need for affection but her mother did not, therefore she, from a young age, can only associate love and affection with females. Conclusion- There are many environmental factors, be it a political movement or abuse or whatever, that psychologically affect sexuality Contention 3- The God Factor If we were to exclude atheists and anyone else who does not ascribe to a belief system involving a diety, we can all agree that God loves everyone regardless, but there are also a set of rules in which we must obey set forth by this God, no matter what we call him. We must agree that this God is all powerful and does not make mistakes, We must also agree that there are many things that God does not want us to do in which we do. That does not mean He loves us less, just that we should not do it. One of those things that God tells us not to do is practice homosexuality. I do not believe that any sin is worse than the other, but this shows that God did not intend for homosexuality to be practiced, and if we agree that God does not make mistakes, we must agree that homosexuality is a choice made by man Conclusion- If we agree there is a God and we agree on His personality and heart as described by the three top religions in the world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) we must agree that He did not intend for men and women to be gay, therefore he would not have created them to be so Contention 4- Cynthia Nixon (Psychology part 2) Cynthia Nixon, an actress, was previously married to a man. After their divorce, she started a relationship with a woman. While I cannot say whether or not this happens every day to many women, it does happen. A woman will be sexually attracted to a man then after a failed relationship or a number of failed relationships, she decides to see what a woman can do for her, both physically and emotionally. This is a sign of a conscious choice made by a person to be homosexual, whereas, the previous example I gave about the girl associating love and affection with women due to her distant father was a subconscious choice. Nixon even admitted it was a choice. Conclusion- Homosexuality can be either a conscious or subconscious choice Contention 5- Lady Gaga, Dan Savage, and the It Gets Better Movement (Psychology part 3) Lady Gaga, a popular entertainer, dropped her debut album, The Fame, in 2008. She released a song Alejandro in 2009. The song was said to be in support of gay marriage. The song was released, admittedly by Gaga, in response to her huge gay following. In The Fame, there were no gay themes to her songs. This was followed by her next album, Born This Way, which had several gay impowerment songs, including the title track, promoting the idea that a homosexual is born gay Shortly before the release of Born This Way, Dan Savage, a syndicated columnist, started the It Gets Better Movement in response to a rash of 2010 suicides of gay youth resulting from bullying. While I fully support the idea of trying to prevent more teen suicides, this movement, like Gaga, supports the idea that you are born gay and it is not a choice you have. This is an example of how propaganda can influence one to believe a certain way. Conclusion- Media propaganda can influence one to believe they are born gay I admit my final contention is probably petty, but that is not a concession. I eagerly await my opp's rebuttal, and thank her for accepting this challenge", "qid": 14, "docid": "8532ca4-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7196211218833923}, {"content": "Title: Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture Content: You've reiterated the fact that you were born gay, however you have no evidence to back up this claim. Due to the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. The idea of blindly nurturing nature without proof that it really is nature is a dangerous move in the long run. The only reason that I consider it dangerous is because if there is by some chance some way this country escapes some sort of major catastrophe and the evolution of the community of a whole is going to end up with some sort of warped view of themselves that has to no scientific backing. The thing is this empire and country will fall and your lifestyle will be a null and void lifestyle. Because society is going to revert back to the need and functionality of reproduction. You see in your lifestyle the most basic of basic purposes for sex is leisure and pleasure and love. This type of lifestyle flourishes in an over populated society. Which is why I said it is lifestyle of luxury. However in a heterosexual lifestyle the most basic of basic reasons for sex is reproduction. The love and leisure are secondary. So until a woman is pregnant and the doctor can do a blood test to determine whether or not the child is homosexual much the way you can with down syndrome or diabetes. Your debate point of being born gay is a void point. Second pulling from one side of the nurture vs nature debate and quoting different authors is not a reliable source of debate. For I can pull just as many authors that will say it's nurture and this debate becomes pointless. To nurture your points however saying that I study the genetic, neuroscience and cognitive development of a child that is supposedly born gay is a bit pointless due to the fact that a baby lacks frontal lobe development.(cognitive thought) The child loves its mother but doesn't know why, and it is not in love with childhood friends. For sake of getting a point across we will use your Steven Pinkner point even though he is notoriously biased and only approaches studies from one side of the coin. In saying we look at the boy during puberty is in fact that an unfair test subject due to the fact that 1. unless the child was proven to be a sterile test subject i.e evidence can soundly be shown that the boy has received no contaminating education. (Seeing Bruce Jenner on a magazine) Then the study can not be completed because we can not say the child wasn't mislead. 2nd Genes do not control the human behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids in the body which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a portion can AFFECT things like alcohol tolerance or mood. However affecting something is not the same thing as having complete control over it. In other words alcoholism can be genetic if a child's parents and grandparents were alcoholics and they saw their parents receiving stress relief at the end of a long day as a child. However if that child is moved to an area that alcohol is banned the child will not still be an alcoholic. Homosexuality was thought to be able to be passed on in the early 90's and an abhorrent question was developed on how to abort an unwanted gay baby. Which led to a study where a child was taken from a surrogate lesbian couple after being given up for adoption, the child was placed into a heterosexual household the child grew up straight. Without education the child is unable to pass \"gay genes\". They simply do not exist.", "qid": 14, "docid": "ddd2fdad-2019-04-18T14:39:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7194118499755859}, {"content": "Title: If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice Content: I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, emotionally or in any other form. I'll start off by a scientific study to find the chromosome differences in gay men to straight men (http://www.webmd.com...). There even mentions his excerpt \"Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait...\". Hear that? It's not based on emotional intelligence, although you can make the case that some people choose to ignore their homosexuality and have relationships with girls although they aren't sexually attracted to them. There's a bunch of genes, DNA and chromosome properties that effect if a person is gay. Now I know you said that this debate was not about whether homosexuality is a choice, which is weird, but I have stated from another scientific view that homosexuality is not based off emotion. Therefore your whole argument is flawed because sexual orientation is not emotional. Also why have this debate in the first place if it's obvious that homosexuality is in your DNA and genes?", "qid": 14, "docid": "98f133cd-2019-04-18T17:44:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7193865180015564}]}
{"query": "Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first", "qid": 15, "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9163351655006409}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.", "qid": 15, "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8984194993972778}, {"content": "Title: Testing on Animals Content: Hello and thanks for the debate! This should be interesting.I will be arguing the position that testing on animals is acceptable in most cases. I will leave Round 2 for you to start the actual debate (I like Round 1 to be acceptance).Again, thanks, and good luck as well!", "qid": 15, "docid": "dd18e758-2019-04-18T18:38:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8382949829101562}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Hello, this is my first debate, so please tell me if I have any formatting issues. I would like to argue that animal testing (for medical purposes) is acceptable, and that we definitely need it to succeed as a species.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb66d-2019-04-18T16:58:09Z-00007-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8165791034698486}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: We should test on animals", "qid": 15, "docid": "fe53122f-2019-04-18T15:22:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8162143230438232}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Since I am Pro, I am for animal testing. My opponent has not defined animal testing; therefore, I shall offer a definition I think we can both agree upon. Animal Testing: Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments [1]. I eagerly await my opponent\u2019s opening arguments and wish him luck. With that said, I affirm the resolution, \u201cAnimal testing should be allowed\u201d. [1] . http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb26e-2019-04-18T18:36:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8144400119781494}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should continue for medical research Content: I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research. ) Argument 1: Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer. Argument 2: All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research. Argument 3: Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing. I await my opponent\u2019s response Sources: PETA . http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...", "qid": 15, "docid": "64a6fa7-2019-04-18T18:00:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8139961957931519}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing for medical research Content: animal testing", "qid": 15, "docid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00013-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.813677966594696}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be allowed Content: Con did not really specify what kind of animal testing, therefore, I am going to assume that ALL kinds of animal testing should not be allowed. I will be arguing that some forms of animal testing should be allowed, specidically for medical purposes. Why is the character limit 750? !? !I have only one point that I will develop in both rounds. Arguments Medical AdvancesTesting on animals has led to numerous medical discoveries and successes that have cured diseases and cancers for humans. For example, if animal testing was banned, small-pox would not have been eradicated. [1]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1]", "qid": 15, "docid": "a4241bd2-2019-04-18T16:31:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8021222352981567}, {"content": "Title: is animal testing ethical Content: Should scientist be able to test on animals before they test on humans?", "qid": 15, "docid": "1fba06e8-2019-04-18T18:19:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8011695146560669}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing should be banned Content: Testing animals shouldn't be banned. Testing animals helps identify things that are either harmful for humans or helpful for science. Animal testing helps us identify diseases and how animals act. Animals aren't usually killed or tortured during animal testing. It doesn't hurt animals, and it helps humans.", "qid": 15, "docid": "c0429f6c-2019-04-18T15:12:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8004391193389893}, {"content": "Title: animals should stop being used as testing subjects Content: Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose \" that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest \" our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, \"The Virtue of Selfishness\", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22", "qid": 15, "docid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7994774580001831}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust Content: \"Animal Experiments\". BBC.co.uk. Updated August 17th, 2004 - \"Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery\". Animal testing should only be conducted where it could potentially save human life. This is the only way in which the intentional harm and destruction of animal lives could be justified.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00209-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7961638569831848}, {"content": "Title: Animal Experiments/Testing Content: Cons No Never it should not be allowed and banned. Animal testing is inhumane and cruel to animals. Just because we want to be safe you feed or inject unknown chemicals in them just to see it is safe for us. Some are just for curiosity! When people \"test\" if products are safe. they force animals to eat it observe if they live or not if they live to treat, they stay there for the rest of their life since birth until with a little chance being rescued. These days people use dog breed beagles not mice. Nether mice or dog, imagine you are being experimented till death in a lab forever. And imagine how much you hated the white coats in maximum ride!", "qid": 15, "docid": "99bfe116-2019-04-18T11:52:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7955735921859741}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: You are half-right. Testing is needed, but it doesn't have to be animal testing. Again, there are computer simulations and other alternate testing methods which work about as well as animal testing, and don't require the ineffective use of animals. I'm far from being with PETA, but if there is an alternate method, it should be used.", "qid": 15, "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.794749915599823}, {"content": "Title: Should Scientist test products on animals Content: I will be arguing against the testing of products on animals and the rules are; 1. Opponent must have a decent vocabulary and a relative experience in debating. 2. NO personal insults 3. Don't muck around, please. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal and conclusion. [Note: I am trying to improve my persuasive writing for high school and my English is relatively mediocre-above average. So please don't go full on me and many of these points made by me may not necessarily mine.]", "qid": 15, "docid": "8dd83f76-2019-04-18T12:13:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7928301095962524}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes. Content: Animal testing is right when used for medical purposes such as testing new drugs used only for medical purposes. Animal testing is a debate topic that is always challenged however, should it be allowed if human lives depend on it. Animal testing has been at the heart of every medical break through for the past decade. But, is it right?", "qid": 15, "docid": "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.792278528213501}, {"content": "Title: animal testing is a good thing Content: Animal testing- Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). Pro can't neither spell nor counter my argument and attempted to point out feeble flaws. The question is rather generalized as well, it depends on your definition of animal testing. The extent where animal testing is a bad thing needs to be drawn somewhere. The line should be drawn where it brings harm to the animal itself. As stated before, There will always be the first human who has to take this test no matter what tests are done. You could do a test a million times over and still there will be the first human. Sure, there will be eventually some 1 or 2 good causes out of animal testing. But at what cost? Millions of animals dead, and more than 95% of the time for no reason at all. Some animal tests that were pronounced good actually led to deaths of the first human tested. Sure you can say \"we learn from this\" maybe we shouldn't do it to begin with. It would save 16 billion dollars that could be put to a more practical use, like education and health care. How about its time for an argument? Or is it because you have no argument? I'll see you in round 3! Thank you for debating this with me!", "qid": 15, "docid": "8cce991f-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.791217565536499}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing does more good than harm Content: Animals are not meant to be tested on. They weren't created for us humans to barge in an take control over. Animals were not bred to take part in a potentially dangerous experiment for humans' makeups, fashions, or tests. Heck, tests that are relating to humans aren't even the same when it comes to the question if it works on humans or not! I'm not one of those crazy animal activists, but I can say that if we want to advance our technology or products, testing on animals isn't the way to go. This is a clean debate, 1st and 2nd round for laying out arguments and the 3rd for refutations and ending arguments. I realize that this is a hard topic to argue, but be advised that I have many arguments and refutations to any argument.", "qid": 15, "docid": "e937961a-2019-04-18T14:45:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7908298969268799}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned. Content: While I think most people would agree that animal testing should be used to a lesser extent, and be performed as ethically as possible, that's not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a wholesale ban, regardless of the costs and benefits involved. I consider that irresponsible. Certain animal experiments are almost demonstrably unethical, and sometimes even unnecessary. That can't be said about all animal experiments however. We can not do research into malaria if we don't keep mosquitoes. We need to analyze snake venom to create antidotes. You may argue these pursuits are unethical, but it's certainly up for debate. I'm guessing the divisive issue is tests on mammals. I'm in no position to disprove all the biologists, doctors and pharmacists who claim animal testing is viable and useful, and the burden of proof is certainly on any person who wants to make such a claim. Humans are mammals, our muscles and digestive systems are often quite similar as well as our endocrine systems. In my opinion, the breakthroughs that rest on animal experiments speak for themselves. If there are better and cheaper ways, we will surely adopt those instead. People did not enter science because they are sadists. A complete ban on animal testing is not a viable approach, surely plenty of diabetics who are alive because of it would agree. I'm not sure it would have been more ethical to learn how to do kidney transplants or how to place the first pacemakers on humans.", "qid": 15, "docid": "da630fe7-2019-04-18T14:32:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7906391620635986}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be banned Content: I feel that Animal Testing, when done humanely, can provide scientists with a number of results that can ultimately affect the lives of countless people. I agree that cruelly testing superfluous products such as cosmetics (not saying cosmetics aren't important, just when it comes to testing on animals) but life-altering medications and products need subjects. However, if human subjects can be found and tested on legally, then by all means, use them. But, no, I do not believe animal testing should be banned.", "qid": 15, "docid": "b57b83e8-2019-04-18T11:57:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7901326417922974}, {"content": "Title: Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing. Content: Good day, The resolution before us today is Be it resolved that animals should be used for testing. As the only speaker on our team I strongly disagree, Here are a few reasons why. 1. Animals can hurt and feel just as we can how would you like to be covered in chemichales and used for horrible expirements. 2. Animals are a valuable part of our environment and wthout them we will surely decline in environmental help. 3. We are doing it for our own luxury We are tourturing many animals for hand creams,Bath and body products,and many other items for our own convenience. This is unjust and unhumane. 4. We treat animals as if we are less than them. We are all equal in fact humans share 30% of our DNA with lettuce weare all interconnected without bee's which are considered animals pollinate flowers. Without that we would have no food. Torturing an animal is unhumane and unjust. Believeing that this is ok shows how truely corrupted our society actually is. And that is why we strongly oppose", "qid": 15, "docid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7897308468818665}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: The first round is just to state our positions clearly and I thank my opponent in advance for accepting. My position is Animal Testing should not be allowed. There will be no abuse of semantics, dictionaries, literary terms, definitions, and any form of abuse of any kind.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb26e-2019-04-18T18:36:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7894686460494995}, {"content": "Title: Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing Content: BOP-I will be against animal testing. My opponent will be for animal testing. Definitions-Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs [1]. Rules-1. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, wordplay, and/or loopholes. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. And thanks to wierdman, who started this tourney. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 15, "docid": "a688d8ad-2019-04-18T18:33:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7884360551834106}, {"content": "Title: Medical Research Using Live Animals Content: I believe that using live animals in research is wrong because of the injuries and risks. The animals that are being use are kept in captivity and or killed. If the animal does survive, it is injured and will be kept in captivity for the rest of its life www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. Experimenting with these animals is a choice between life and pain, but if not death, pain.", "qid": 15, "docid": "a56a8385-2019-04-18T16:19:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7881097793579102}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I strongly disagree with animal testing. Animals are living creatures, and deserve a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want, but I am positive that they do not want to be tormented and abused for human-caused problems that modern day science could solve for us.", "qid": 15, "docid": "b8d48a1d-2019-04-18T19:51:09Z-00007-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7875313758850098}, {"content": "Title: The Use of Animals within Scientific Research Content: Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.", "qid": 15, "docid": "28e0a6b5-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7866493463516235}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Products can be tested on other materials that are similar to what the product is being used for. Living animals do not have to be used. They are many alternatives.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcba2e-2019-04-18T15:09:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7865439057350159}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses Content: Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research. However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word \"only\". First, some definitions medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment:: all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged. Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing. 1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1] 2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat. 3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields. 1-http://www.psychology.org...", "qid": 15, "docid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.786209762096405}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing. Content: Since my opponent has not adequately defined the resolution, I will elaborate: my opponent must prove that it is morally permissible to perform potentially harmful scientific experiments on non-human animals of the class mammalia (since when we refer to animal testing, what we really mean is mammal testing). I must prove that it is not morally permissible. ======== Contention 1: Animals are conscious. Conscious beings have the right to life; animals are conscious, and so animals should not be experimented upon. Contention 2: Animals are capable of suffering. All mammals can feel pain, have emotions, and can suffer. It is inhumane to conduct dangerous and potentially harmful experiments on beings that are capable of suffering. ======== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://encyclopedia.farlex.com...", "qid": 15, "docid": "fe528ead-2019-04-18T19:20:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.785760223865509}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Is Unethical Content: Thank you so much, Pro. This has been an enjoyable debate!Let us evaluate this debate. Did Pro establish it is unethical for non-human animals to be tested? Did Con show otherwise?Pro's arguments were built on an absolutist position in which animals are considered very nearly human, and his standards for inhumane, needless, pointless, animal rights were essentially equivalent to human standards. He gave no justification for this. Pro claimed criminal activities of labs, but did not produce evidence to substantiate. In his final argument he advanced animal testing as pointless, however, Con established many ways in which animal testing has proved beneficial and abolition of it harmful. Additionally, Pro briefly argued for Con while advocating micro-dosing. Furthermore, he cited no specific articles. A repository of articles covering many various topics - some of which might argue against Pro, does not substantiation make. On the other hand, Con provided justification for human rights not being extended to animals. Pro's rebuttal (they are completely at our mercy) would essentially give rights to all forms of life (and maybe even inanimate objects!). Rights become meaningless and what is known to be special and rare (rationality) is valued equally with that which is much more common. Con argued animal testing is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Pro tossed out a red herring by arguing insulin and ovarian function were falsely attributed to animal testing. Con's utilitarian view stands unchallenged. In round 1, Con explained inviability, lack of technology (microfluidic chips), limited use, and non systemic in general prevented other tests from truly being a replacement for animal testing. Pro suggests this has been addressed, but it has not.I hope the readers will find this summary useful. That being said, I thank PinkSheep123 for instigating this debate, and I hope we might meet again. Until then, adieu.", "qid": 15, "docid": "f2c24f2c-2019-04-18T11:47:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7855954766273499}, {"content": "Title: Animal Experiments/Testing Content: I think animal testing should be allowed. Animals provide a way for humans to test their new innovative ideas and vaccines. I know that it is inhumane for the animals, however, humans would have to suffer without the animals. You see, society is uneasy about testing a new and experimental treatment first on humans. This possibility of hurting a being we know is conscious and has emotions is TRULY inhumane. Treatments are tested first on animals just so we know that they are safe and effective. Besides, animals also offer models for experimentation that would be impossible to copy in humans. Some species of mice can be genetically modified to be exactly identical so that we can study the effects of two different procedures in mice that will not have different reactions. Without animal experimentation, millions of humans would die and suffer. Many types of lifesaving modern medicine have been created with animal experimentation. When it all boils down, it is either us, or the animals. I choose animals. Also, a VAST majority of all lab experiments use mice, not dogs, cats, are any other household pets. Testing and dogs and such is sometimes approved, but so minuscule that it's hardly even noticeable. I'm not saying that the lives of animals don't matter, I'm saying the lives of humans matter more.", "qid": 15, "docid": "99bfe116-2019-04-18T11:52:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7844864130020142}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Animal testing appropriate when there are no alternatives", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00053-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7844285368919373}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I have been wanting to debate you for a while! The resolution we will be debating is animal testing. It is defined as: \u201cAnimal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). \u201d {1} You may not vary from this definition. (LAYOUT) R1: Pro does rules, con accepts. R2: Pro presents up to 2 arguments, same as con. No rebuttals from con. R3 Pro can rebut and state up to 2 more arguments. Same as con. R4 Same as R3 R5 Pro can rebut and can state up to 2 more arguments. Con can rebut but can not rebut pro\u2019s R5. Con may also present up to 2 new arguments. This round is also used for conclusion. 10,000 characters. 72 hours to post each round. May the best debater win! (CONCLUSION) Again thanks, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb9d1-2019-04-18T15:37:07Z-00007-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7834847569465637}, {"content": "Title: Medical testing on animals does more good than harm. Content: Hello GeorgiaAshely. Nice to meet you. First of all, I believe there is a misunderstanding on the topic. The Instigator seems to believe that the topic is discussing whether we should use medical means to carry out experiments to treat animals. But the term \"medical testing on animals\" is generally accepted as, testing newly made medical substances to assure quality or safety of the medicines before they are sold. Now, I would like to begin developing on my newly suggested and rather accurate definition of the topic. INTRODUCTION On this round, I will introduce a point regarding animal rights and the purpose of carrying out experiments on animals (having their rights completely forsaken) when there are alternatives. On my second round, I will show what medical testing on animals in laboratories really is like, realistically and is often abused. On the third round, I will dig deeper into the topic. I will identify the clashes of the debate, analyze each clash into deeper level and finally, show how my points outweigh the Instigator\"s. ARGUMENTATION There are things called animal rights. Animals are entitled of life just like we are. We do not have rights to exploit animal species just for our own benefit. When medical experiments are carried out to animals, usually sample animals are injected of medicine samples which has unknown effect. The medicine might as well have fatal side-effects. The medicine might as well be poisonous. Testing unknown substances on innocent animal is immoral, evil and hypocritical in a society that emphasizes importance of life. We should not consider animal testing similar with butchery. Those animals that are butchered for meat in fact lead a satisfying life in an idealistic environment. They are well fed and are provided of safe and proper shelter. Some ranches even turn on classical music for cows to decrease their stress. As animals, they need not to worry about their safety and food which is the biggest problem that animal species face. When those animals mature after living an idealistic life, they are killed in a way that inflicts minimum pain as possible. These days, animals are electrified with electricity at about 300~500V. This inflicts minimal pain and takes the life at a split second. These animals are born to be eaten anyways. They live a worriless life until their fast and unexpected death. Act of butchery cannot possibly be compared with animal testing. Sample animals suffer excruciating pain until they die off and are incinerated. If there was no alternative, everyone would have admitted that animal testing is a necessary devil. However, it is absolutely untrue. Alternatives for animal testing exist and still are being developed. There are cases where cultured cells were used to carry out experiments. There were successful experiments that used human skin sample to perform safety assurance experiment for cosmetics, for skin corrosion and irritation (MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent). Pharmaceutical product experiments can also be done on donated human blood, on testing its effects and interaction with immune system cells. This is the source where I am coming from. . \"Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can \"transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods.\" \"Innovative biotechnology firm H\"rel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human \"liver\" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals. \"VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed. \"Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc. \"Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals. \"Antibodies\"which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice\"can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells. \"A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body. \"Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it \"strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education.\" Take a look at how many alternatives can be made. The same site also added that those are \"just a few examples\". If there is a will, there is a way. If we just try to develop and look for ways to find an alternative, we can do it and we did. SUMMARY Experimenting substance samples on animals is inhumane. It undeniably inflicts insufferable pain to animals and is very hypocritical when we value so much among our society, the morals that emphasize importance of life. Such ridiculous tradition on inflicting pain on innocent animals can even be abolished with the help of modern science. There exists plenty alternatives. Human skin cell imitations, computer simulations, MRIs and donated human blood are just few examples of functioning alternative. When there is an alternative, there is no need to carry out animal testing that violates animal rights in the first place.", "qid": 15, "docid": "a4afe1af-2019-04-18T18:01:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7830597162246704}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing. Content: I agree to debate animal testing with you. I would like you to clarify when you feel it is and isn't okay to use animal testing. With specific examples, if possible. I don't think we have the right to experiment on another living creature without their consent.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bc36ac-2019-04-18T17:28:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7825342416763306}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing for Cosmetics Content: Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2", "qid": 15, "docid": "901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00007-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7818304300308228}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: I would like to start with something to ponder throughout the entire debate; which is more valuable, the life of a human being, or that of an animal such as a primate or mouse. I would also like to clarify that I am against animal testing in the cosmetic industry, and that I am arguing for the biomedical field. I myself have worked in a lab setting (primarily as an intern during my summers as a med student) and can say first hand that the use of animals in testing medical and biomedical inventions is critical to the forward motion of the biomedical field. But don't take my word for it, a poll conducted by the science journal Natura in 2011 of 1,000 biomedical scientists found that \"more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" The cost animal life is absolutely justified in the thousands of human lives that could be saved with the knowledge gained from animal testing. Source(s): http://www.prnewswire.com...", "qid": 15, "docid": "59a01dfa-2019-04-18T16:44:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7814542651176453}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing Content: Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00041-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7813610434532166}, {"content": "Title: Testing on animals is wrong! Content: Thank you for acknowledging my argument. Animals in cosmetics research is used to prove the cosmetic products are safe for consumers. There are viable alternatives to animal testing when developing cosmetics even though the United States is largely behind in adopting them. The European Union has already banned animal testing with cosmetics and the UK has made significant progress. With America's strict consumer safety laws it is unlikely that we will adopt alternatives in the near future.", "qid": 15, "docid": "638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7810124158859253}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: My opponent has copy/pasted the above segment from PETA's website: https://www.peta.org...;Why I am Pro on Animal TestingFirstly, if animals were not tested on, many forms medical treatment would not be available to humans as the research necessary would of course not have been conducted. It isn't merely medical products that are tested on animals (though, they would constitute the most important). Virtually most of the artificially-constructed products that we use, have been tested on animals. One large source of animal testing is the beauty industry, so most mainstream cosmetic countries continue to test on animals - the ethics of this, I admit, are questionable. It's important to distinguish between animal testing done for the medical reasons and the benefit of mankind and animal testing that is done purely for superficial reasons. In regards to other products that are tested on animals - sadly, some of these are necessary. Chemical cleaning fluids are included within that bracket. The case of more than 12 women being blinded in 1933 upon using a cleaining product that contained an untested chemical named p-phenylenediamine is an example of what can happen when animals are not tested on. Not so long after this incident (and this alludes to my point about drug saftey), an antibacterial medicine named 'Elixir Sulfanilamide', which was specifically made for children, was not tested and 107 people died as a result - the majority being minors. Now, when drugs for humans are tested on, you have what is referred to as the 'pre-clinical trials', and this is when animals are used. If all appears well in these trials and no adverse effects are observed, the next stage is the 'clinical trials', with phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. [1.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Naturally, if animals were not tested on in the pre-clinical trials, and the pre-clinical trials were removed, humans would be tested on first and this could potentially cause many deaths. Although Con plagiarized his argument, I will respond to one point from it; which is that animals used in laboratories are not protected and are forced to endure pain. The 1988 Animal Welfare Enforcement Report by the Department of Agriculture found that '94% of all laboratory animals reported are not exposed to painful procedures or are given drugs to relieve any pain caused by a procedure' - meaning that the majority of tested animals are not subjected to continual pain. [2.] https://www.nap.edu...", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcbe8a-2019-04-18T11:44:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7806868553161621}, {"content": "Title: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Once again, I\"m not sure you fully understand. I am against Animal Testing as a whole, therefor I feel that an alternative to Animal Testing should be found and I am for (Pro), that we find another alternative for animal testing. So, in fact you have just helped me to prove my argument, which I appreciate, because we feel the same way regarding this topic. :) As I understand, the person going (Pro) for, this argument should then state why they think that a alternative for animal testing should NOT be found, and prove that animal testing is a good and civil form of medical research. Since they are then (Pro) for, Animal Testing. (I am (Con) against, animal testing, therefore I am (Pro) for, finding an alternative to animal testing). Or should the Pro and Con depend on the subject of your topic (an alternative for animal testing should be found) rather than the the topic itself (Animal Testing)? Then, I fully understand the confusion. This is only my second debate, so I've I'm doing it wrong you're more than welcome to inform me? :)", "qid": 15, "docid": "d640f8-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7790513634681702}, {"content": "Title: Animal Cosmetics Being Tested on Animals Content: Well since my opponent forfeited this round I think i'll just put a few points to clarify my stance. 1. We use animals for testing because they allow the widest range for testing per sample, and they are the most efficient means monetarily. A) They allow us to test for toxicity in a \"life cycle\" that is, to test what effect it a sample could have over-time. B) There are so many things that if not tested correctly can lead to severe consequences on humans. Animal testing right now is the only sure way to test these chemicals. If left to alternatives at the current state, there are too many openings in which a toxic agents could pass and harm humanity. 2. We do not use alternatives right now for several reasons A) The alternatives cost more. B) The alternatives do not allow full-body test. C) Many of the alternatives at the moment are not validated and in the early testing phase. I'd also like to note that the cosmetic industry is for profit. If the alternative treatments were cheaper or more efficient even by a reasonable amount the researchers would use them instead in a heartbeat. If the researchers only had to use a small vial or kit instead of animal maintenance, they would. It's just not at that stage right now and the alternatives just don't have the range or efficiency of animal testing. Thanks for the debate, sorry for the forfeits on either side, vote whoever you want.", "qid": 15, "docid": "98931b41-2019-04-18T16:05:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.778316080570221}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I believe that animals should not be tested on because it is cruel and inhuman. Animals cannot fight back do to humans having opposable thumbs. I believe animals should be able to live free and live life on there own", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcc153-2019-04-18T11:43:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7777822017669678}, {"content": "Title: animal testing is a good thing Content: con criticizes testing when it's done only for curiosity. we should be arguing about doing it when it's just then, not saying ban it all. con says it's a waste of time cause not all tests work on both mice and humans. so, that only means the tests dont always work. it dosn't mean they don't do some good, and give us guidance. so we should continue for teh benefit that it does give us. con gave a bunch of practical point, less about ideology or core values. but, his practical points turned out to be flawed reasons to stop animal testing.", "qid": 15, "docid": "8cce991f-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7774952054023743}, {"content": "Title: The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals. Content: I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: \"Because the animals are like us.\" Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: \"Because the animals are not like us.\" Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer\"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that \"nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS \" Problems With Animal Research).\" A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS \" Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50\"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop \"microbrains\" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, \"If you have information on human genes, what\"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?\" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the \"AIDS Cocktail\", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.", "qid": 15, "docid": "aefcf694-2019-04-18T17:34:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7772651314735413}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be used for testing Content: Animals can be used for medicinal research as they are lesser than humans and it would be moral to test on animals, as they, as such, less than human.", "qid": 15, "docid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.77678382396698}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should be banned Content: I, the contender, shall prove my case that you shouldn't ban animal testing. My first statement will be the definition of animal testing if you didn't know. Animal testing Is basically a system in which major companies test their products on different types of animal species. Many people have been against this statement, such as a girl who died in the process of protecting an endangered species. But, if we banned animal testing, we would have to test it on plants or humans! Imagine someone saying, \"Hey! It works! This mushroom is reacting to this medical operation! These arguments prove the declaration of how animal testing should be banned.\"", "qid": 15, "docid": "59a01e38-2019-04-18T16:38:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7766550183296204}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should stop Content: To keep things fair, giving each debater an equal amount of rounds to argue, I will not post any arguments this round. Also, to be clear, I will argue that animal testing should remain a standard of product/medicine testing. Disclaimer: I will approach this debate without bias. This indicates that I am not supporting animal testing, nor am I disagreeing with it. I am simply taking the Con side to this debate, and I will not reveal my true beliefs on this subject. Looking forward to a clean, well-versed debate. Thanks!", "qid": 15, "docid": "9f5396d0-2019-04-18T15:42:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7764873504638672}, {"content": "Title: This house will ban animal testing Content: I will rebut PRO's content in the third round paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph 1PRO's response to my call for him/her to distinguish between other acts of humanity that involve the suffering of animals for the betterment of human lives is the rhetorical of \"do you need to do it with animals? \" (to which, of course, I would answer yes, and PRO would realise that my answer is yes if he/she had actually taken the liberty to read my arguments). PRO ignores my refutations that animals do not inherently have so-called 'rights' without bringing up a logical criterion of his own, and ignores the fact that, as per my first rebuttal in the previous round, even if we assume that animals have rights, he/she has still needs to tell us how the rights of animals can be equal to or superior to that of conflicting human rights. It seems that all of my rebuttals have fallen on deaf ears. When I said that animal testing is another way of humans utilising our intelligence to our advantage, I am comparing the doctrinal similarities between animal testing and behaviours which are socially acceptable, such as killing animals for food. What PRO needs to do at this point is to either distinguish these two on a principle level, or argue that both are not socially acceptable at all. Bombarding me with the message that animals are living, breathing creatures does not, to the slightest of extents, fulfill any of this. Speaking of PRO's undying commitment to remind me and the audience that animals are living creatures, we notice that PRO's entire argument in this respect can be summarised into the following: \"Animals have rights because they are living things and living things have rights\". This is a circular argument founded on the unproven claim as to why living things should have rights, and PRO has yet to tell us why that is the case. Paragraph 2PRO essentially concedes his/her stance when he/she says \"Yes, but not always\". Putting aside the fact that this claim is accompanied with no evidence, this counterargument still does not stand in a number of ways. In the event that animal testing is used when other methods are not available, that is the problem with the execution and implementation of animal testing, and the fault should be burdened on the scientists and authorities who chose to opt for animal testing when other methods were adequate and sufficient, not burdened on the concept of 'animal testing' itself. We are here to argue the overall conceptual legitimacy of animal testing, and individual cases are by no means enough to corrupt the doctrinal integrity of animal testing. Analogically speaking, one would not claim that food is unhealthy for the human body just because there have been instances where food ingestion has choked people to death. That can only be attributed to the poor eating skills of those people, not the food itself. Paragraph 3PRO seems befuddled with my argument on how animal testing can pose a win-win scenario for both man and animal. When I say that there is \"no impact\" and then proceed to use the word \"benefit\" in the same sentence, I am saying that animal testing that there are two scenarios that can happen to an animal when it is being tested on, assuming the testing is carried out in accordance to all rules and regulations and no unexpected incidents occur:1. That the animal is left unharmed, both physically and psychologically2. That the animal (or rather, its species) benefits from the findings of the testThese two are mutually exclusive. I, too, would be dumbfounded if the animal were to benefit and not be impacted by the testing at the same time, but that was not what I was trying to convey. I hope this clarification answers PRO's queries. Paragraph 4By the time we get round to the fourth paragraph, we've already seen the word 'cruel' quite a few times. Why is animal testing, despite my side of the house demonstrating that animals need not suffer, and that it is beneficial to both parties involved, cruel? And if so, what is wrong with being 'cruel' in the first place? Would you say that killing animals for food is not cruel? Would you say that prisoners relish upon the prospect of being locked up in a cell and that they do not find it to be cruel at all? For PRO to make the 'cruel' argument sufficient enough to uphold his stance, he/she must also try and disprove the appropriateness of hunting for food and imprisonment for criminals, something that I have repeatedly called on him/her to do and is something that has not been done. I applaud PRO's relentless attempts to tap into our tear glands, but getting us to imagine a role reversal where the animals are the researchers and humans are being tested on is borderline comedic. PRO has provided us with no reasoning as to why animals would not enjoy the experience of being tested on, and continues to build upon that baseless assertion with a second baseless assertion that is that animals \"feel the same way we do\". I don't particularly enjoy being eaten, but that doesn't mean I'm not on good terms with my moral conscience when I sit down and feast on a nice steak. Paragraph 5PRO says that \"no one needs to know about human rights\", which is confusing considering that one of his main arguments concerns the entitlement of animal rights. Even if we do assume that the topic of 'human rights' and the source that I've used on this topic bears no relevance to the debate, by no means does that make it a 'bad source'. PRO lacks a criterion for what a bad source exactly is, and lacks justification as to why PDF sources are so-called 'bad sources'. I would also like to remind PRO that the usage of 'good sources' doesn't exempt one from using circular and pathos arguments, which, frankly, are arguments which do a disservice to those 'good sources'. Why do you vote CON? Vote CON because CON was the only side of the house which argued on the practical and principle implications for both the animals and humans involved in the matter of animal testing. CON was the only side of the house to characterise what it really means to be tested on in animal testing, and CON was the only side that was morally consistent down the bench.", "qid": 15, "docid": "141a4562-2019-04-18T14:32:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7762436270713806}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Con: Animal Rights By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely. According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures, and at least 10 percent of these do not receive painkillers. Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it. Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal. Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable. Con: Expense Animal testing is notoriously expensive, and also very time-consuming. According to Care2, scientific professionals in the U.S. have used approximately $20 million in taxpayer money on animal experiments that are deemed \"arbitrary and pointless.\" Animal testing in general costs more than non-animal testing, since it requires additional lab equipment, such as animal food, cages and needles, and usually takes a lot more time. Animal activists argue that many animals experiments aren't necessary in the first place --- like testing cocaine on monkeys --- and don't contribute vital information to the scientific community. Con: Necessity Individuals in the scientific and animal rights community alike maintain that most experiments leading to life-saving scientific breakthroughs could have been done just as easily without using animals. Some scientists even believe that non-animal testing produces more accurate results than animal testing. Advances in stem cell research, for example, may well render animal testing pointless in the future. In addition, according to Living Cruelty Free, the safety of a product or procedure on an animal does not always translate over to human safety, due to \"interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.\" Lots of experiments performed using cosmetics and other household items are not necessary, because many popular companies do not test on animals. These companies are labeled \"cruelty-free\" by PETA.1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity: In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity. Function Animal testing is used to see how a product could possible effect humans, animals and the environment. The different demands for animal testing come from the medical field, household products, agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, paint, food additives and beauty products. Types There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical students I have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb9f0-2019-04-18T15:36:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7762190103530884}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Well, first of all, thanks for accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals?My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7761074304580688}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal testing is a good thing. While it is not the only possibility, the alternatives are worse. I therefore advocate the continuation of animal testing. First, I will explain the other possibilities I can see. First, we could test products not on animals, but on humans. Second, we could not test products at all. Both of these lead to the same dreadful end: those same misfortunes that are sometimes brought upon animals would be brought upon humans instead. This is by no means more fair than the alternative, and by most viewpoints, it is a far worse crime (humans are generally considered to have more worth than animals). Now, let me expand upon my argument. We are a people in the habit of harming other beings in order to help ourselves. Unfortunately, it is something that simply must be done: the human race, as well as most other species, rely on harming other life to prosper. A predator kills its prey - are you against the food chain? People, too, kill animals for food - are you advocating vegetarianism? People also take advantage of animals to make other products, including some food and fabric - are you advocating the discontinuation of this practice? People kill bacteria that are living inside them - are you advocating the disuse of medicine? Construction ends the lives of trees - are you advocating that it too is wrong? Animal testing should be done, as should all the things above. Why? Because they are helpful practices for us to use. In none of the examples above did the victim 'ask' for it, but sometimes you get something you didn't ask for. My opponent is correct when he says that animals have no voice, and we must speak for them. However, that voice is clearly and justifiably saying that we should continue testing on animals. Without testing on animals, all the negative consequences that are currently given to the animals would be given to humans instead. What next, should we become cannibals to satisfy our need for meat? We, just as every other type of animal out there does, place some of our own burdens onto other beings. A cow gets hungry? He eats some grass. A lion gets hungry? He eats a cow. A beaver wants to make a dam? He destroys some trees. A man needs a jacket and a meal? He kills a cow. A man needs to test a new product or do research? When he can, he places this burden on another lifeform. It is a matter of self interest, and I see no justifiable reason to betray it. I look forward to my opponent's response.", "qid": 15, "docid": "b8d489fe-2019-04-18T19:50:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7759146094322205}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be allowed Content: Rebuttal\"99% of the animals that are tested are dead and thrown in the garbage\"I highly doubt that is true at all. You have no source backing your statement. For all we know, you made up that statistic. \"now imagine someone tested perfume on you.\"You made it unclear whether we are talking about animal testing for cosmetics or all animal testing. I agree that testing cosmetics on animals should be banned, but does not merit animal testing for medical purposes being banned. Argument[2] medical progress requires animal testing. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...;[1] http://www.amprogress.org...;[2]", "qid": 15, "docid": "a4241bd2-2019-04-18T16:31:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7750959396362305}, {"content": "Title: This house will ban animal testing Content: RebuttalsIn Con's first argument which was that In essence, animal testing is just another way humans utilising our intelligence to our advantageI just want to say that, Do you need to do it with animals? Animals are living things like us so it is wrong to just have a experiement which might kill the animal when it is a living thing. That is just plain cruel. Also they have the right to not get harmed because it is the same thing. Elephants might kill people on there experiments. Is that fair? And many people use lab rats which are also animals but many people don't think they are.In Con's second argument which was, Animal testing is only used when other alternatives are inadequate. Yes, but not always. We do not just test things if it is wrong. It says that they tested an animal but it got killed. It wasn't wrong. It was perfect. But they just did it one last time, then it died.In Con's third argument which was that Animal testing has the potential to benefit both humanity and the animal, I just don't get it. In the third paragraph Con said that there is no impact, but why did you say it is a benifit? Also we are not sure. A lot of testing is successful, but an animal might die.And also in Con's rebuttal when she said they don't have a right, that means that animals have no freedom to act and we rule the animals. That is just cruel and we should stop it. Lets go to the animal perspective. The animal has to be tested with chemicals that are dangerous when it can be free. The animal wants to go around too. Lets feel if the animal tests us. Would we like being tested. Of course we won't. Then what about the animal. The animal feels the same way we do.Also about your sources. Your sources aren't really good because no one needs to know about human rights. Also you have a pdf.Sources Usedhttp://idebate.org... http://www.createdebate.com...https://cus.org... http://www.smallworlds.com...http://www.neavs.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Please vote for Pro!!!", "qid": 15, "docid": "141a4562-2019-04-18T14:32:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7750906348228455}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: Each person has own opinion and I disagree with you because everything which I have already written it has connection with the main topic called \" Animal experimentation should be banned around the world\" and I am trying to prove my point of view by several arguments. In fact, have only four rounds and I have to add everything on these a few rounds. I support you that modern technologies are more expensive than animal testing, but I have just emphasized that it is one time investment while animal experimentation, you have to keep paying for it. Moreover, animals need to be breed, they need meal and so on. Yeah, I agree with you that your arguments are strong too but I am sure with a modern technologies we may receive the same result. Why? Because of the fact we want to avoid from cruel relationships with animals. Now I want to tell about the brands which people use, exactly women prefer to use them in a daily life. If the cheaper product, the smaller chance it is tested on animals. All the big brands such as L\"oreal, Maybaline and Max Factor and so on tested on animals. Otherwise, there are several brands that are test free such as Yves Rocher and Estee Lauder. And let\"s face it, why should we pay for mascara that is just as good as that one of 5 euro\"s??? Let\"s consider it, why not economy 10 euro??? If we completely use animal testing, we will waste our money. As you remember, I have just emphasized that new techniques need only one time investment. In conclusion, I believe you will consider about my arguments. As you know, the aim of my state is to prove that animal testing should be banned around the world. We just want to avoid from cruel relationships with animal. Yeah, I remember you have told about safe experiments on animals. Otherwise, if we completely use this type of testing, I am sure we will waste much money than only one investment with modern technologies. At the end, I want add that European Union wanted to enforce the ban on animal testing of cosmetics, enters into force on March. It means European Union is against too with animal experimentation. Thanks for interesting debate. (Kazakhstan)", "qid": 15, "docid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7749379873275757}, {"content": "Title: Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities Content: In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas has also been banned since 1986. The vast majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.", "qid": 15, "docid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00026-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7749009728431702}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you Blah. You are no mean debater, and I look forward to the challenge. I will be dedicating this round for my constructive case and will make formal rebuttals in later rounds. Brief Appeal to AuthorityA 2011 poll of nearly 1000 biomedical scientists showed that \u201cmore than 90% of the poll\u2019s respondents agreed that the use of animals in research is essential\u201d[1]Stefan Treue, head of the German Primate Centre in G\u00f6ttingen says that, \u201cafter lay-people have visited his laboratory and seen how work is conducted and why, \"something like 98% understand and accept that this is a small but important and irreplaceable part of biomedical science\u201d[1] The same source goes on to note a percentage of scientists had mixed feelings on the issue of animal testing.\u201c[A]lthough researchers overwhelmingly feel free to discuss these concerns with colleagues, many seem less at ease with doing so in public. More than 70% said that the polarized nature of the debate makes it difficult to voice a nuanced opinion on the subject, and little more than one-quarter said that their institutions offer training and assistance in communicating broadly about the importance of animal research.\u201d[1] We do not test on animals because of some twisted sadistic pleasure in it. Scientists and even the \u2018lay people\u2019 who are given an overview of what these tests are about generally agree that the tests are irreplaceably significant. There is simply no substitute for animal testing. Mice and chimpanzees, for example, share 98-99% of a human\u2019s genetic makeup. Animals are the only subjects other than human beings with similar enough systemic constitutions to give us our best comparative data. We shouldn\u2019t be seeking an alternative because there is no alternative. The Importance of Animal Testing - an Anecdote The first stages to the discovery of life-saving diabetes treatment was made by Charles Best and Frederick Banting[2] by conducting tests, such as organ harvesting, on a number of dogs. One of the dogs had its pancreas cut out, and its living progress recorded over time. Banting and Best then diced up the pancreas and created a pancreatic solution which they injected into the dog. The result of these experiments and numerous trials afterward was the discovery that a certain mixture of pancreatic material, produced after numerous counts of trial and error, countered the effect of diabetes. This material, a.k.a. insulin, is a monumental discovery in biomedical science. Diabetes was known as a cureless disease with a 100% mortality that can only be delayed for 1-2 years. It is estimated that there are currently 29.1 million people in the United States who have diabetes[3]. The lives and organs of tens of dogs and hundreds of cattle in the early decades of the 20th century and the result of their sacrifice are still effectively impacting the lives of millions of people. While not all animal testing will achieve such amazing results, this anecdote serves as an example among many of the indispensability of animal test subjects. We can stare at things in petri dishes all day, but such measures simply cannot duplicate the results of testing on fully functioning living systems. If Banting and Best did not harvest the dogs\u2019 organs, they could not possibly have found the pancreas\u2019 essential correlations to diabetes nor would they have discovered the insulin that keeps over 20 million people living in the United States alive. Who Benefits? \u201cWithout animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research. In human terms, research with animals has led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and children\u2019s leukemia.\u201d[4] Of course, unless you preferred we tested hip replacements, organ transplants, anasthesia etc. on humans, non-animal alternatives such as cultured petri-dish cells aren\u2019t going to help you find out the after-effects and survivability of animals after such operations. There\u2019s just no practical way we can replace the functionalities of a live animal. An Alternative to Animal Testing? In order to monitor results of testing on a living system, a living system must be tested on. Only living things have living systems. Our only option, in order to duplicate results obtained from animal testing, is to test on some other living thing. But here we stumble upon a contradictory problem: all living things are animals. We test on rats and other mammals because these mammals are the closest things to the homo sapien sapien other than the homo sapien sapiens themselves. The only other alternative we have to replace animals, who already replace human beings, is to artificially create some living thing which replicates mammalian living functions; to genetically engineer another living thing. Again, we happen upon the same problem. This genetically engineered living mammal would necessarily be an animal. Testing on this animal would mean animal abuse, bringing us all the way back to the perceived problem of animal testing. I assert that any alternative method to duplicating the results of animal testing can only be animal testing. I hate to ask my opponent to present an alternative, but we simply cannot invest in a pointless venture to find an alternative if no feasible direction toward which we should go toward this alternative is presented. I assert that looking for alternatives to animal testing is a waste of valuable time and resources. Such a venture is only reasonable if we had a practical idea as to where we were going with the invested capital, but we don\u2019t. Some Other Facts about Animal Testing. It is often suggested that since the majority of products from animal tests fail, animal tests are bad models for humans. Many of these statistics are taken out of context. Animal rights activists, when citing such statistics, often neglect other relevant data. For example, my opponent elicits an oft-cited statistic which states that 9 out of 10 or 90% of the drugs tested on animals fail in clinical studies. Many products are experimental. Of course they\u2019re going to fail. Conductors of animal-testing experiments aren\u2019t going to succeed with everything they try. That they so rigorously maintain a healthy skepticism on the effectiveness and safety of the majority of trial products shows is actually a good thing. Consider the following chart: 94% of all drugs that pass the animal trials fail the human trials from phase 1-3 with 86% failing after the phase trials. Note that even human trials fail at just as large a ratio as animal trials. Is this grounds to claim that human tests are bad models for humans? That\u2019s ridiculous. These are trials. They are bound to fail, that\u2019s what experiments are: trial and error until the desired result is attained. Living animals are the next best alternative to living humans. That\u2019s all there is to it. \u201cHere is where it is important to understand a little about the drug development process.Before the preclinical animal tests there are a large number of pre-preclinical non-animal tests done on all manner of research tools including computer models, automatic screening, cell cultures, microbial studies and more. These methods are used to (relatively) cheaply remove many potentially toxic, or obviously non-starting drugs from reaching the more expensive animal testing stage \u2013 greatly reducing the amount of animal research required for a drug to reach market. So contrary to animal rights claims of alternative methods being better, the truth is that 94% of drugs that pass animal AND non-animal preclinical tests will fail in human tests.So rather than damn just the animal tests, have animal rights activists managed to damn all of preclinical research? In short, no.\u201d[5] Conclusion Animals' systems are analogous to human systems and are the closest things we have (other than humans) to test on.We simply don\u2019t have an alternative to replace what animal testing provides.Animal testing is necessary to saving lives and alleviating pain and suffering of a larger demographic. While most of us can agree that premature death and suffering are loathsome, the reality is that these things cannot be avoided. SOURCES[1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://cvma.net...[5]http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...", "qid": 15, "docid": "dc9a6341-2019-04-18T15:17:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7744108438491821}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing s should be banned. Content: I agree with 'Animal testing'. It is necessary experiments for human. What if we don't do 'Animal testing' ?? . Which organism will be the subject of experiment ? Sacrifices can be during experiments. But, it will save more lifes. It must be valueable sacrifices. That animals are fed to experiment, which is similar to meat. If we ban 'Animal testing', that must work to meat in same way too.", "qid": 15, "docid": "e214f0a6-2019-04-18T16:06:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7743006944656372}, {"content": "Title: This house would ban animal testing Content: Honourable and learned opponents. Animal testing is one of the most controversial topics in our generation. Just because animal testing has been going on for several centuries doesn't make it any bit okay. my two arguments will be, the uneccesarry use of animal testing as well as the chance of false results. It's completely necessary to use animals in a lab, partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals. Most of the time these animals are tested on extremely utterly useless things, and very rarely do scientists finds major break throughs and advances medecine. The fact remains that if rodents were dying in a lab for cancer research, and real progress is being done, I'd guarantee most people wouldn't be against it. But the circumstances are not so pretty, and you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances. My next argument is faulty science. If the scientist does find a breakthrough and whatever drug he/she was being tested on animals does end up working, chances are it won't work on a human. Making it once again IRRELEVANT. You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems. By now you should know that 1. The majority of our tests are on unnecessary products, at least not important enough to be used on animals 2. Even the small minority of animals being tested for medical reasons usually end up failing and resulting in a waste of time and not to mention an innocent life. 3. IF by chance the medecine ends up working on the animal, there is no telling whether or not this will work on a human being. Statistically 92/100 drugs that passes animals tests, FAILS in humans", "qid": 15, "docid": "ad53c4eb-2019-04-18T15:29:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7741886973381042}, {"content": "Title: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Well, it seems that you did not read the very first sentence I had typed. Since the resolution says \"An alternative for animal testing should be found,\" and you are Con (against), then you are against \"finding an alternative for animal testing\". Therefore you essentially concede.", "qid": 15, "docid": "d640f8-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7740792036056519}, {"content": "Title: The United States should ban Animal Testing. Content: I am Con. I will negate the proposition that the United States should ban animal testing. Definitions:\"The use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs\" . http://www.dictionary.com... Rules: No Ad Hominhem Attacks keep this debate civil guys.", "qid": 15, "docid": "5f3416ca-2019-04-18T12:22:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7740191221237183}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Content: Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00183-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7736372947692871}, {"content": "Title: should animals be used for scientific research Content: Pro has not upheld his BoP. His various contentions are merely conjecture. Let's take a look at them one by one.- \"it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research\"First, Pro doesn't go into detail on what exactly these types of scientific investigation even are. Is he referring to testing hair products or cancer drugs, we don't know. Secondly, since Pro has been so incredibly vague on the nature of scientific research which he is referring to, he has in no way actually backed up those assertions.- \"You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals\"This is also unsupported. Why can't we test on humans? On the contrary, it would seem to be a better idea since (a) humans would seem prima facie more comparable to other humans in determining the result of experimentation and (b) humans can actually give their consent, freeing one of the various ethical dilemmas brought on b forced testing on animals.", "qid": 15, "docid": "ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7735835313796997}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes. Content: I disagree. No living being should be at the expense at science unless that being is dead. I don't care because animals don't know whats happening or some animals react different in captivity. How about better yet we test on prisoners or humans who volunteer . Animals shouldn't be at the expense of us because it's not morally right.", "qid": 15, "docid": "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.773245096206665}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing. Content: I believe that animal testing should continue because if we don't have animals to test on, who can we test on to find new stuff that could be beneficial for the growth in society? Whether you like it or not, it's one of the only ways we can find new types of cures and we could even find cures to many diseases. I agree that sometimes there is a minority of the time where animal testing is used for stuff like makeup, that way I do agree that it shouldn't be used, but if it is used to find new cures and something new that can be beneficial it would be great for our society, and we wouldn't even notice.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bc36ac-2019-04-18T17:28:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7730598449707031}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing. Content: What is animal testing? http://en.wikipedia.org... I will allow my opponent to make the opening argument.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fe528ead-2019-04-18T19:20:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7730560302734375}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I accept. I'm looking forward to a fun debate. I would ask the judges to keep their own personal views on animal testing out of their decision, and simply judge based on the merit of our arguments. Good luck DDD.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb9d1-2019-04-18T15:37:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7729111909866333}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: Animal Testing: The use of non-human animals in experiments. Experiment: a scientific test in which you perform a series of actions and carefully observe their effects in order to learn about something. [1] Rebuttal: \"By many accounts, animal testing often means that that animals are not treated humanely.\" - I'm sure they aren't treated \"humanely\", as they are not human. - However there are many cases of animal testing also do not harm the animal and in fact benefits the animal. - For example, currently the WWF organization are working hard to preserve Pandas, which are an endangered species. [2] To preserve the Pandas, they must learn more about Pandas. To do this, they must experiment on them. These experiments are generally harmless. For example, a scientist may measure and weigh several Pandas to determine which size and weight is healthy, so that they can spot out Pandas that are not healthy easier. Also, if a Panda is sick, veterinarians must experiment on the Panda to determine what is wrong with it and how to cure it, much like how a doctor would perform an x-ray scan on a broken bone to determine where the fracture is so he can accurately provide a diagnosis. \"According to Santa Clara University, approximately 8 million animals are exposed to painful testing procedures,\" - That is unfortunate, but why should we humans care about the pains felt by animals? We already butcher and slaughter them for food. They already suffer whether or not we test them. And we do this because food benefits us, just like animal testing may benefit us. - Furthermore as I have shown, not all cases of animal testing result in the suffer of animals. Con's resolution is basically: \"Animal testing is terrible and should be banned.\" My burden of proof is simply to show cases in which animal testing is not terrible and is actually necessary. I've met this burden by explaining how animal testing is necessary for the preservation of animals, which may also preserve the environment. \"Many people believe it is unjust to sacrifice one species for the benefit of another, and that animal cruelty is never justified, regardless of the benefits that come from it.\" - Con has committed the Argumentum ad populum fallacy, otherwise known as the bandwagon fallacy. [3] Using an appeal to the masses does not validly support one's argument. \"Some feel that it does not follow that a human --- Earth's most highly developed animal --- is considered more valuable than any other animal.\" - It doesn't matter how much we or animals are worth. If those people truly feel like this, they would all be vegans/vegetarians, which I'm sure is unlikely. We eat because we benefit from it, not because we devalue animals. The same goes for animal testing. - Animal testing has made huge medical breakthroughs in fighting breast cancer, Leukemia, HIV/AIDS, lung cancer, birth defects, diabetes, and the list goes on. [4] Those are the benefits we got from animal testing. Therefore, we don't do it because we devalue animals, but because it benefits us. \"Even when animals are not killed or harmed during experimentation, they are often subjected to great deals of stress. Some animal advocates believe that the animal's experience of stress could actually influence an experiment, making the results unusable.\" - It is important for judges to note that this entire sentence was plagiarized word for word from this website: http://www.ehow.com... *In fact, the rest of Con's argument on \"Expense\" and \"Necessity\" has also been plagiarized from the same website. Because they are not Con's arguments, I refuse to address them. This is a clear conduct violation. \"There are three general types of animal testing. Product testing is the testing of products such as soaps, cosmetics, household cleaners and pesticides on animals to ensure they are safe for human use. Research uses the testing of drugs and medical procedures on animals. Education and training uses animals to teach anatomy and to train medical studentsI have not seen any information for preserving animal testing plus Wikipedia literally anyone can put something on Wikipedia and it could be wrong\" - Con did not provide a clear definition for animal testing in both round 1 and round 2. Therefore, I was allowed to provide a definition that Con must abide by. My definition of \"Animal Testing\" was: \"The use of non-human animals in experiments.\" - My examples of preserving animals and the environment require non-human animals to be used in experiments. Therefore, it is still valid in the boundaries of this debate and considered animal testing. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://wwf.panda.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.amprogress.org...", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb9f0-2019-04-18T15:36:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7725639343261719}, {"content": "Title: animal testing Content: While it is possible that my opponent happens to have posted this very same argument across various websites, it is such a change in style that I cannot help but wonder if it is plagiarized [1]. My opponent may work for PETA [2], but I personally am highly skeptical as to the originality of these arguments.Still, I will counter these arguments anyway.Con writes '[A]nimal testing is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary. For example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller.'One anecdote is hardly sufficient to determine a general pattern.Con writes 'Scientifically, testing products meant for humans on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous.'My opponent has failed to respond to my sourced arguments about all the medicines and techniques developed using animal testing, preferring instead his/her/its own theorizing.Con writes 'My personal view is that products meant for humans should be tested on humans. It's the only way to know if they will work as intended, and we have the choice of whether or not to volunteer for testing'Of course products should be tested on humans, but they should be tested on animals first.Con writes 'Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them in any way we see fit - that should be abhorrent to any sentient, compassionate being.'Animal testing also helps animals:'Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia.' [3]What personally seems more abhorrent to me is to let the far more valuable humans die/suffer over other species. One who doesn't care for his own species is a failure.Con writes 'It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratory cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness, and fear.'Why? It helps humans.Con writes 'It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.'How does that make it bad science?Con writes 'It's wasteful. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.'Bare assertion.Con writes 'It's archaic.'Actually, we'd probably still be stuck in the middle ages (medicinally) if we never used animal testing.Con writes 'The world doesn't need another eyeliner, hand soap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction, or pesticide so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.'But we could use a cure for cancer so badly that it should come at the expense of animals' lives.ConclusionMy opponent has not directly addressed any of my arguments, and has preferred to copy/paste some arguments off the internet. I am very disappointed.Sources: 1. http://ph.answers.yahoo.com...;2. http://www.peta.org...;3. http://www.pro-test.org.uk...;", "qid": 15, "docid": "908f4ecb-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7715165019035339}, {"content": "Title: animal testing be banned Content: Of course we need someone to test our medicines on. I agree with you but then there is no sense In trying there tests on animals. They are genetically so different from us. Let's take rat for example. We test the polio vaccine on them. Does this even make any sense. Like really how can you test a medicine made for a mammal on a primate. This is wrong. A medicine that is good for us can harm them and one okay for them may harm us.", "qid": 15, "docid": "85178f24-2019-04-18T15:22:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7714259624481201}, {"content": "Title: Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing. Content: Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.", "qid": 15, "docid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7713824510574341}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be banned Content: Actually I disagree with my opponent. Animals aren't the only way to test drugs. The science technology has improved and the scientists in U.S.A have invented CHEMO SYNTHETIC LIVER . Instead of animals we can use this ......liver to test our medicines. over a 100 million animals die each from animal testing in USA. 300 thousand animals die each year in New Zealand. Animal population is going down. Even my opponent agree that we shouldn't kill animals.", "qid": 15, "docid": "b57b834d-2019-04-18T16:08:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7712016105651855}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be banned Content: Since my opponent forfeited this round again, I will extend my argument and conclude my opinion.In conclusion, I disagree that animal testing should be banned. Animal testing will save the lives of living things and even the animals themselves. Also, animals are really similar to humans. The source for experiment is not replaceable that animals need to be used. Vote for Con!!!!", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd98a1f9-2019-04-18T16:36:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7711037397384644}, {"content": "Title: animal testing Content: Of course animal testing had a big value in medicine in the past. but nowadays it is not so profitable. Animal experimentations not always helps. the reason is that animals are not like humans. they have different genes, organism, different reactions to decease and so on. They do not suffer from all human diseases, so scientists have to give them the illnesses artificially. These tests do not always work because animals do not react to drugs in the same way as humans. Aspirin, for example, damages pregnant mice and dogs, but not pregnant women. That is why I'm against of animal testing", "qid": 15, "docid": "908f528c-2019-04-18T16:59:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7710385918617249}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you, Blah. Unfortunately, every single one of my opponent's sources in his first constructive round fail to lead to relevant source material. Link [1], for example, leads straight to the wikipedia homepage, link [2] and [3] leads to its respective homepages, etc. Most of my opponent's links are simply inaccessible. However, I will still address my opponent's points despite its not having real source material to give them the weight they were intended to have. My opponent can attempt to reproduce the links in the next round if he so wishes, but I will refute his points here and now.ClarificationsFirst I would like to address what I perceive to be an attempt at a semantic exploit of the resolution. My opponent, in an attempt to refute the relevancy of my negative case, says \"An alternative is different to a replacement because alternatives are not permanent changes to the status quo, and we can alternate through alternatives.\"However, in his constructive round, my opponent explicitly states: \"we need to find another method to replace animal testing in biomedical research\"That we are debating a replacement to animal testing is also very clearly stipulated by the resolution as it asks whether or not we should find to find an alternative for animal testing. It does not as whether or not we should be looking for alternatives. The resolution clearly asks for one method to replace animal testing altogether, and my opponent's first constructive round indicates the same.So to reclarify: this debate is about whether or not an alternative for animal testing should be found. The negative case argues that animal testing is both necessary and irreplaceable; that there is nothing that can make up for animal testing.==C1 - Mistreatment of Tested Animals==My opponent claims that scientists 'aren't at all careful' when testing on animals. This is an assertion that I will disprove in a couple moments. He then gives us an anecdote of a primate having its eyelid sewn shut. While a trial may or may not have been conducted with care, a trial's procedural result, i.e. i.e. having a sewn eyelid, does not say anything about whether or not the procedure is executed with care. \"One of the most important, but unknown facts about biomedical research is that just like at your pet\u2019s veterinarian\u2019s office, there are research veterinarians, husbandry specialists and animal health technicians \u2013 people who care deeply for animals \u2013 ensuring that animals in research receive the highest quality of care. These well-trained professionals work directly with researchers to minimize discomfort or distress, two factors that affect the well-being of animals as well as the quality of the data collected in the study.\"[1]\"Research institutions are required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). IACUCs approve and review research protocols, ensure that anesthesia and postoperative medications are used when appropriate, and that alternatives to animals are sought out and integrated into studies whenever possible. Most institutions go above and beyond regulatory requirements by volunteering to have their programs reviewed every three years by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). This accreditation process is very stringent and institutions with AAALAC accreditation are known for their commitment to excellence and humane animal care.\"[1]The scientific community is neither careless nor inhumane. It already uses as many non-animal alternatives to testing whenever possible. However, there exists no single alternative that can completely supplant the entirety of living systems provided by animals. I'd like to reinvoke the following passage from my previous round: \"contrary to animal rights claims of alternative methods being better, the truth is that 94% of drugs that pass animal AND non-animal preclinical tests will fail in human tests.\"[2]Non-animal pre-clinical tests include all those that animals rights activists believe should be used. However, no proponent of animal testing ever declared that 94% of drugs that pass non-animal tests fail in human tests. Such a statement would be an inacccurate lie that ignores the fact that preclinical tests include animal testing.==C2 - Animal tests are unreliable==\"I have not failed, Ive just found 10,000 ways that won't work.\" -Thomas EdisonThe lightbulb was known to have taken about 1000 trials before it was successfully invented. That is 1 trial of success out of about 999 trials of failure, a measly 0.1% success rate or a monumental 99.9% rate of failure. That's what trials are for: testing every possible facet that needs testing until it works. Compared with the 90% rate by which the FDA rejects drugs that pass clinical trials, the biomedical community is working with relatively reasonable odds.And again, I refer to the inaccuracy of the 90% statement on failure of clinical trials as it ignores what the preclinical trials actually are.While preclinical trials do produce practical products only 10% of the time, this 10% has saved the lives of countless millions. Insulin, for example, currently sustains the lives of over 20 million human beings in the United States alone. Again, I would like to elicit the following passage from my previous round: \u201cWithout animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research. In human terms, research with animals has led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria, and tetanus; development of anesthesia, antibiotics, and insulin; use of cardiac pacemakers and heart bypass surgery; surgical advancements for organ transplants, hip replacements, and cataract surgery; and treatments for a host of diseases, including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and children\u2019s leukemia.\u201d[4] Whatever harms animal testing might bring upon the human or animal community may or may not be an issue, but the benefits of animal testing saves the lives and livelihood of an immense quantity of animals and people. I believe on a cost benefit analysis, the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.==C3 - Despite...costly==C3 is reliant on C2, which is based on tests' failures. I believe my response above addresses most of C3. Is money put into animal testing actually wasted? My opponent claims that there is 16 billion dollars put into animal testing, but I've shown that animal testing is clearly beneficial. What it provides to society more than justifies its costs.Blah's Rebuttals\"human testing is another alternative to animal testing\" - BlahNo. Humans are animals, and all arguments that can be made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, etc. can be made with human testing. In suggesting this, my opponent presents us with a massive double standard which favors animals over humans. This suggestion severely undermines my opponents case. We as humans generally value individual humans more than we do other individual species, and subjective or not, human lives are more important than, say, the lives of mice.\u201cThere is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans\" - Neavs, MacLennan and AmmosI've presented clear examples, i.e. surgical tests, that show that animal data can and has been extrapolated directly to humans.\"we should rely on alternatives that are much more trustworthy and productive\"And what alternatives are these? \"My adversary's entire contention relies on one single event, yet he attempts to use this to prove his entire case correct. But this is completely irrelevant.\"I refer to my refutation to my opponent's C2.\"humans and non-human animals have different internal immune systems and system structure, not about the genetic makeup, which defines what a living thing looks like.\" - BlahHumans may differ from non-human animals, but if they were so different as to be unreliable, how come we've been able to derive real results from them? In fact, petri dish cells have no internal immune system and system structure. My opponent later goes on to declare that other methods, such as petri-culture testing, is more accurate and better than animal testing. I declare this a false assertion. Even if non-animal testing methods may be more effective in some cases, not all cases can dispense with animal testing. There is no replacement that can duplicate the results of an entire living system besides another whole living system. It is impossible to ascertain whether a heart bypass works, for example, without conducting an actual heart bypass. Computer simulations and petri-dish examinations can only show so much.\"all living things are animals\" - MeIn context to my rhetoric, this refers to all living things with animal functionalities and systems which are obviously animals. My opponent attempts a negation with a grammatical technicality. I refer to rule number 3.ConclusionC1 and C2 fail under countercases. C3 fails from the failures of C2. Moreover, I believe the negative constructive case is insufficiently addressed thus remains affirmed.[1] http://www.amprogress.org...[2] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[3] http://www.uky.edu...[4] http://cvma.net...", "qid": 15, "docid": "dc9a6341-2019-04-18T15:17:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7706204652786255}, {"content": "Title: Animal tests proceed only when animal suffering is \"worth it\" Content: The potential human benefits of a particular animal test are typically weighed against the harms that it will entail for animals. Scientists are not wanton in inflicting tests on animals. Rather, they are often bound to meet specific ethical requirements in the trade-off. The harm of the testing must be thought \"worth it\" for the benefits that it will produce. animal research is justified because it has reducing human suffering.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00201-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7701533436775208}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: animal testing is good because animals can be controlled in certain environments. I think it's good because this method protects people from harmful effects of using products that have not been previously tested.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcba2e-2019-04-18T15:09:51Z-00008-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7700588703155518}, {"content": "Title: We should have lab rats in labatories Content: Alright, thanks to logical-master123 for challenging me to this debate. I'll start with some overviews. OV1) Let's be clear what this debate is about. The question here is whether or not lab rats should be used in laboratories, and as such, I will specifically defend the use of lab rats bred for the purpose. But it should also be noted what I'm not defending. I'm not forced to defend animal cruelty, nor am I required to defend specific labs or types of experiements. As long as I show that lab rats should be used in some laboratories, that's sufficient for me to win this debate. OV2) The burden of proof in this debate is on Con, since he's arguing against the status quo. He's stating that we must necessarily exclude lab rats as a type of animal testing in the laboratory. In fact, his case applies to all lab animals and not just rats, and as such he is required to either defend a better means for accomplishing these goals, or eschew lab tests as a whole. Onto rebuttals. 1. Death and harm Con's C1-C3 all might as well come under this heading. Con strays from the prompt. He starts this contention talking about rats, and then shifts to mice. Mice are non-topical, by Con's own definitions. I see this as an effort by Con to push me to defend all animal testing rather than just testing of rats, which is all I have to do. This does expand HIS burden, though. Risk exists, independent of the test subject. But pre-clinical trials are extremely important for establishing safety, which absolutely must be done. So, what should we test? Note that these mice aren't getting captured. They're often bred specifically for the lab, which means they've only known captivity. If scientists didn't do this, they would have to capture them and bring them into the lab. I'd personally say that that's worse, but more importantly, they would lose a number of genetic mutants that make it possible to understand the effects of certain treatments.[1] Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to study things like diabetes, kidney disease, immune system disorders, inflammation, allergic response, transplantation, and countless other problems that don't occur similarly in any animal aside from humans. Con's also unclear on why it matters that we treat mice (or rats) poorly. There are plenty of reasons why humans are preferred to mice, in particular our cognitive abilities make us capable of understanding right from wrong (and yes, if mice suddenly garner that understanding, I would argue against lab testing on them). I'll grant that damage to their populations and freedom is a moral hazard, though I'd say the fact that these are lab-bred rodents means that they were granted their very lives by the system Con's so thoroughly against, which means he's also arguing against the existence of these lives. 2. Lab Rats Spread Disease Con doesn't seem to realize that neither any cancer nor Parkinson's Disease are infectious.[2, 3] Unless we give an infectious disease to rodents and then don't take adequate precautions (they do [4]), there's no risk to humans from testing diseases in rodents. 3. Con's \"Solution\" Con says we should test in humans. First, we actually do \" they're called clinical trials.[5] What Con is advocating for is extending the testing of drugs to humans in preclinical trials. Second, Con doesn't realize that preclinical studies are safety tasting. What he's advocating here is for those studies to go on first in humans, which will either encounter the same problems as with rodents (only this time with people, who can sue for damages), or no one will touch it, which will bring drug development to a halt. Third, studies in humans aren't necessarily good substitutes. Understanding treatment over a lifetime and intergenerationally can be very important. That's something we're able to do in rats very easily, but in humans it would take decades of monitoring. He says that we may one day be able to test in robots. First, we can't do this now, and so this suggestion is merely a science fiction dream. Second, even if we get robots akin to animals, they will never perfectly simulate a living system, The inherent complexity of that system will always be beyond our understanding. What Con's case amounts to is basically one large appeal to emotion. He presents a nice picture, talks about all the poor rodents, and basically ignores the issue of why we use rodents in labs at all. Now, onto my case. To be clear, what I'm arguing for is a continuation of the status quo. Treatment of animals should continue to be regulated to ensure that they're housed well and that they suffer as little as possible. With that, onto the why. 1. Harms to other animals Again, looking back at the resolution, all I have to do is affirm that we should continue to use rats. Con appears to be very concerned about mice. If rats are pulled out of labs, then those labs will simply replace them with mice. If they don\"t replace them with mice, they\"ll replace them with one of the dozens of other animals they have access to: dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, pigs, and primates, for example.[] By using lab-grown rats, I\"m reducing harms to most of these populations, many of which aren\"t bred in the lab. 2. Importance of rats to studies I pointed this out earlier, but rats are a very genetically malleable organism. What that means is that there are multiple mutants of rats that have been bred in order to study certain diseases in rats that otherwise wouldn\"t be present. This is impossible with most other organisms, mainly due to limitations in breeding and transgenic technologies. Rats, therefore, represent a necessary model for studying disease states and treatments, particularly because their behavior and physiology is more relevant to humans than other rodents.[1] It\"s for this reason that the amount of scientific literature that has been produced using rats as a model species is staggeringly large, with rats and mice making up 95% of all animal research and rats being used 50% more often than mice.[1, 7] We can attribute the vast majority of pharmaceuticals and treatment methods to rats first and foremost. 3. Why we should care We should be most concerned with the continued survival and quality of life of our own species. Our preservation should come first and foremost, and as long as that requires doing studies in other organisms, that\"s what we have to do. I know this sounds anthropocentric, but Con isn\"t really seeking to protect all animals anyway since he\"s just trying to prevent scientists from harming this particular rodent. If he really cared, he\"d be extending this to all life forms tested in the laboratory, though that would require that we consider the countless insects and even bacteria tested in labs across the country. He provides no particular reason why rats are special, and we cannot realistically stop all research with every form of life that exists without dooming humanity to death by the next plague that comes our way. Sure, in a perfect world, no creature would have to endure harm, but we don\"t live in a perfect world, and we cannot function solely based off of a sense of empathy with some lab-grown rats. The facts are as follows: nearly every medical breakthrough in recent history has resulted directly from research using animals, particularly when it comes to vaccines, cancers, and heart disease.[8] Rats make up a substantial proportion of these. The alternatives for animal testing simply aren't ready to replace them. Moreover, even if we care about animals, the research helps them as well, offering treatments to many diseases that afflict both them and humans.[9] The benefits are clear. With that, I hand the debate back to Con. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://1.usa.gov... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly...", "qid": 15, "docid": "1aed8015-2019-04-18T14:17:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7699000835418701}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing does more good than harm Content: It is more than true to say that animal testing is dangerous. However, let's think about it this way. According to a study done by the magazine Popular Science, more than 88.7% of tests that were successful or unaffective by animal patients had the opposite or \"different\" effect on humans. Still not convinced? Doing their own research, The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This clearly proves that what we test on animals are completely innacurate and thereby should not be used. So in this sense, I, myself care for my fellow man as well. Oh and thank you for clearing away that \"personal\" or sentimental part of this debate because I wasn't going to go much on about animal rights and whatnot. However, I'd like to give the voters this: Correct science is the most humane and safe. Correct science is science used for good and not on those who don't have the ability to say what's right or not. We cannot keep on experimenting on animals that are taken away without notice, to be used for study, or for something that does not benefit their species. How far are we willing to take animal testing as to taking away the whole animal race for our cruel and incorrect tests. (Note: I'm not those crazy animal activists whose working Peta or some crazy organization like that.)", "qid": 15, "docid": "e937961a-2019-04-18T14:45:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.76970374584198}, {"content": "Title: Animal Experimentation Content: Not all animals are used for experimenting though I agree the world would be horrible without animals. However testing can help cure animals too. People say we violate there rights but we can't for they have no rights to violate. if we did not experiment on these animals then it would harm humans. I understand people may hate for them to be hurt but it comes down to them or us.", "qid": 15, "docid": "140da7f6-2019-04-18T13:42:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7695527076721191}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Treated Equally Content: The first two paragraphs of my opponent\"s case were not used to make arguments, the first one was restating the resolution while the second paragraph was giving information about animal testing. Pro only states, \"Animal testing is a prime example of humans exerting power over helpless lab animals.\", which does not express an argument, therefore there is no rebuttal needed for the first two paragraphs, but I would point out that my opponent is saying we shouldn\"t test drugs on animals, which leads to the advancement of cures and medicine. Without testing on animals, we would have to test it on humans, but my opponent can not argue that humans should be tested instead, since the resolution calls for equality. However, my opponent could argue that both animals and humans should be tested and the quote provided demonstrates that, but then it wouldn\"t have impact on the resolution. In my opponent\"s third paragraph, two arguments are made. Firstly, zoos lead to unnecessary deaths to the zoo workers, and secondly, the space animals get in zoos is equivalent to the space humans get in bathtubs The latter is not equivalent since a human lying down barely has any wiggle room, while the animals in zoos sometimes have cages as big as a house. Addressing the former, I subject my opponent to proving that the amount of zoo workers dying is impactful enough to get of zoos. By observation, zoo worker deaths are not common, and removing zoos because of a few deaths would lead to further removing things that are ridiculous to remove. Like sports and certain medicine since sometimes there are deaths involved which could have been avoided by not participating in the activity, which would be the same reasoning for zoo workers. . \"No need to get me started on slaughterhouses; this video should cover it.\" This is not an argument so no rebuttal needed here. Now, in my opponent\"s last statement, he/she states that humans do not have the right to abuse animals. However, the resolution states animals should be treated equally, equally does not entail anything about not being able to abuse. If both animals and humans were abused, then they would be considered equal. What equality entails, is that both are considered the same, but since my opponent conceded that we are somewhat superior, \"All in all, I think humans feel superior**** to all other forms of life on this Earth which isn't necessarily untrue but it definitely doesn't constitute the right to abuse animals\", then we have somewhat of a difference in status, therefore my opponent conceded that humans are not equal to animals in status, therefore if pro says humans aren\"t equal to animals, then this pretty much refute my opponent\"s case. To put it simply, my opponent is arguing animal should be treated equally, equally means of same status (at least), however my opponent says humans aren\"t equal in status, therefore humans can not be equal to animals. Treating animals equally would mean not being able to eat animal meat, since we as humans, don\"t do that to other humans. But this would eventually lead to disorder amongst the food chain, and also would inconvenience, and even indirectly lead to the deaths of people looking for sustenance, since starving humans generally don\"t eat other people for sustenance. Peace out fam.", "qid": 15, "docid": "71730a55-2019-04-18T12:58:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7695331573486328}, {"content": "Title: Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature Content: As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.[1] [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.", "qid": 15, "docid": "7f023e5c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00015-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7695028185844421}, {"content": "Title: Should heart transplants on animals be legal Content: What about the animals, its not really right because their a lesser species that they should be tested on. Who made us the ones to decide who should experiment on these animals. Also, the anatomy of animals is far different then ours. Plus, they function differently, who are we to know if the experiment were to work.", "qid": 15, "docid": "486cfae9-2019-04-18T15:30:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7694952487945557}, {"content": "Title: Animal experimetation should be banned around the world Content: I am sure that animal testing should be banned around the world, because of the fact it is cruel oward animals. We may use them like a meal, but for the name of medicine we can not do tests on animals. I mean they have a chance to live. Thus, other arguments I will tell if you start to debate with me!!!", "qid": 15, "docid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00007-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7693012356758118}, {"content": "Title: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. Content: Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. \"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! \" But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: \"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. \" A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a \"tu torque fallacy\", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.", "qid": 15, "docid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7692496180534363}, {"content": "Title: Should people that are sentenced to execution be tested on for medical purposes instead of animals Content: I Believe it is wrong to test on animals as they are defenceless creatures that have no say in the matter. However testing and Criminals such as: Murderers, Rapists, Paedophiles and Treason that would be better as 1) they will be killed anyway and 2) they maybe able to help themselves possible get off Death Row by helping", "qid": 15, "docid": "f1fd9d56-2019-04-18T17:02:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7691892385482788}, {"content": "Title: Testing on Animals Content: So many animals are killed because of products being tested on animals. I believe the only reason we do it is because they are like us, but helpless and can't stop you from testing products on them. Taking innocent animals, making them go through pain and suffering, and then killing them is not a humane way to treat any living creature. They should be able to live a happy life and not one in pain and suffering that will ultimately lead to death because of a science experiment. Test it on something else; there are other ways to test if a product's safe than putting it on animal. Animals cruelty is NOT okay and should be banned. Whoever excepts my challenge: good luck.", "qid": 15, "docid": "dd18e758-2019-04-18T18:38:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7691699862480164}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing should stop Content: My opponent puts forth some seemingly well thought out arguments, yet I will approach them one by one in this round.(1) Cruelty of Animal Testing\"Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal [sic] in an extremely bestial way.\"This is wrong for several reasons. First, there was no definition to the term bestial, nor any explanation of what would make this cruelty \"extreme\". Furthermore, as I looked into the topic, I found this definition of animal testing: \"the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs\" [1]Nowhere in the definition does it state that the testing must be cruel, nor does it state that the testing is solely for testing products, such as shampoo, lotion, etc... It simply state that animal testing is is the use of non-human animals in research. (2) Different Anatomy\"... animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours.\"Once again, this statement is wrong. The majority of animals share organ systems that mirror our internal workings. From personal experience (granted this cannot be proven, but I am willing to give a link to other related experiences), during a medical camp this summer we learned about the cardiovascular system. Yet when we did the dissections, the heart did not originate from a deceased human, but a slaughtered cow. How could this be helping our learning, or teaching us about the human anatomy, if the cow did not resemble the same systems that are seen in a human? This does not apply to cows alone. Monkeys, mice, rabbits, and many other animals (if not most) all share certain characteristics concerning bodily functions. Most animals (if not all) used in testing have a similar breathing system; these same animals all have a vascular system that transports blood throughout the body. I in no way see how these test animals have very different bodies or anatomy.Furthermore, the chocolate argument is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. This is one example of something that harms animals (a select few) and not humans. Not relevant to the testing of animals. (3) Unreliable Tests\"Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable.\"First, even if the BOP is split, Pro has failed to prove his side, instead simply stated some statistics that may or may not be true.Second, I would like to contend that this unreliability is not based in truth. There isn't really anything to back up this claim except for that statement alone, given by Pro. I would argue that this testing is in fact reliable. Pro also states that \"92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials.\" This may be true, but one must look at another aspect of this. One must understand that even though these tests may fail, there are two points that show this is a good thing. First, animal testing prevents an outstanding amount of dangerous tests to making it to human trials. Second, there are a good majority of drugs that don't even make it to pre-clinical trials due to extensive non-animal testing. [3]Now I will address a few of my arguments in favor of animal testing.(1) Past Success in TestingI would like to open by saying that animal testing has been the basis of countless discoveries in the medical field. This can be seen in a number of vaccine discoveries, such as penicillin research (conducted by Chain and Florey), Tuberculosis research (conducted by Koch), advances in asthma research (conducted by Dale and Loewi), and many others. [4] With these few examples, it can be seen that, in an effort to better humanity and protect us from deadly diseases, animal research has been a great help.(2) RegulationsThere are already regulations in place protecting animals (for the most part). I will address these exceptions in my next argument. Going back to the regulations, however, it becomes known that these animals being used in testing are protected to maintain ethical treatment. In the UK, greater-apes are protected from testing. [5](3) Selective BreedingThe only animals not protected by these regulations stated in argument 2 would be mice, rats, and birds. However, while they are not protected (and sometimes not recorded due to millions of tests), these animals are bred for testing. They are not inhumanely taken from the wild to be tested on. There was never a chance for these animals to \"go back to normal life\" or other arguments posted by many anti-animal testing advocates, but instead only a life of testing. This selective breeding goes quite quickly, and allows scientists to choose certain traits across several generations. Ultimately, while individuals argue that this breeding solely for testing is inhumane, it is for the benefit of society. Though it is only my opinion, I would much rather have mice be subjected to testing that could ultimately end their lives than allow certain diseases to tear through the human race and cause devastation due to a lack of testing.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://speakingofresearch.com...[3] http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...[4] http://speakingofresearch.com...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": 15, "docid": "9f5396d0-2019-04-18T15:42:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.769099235534668}, {"content": "Title: animal testing should be banned Content: Since my opponent had forfeited this round again, I will just state my opinion and extend my argument.My Opinion As I have stated, animal testing should not be banned. Animal testing may save the lives of living things, and it will develop medical treatments and science. Also, animals will get to benefit from animal testing since animals get better medical treatments, and those things could even save their lives. Also, the environment of animal testing is not harsh since it is highly regulated. Also, even though we do not do animal testing, there is no another thing to replace the animals for the experiments. It is because the body structure of humans are highly complex, and the animals are very similar to the humans.Questions to my opponentPlease clarify your reasons, and answer my questions I wrote in round 2. To conclude, for these reasons I disagree to the topic that animal testing should be banned.To add, I will extend my arguments I wrote before since my opponent forfeited this round!", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd98a1f9-2019-04-18T16:36:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7690355777740479}, {"content": "Title: Animal testing is morally acceptable. Content: The topic for discussion is that animal testing is morally acceptable. I will be taking the 'con/against' position of the topic. I welcome anybody who wishes to debate the issue with me. I'm a beginner, however I love a challenge. The opposition may begin the debate :)", "qid": 15, "docid": "b33b886a-2019-04-18T19:20:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.768998384475708}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found. Content: Thank you, Beginner.Apologies to my opponent. It seems the first four sources in my first constructive case do not link to relevant source info. I will reiterate them here:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.neavs.org... [3] http://www.buav.org...[4] http://brandongaille.com... If the sources say that the page can't be found, just refresh them. Now, onto the debate.==Clarifications==Again, I apologize to my opponent. That very sentence (as well as the other) was a result of copying my arguments from a similar debate I had participated in. Voters, deduct conduct points from me if you wish.However, I blatantly disagree with his second premise. The fact that we are determining just one alternative does not mean we are making that one a replacement, we are making that a prioritized alternative. We can still use animal testing when needed. Plus, my contentions state that those were proposed alternatives. The single alternative that is determined to be best or working will then be \"found\".Heck, I'd even go far as to say that it doesn't matter if we find one or many, because at least we are finding at least one alternative. If we find one alternative, why stop there? Biomedical research is broad and needs many forms of testing. Moreover, you cannot find multiple alternatives without finding at least one in the first place, so literally it goes both ways. Obviously we both agree that animal testing is irreplaceable. But that isn't the point. What we should be arguing about is whether or not we should find an alternative(s) and whether we can alternate from each of the testing methods. That's exactly what the resolution calls for. This should easily address my opponent's arguments that say and are affected by the statement that animal testing is irreplaceable.Although my constructive round was thus somewhat off-topic, the rest of my arguments aren't at all taken down just yet. The only part that was of-topic was two little sentences - that don't contribute to my case in any way, but instead just to place the conclusion for an argument.Also, my opponent is incorrect in stating that I am playing semantics. If the word that the semantics is based on has already been clarified and agreed on, it isn't playing semantics regardless of whether my opponent is misunderstanding the definitions I set, which he is.==Counter-rebuttal 1: Mistreatment of tested animals==Literally what my opponent is trying to do is tell us that animal tests are conducted with the highest possible amount of care and minimize discomfort or mistreatment. That doesn't mean the animals aren't still being mistreated. Minimizing discomfort or mistreatment could still be mistreating the animals, because we don't know *what* absolute that testers are trying to \"minimize\" it to.In fact, my opponent fails to state examples for how they aren't mistreated. I will state examples here as to how they are mistreated [5]: \"This is life for an animal in a laboratory. It is deprivation, isolation, and misery. On top of the deprivation, there are the experiments. U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited \u2013 and pain-killers are not required. Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, the law does not require that they be used\u2014and often they aren\u2019t.\" - Peta [5] Such immoral actions only affirm that there should be an alternative. The last sentence in this quote will address part of my opponent's contention - often alternatives aren't used regardless of availability.==Counter-rebuttal 2: Animal testing is unreliable==Again, in my last round, the alternatives I had proposed were shown to be much more reliable than animal testing. Obviously every type of test is going to be trial and error, but if we want to succeed in biomedical research, we need to both fail in some cases AND get to the answer more quickly.This argument, however, was not addressed in any sense, but rather dropped. Extend this line of argument.==Counter-rebuttal 3: The cost of animal testing==My adversary starts off this rebuttal by stating that my contention is reliant on the last contention. This is true, but isn't entirely true. This rebuttal could go on just with the 16 billion dollars used on animal testing.Even if it were entirely reliable, my opponent's rebuttal to this isn't valid. If only a small percentage of animal testing succeeds, then obviously it should only be worth the same percentage of that 16 billion dollars that have been used.==Counter-counter-rebuttal==\"No. Humans are animals, and all arguments that can be made against animal testing, such as pain, suffering, etc. can be made with human testing. In suggesting this, my opponent presents us with a massive double standard which favors animals over humans.\" - OpponentThis is completely false. As shown by Wikipedia, animal testing is the testing of drugs and products on non-human animals. Thus this is irrelevant.\"I've presented clear examples, i.e. surgical tests, that show that animal data can and has been extrapolated directly to humans.\" - OpponentThat makes it applicable in some cases, but not extrapolatable. Again, we can only try it out, but we cannot predict the outcome very successfully with test information.\"And what alternatives are these?\" - OpponentI refer to my extended argument above.\"I refer to my refutation to my opponent's C2.\" - OpponentThis refutation has been addressed, both before and during this round.\"Humans may differ from non-human animals, but if they were so different as to be unreliable, how come we've been able to derive realresults from them?\" - OpponentBecause the real results have been derived only at very rare times.\"In fact, petri dish cells have no internal immune system and system structure.\" - OpponentThat doesn't mean we can't derive better results. We only need to study possible answers if we already have a base on the chemistry of human immune systems and structure, which we do.\"My opponent later goes on to declare that other methods, such as petri-culture testing, is more accurate and better than animal testing. I declare this a false assertion. Even if non-animal testing methods may be more effective in some cases, not all cases can dispense with animal testing. There is no replacement that can duplicate the results of an entire living system besides another whole living system...\" - OpponentI can only declare this as a false assertion if there are no sources to prove this, which I have used to prove that they are more reliable. Also, again we are not debating replacements but rather alternatives.My opponent then says non-animal tests can only show so much. That's the case for everything. Nothing can show more than just so much, especially animal testing, where the immune systems are almost completely different, as shown.\"\"all living things are animals\" - MeIn context to my rhetoric, this refers to all living things with animal functionalities and systems which are obviously animals. My opponent attempts a negation with a grammatical technicality. I refer to rule number 3.\" - OpponentAgain, my opponent accuses me of playing semantics. It can't be playing semantics, however, if a statement is so off as to literally be twisted in a way to unfairly help his case and imply that stem cell resarch isn't applicable, then obviously the debate needs to be placed back on track. The point of really playing semantics is trying to twist the debate so it goes off the resolution. I wasn't doing that. Thus it isn't playing semantics.==Conclusion==I have countered and refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments both for his case and against my case. The resolution is affirmed.[5] http://www.peta.org...;(I hate it when I add only one source in a round...)", "qid": 15, "docid": "dc9a6341-2019-04-18T15:17:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7684210538864136}, {"content": "Title: animal testing is wrong Content: I would like to clarify this for voters, we were not debating \"Animal Testing is Wrong, but more like \"We should use animal testing\". My opponent was obviously against animal testing and I was fine with proving it justifiable. You have all my arguments to vote off of before and therefore an easy vote for Pro is advised. Thank you for your time. . http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 15, "docid": "11ace9a4-2019-04-18T19:11:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7683925628662109}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I think animal testing should stop because it harms the animals. Animals have no choice in whether they can be tested or not and in most cases they are harmed. It is bad", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcba2e-2019-04-18T15:09:51Z-00009-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7680083513259888}, {"content": "Title: This House Would Ban Animal Testing Content: Thank you for your good but somewhat 'short' point. In this round, I would actually like to start my argument by looking at the situation from your point of view. What you are implying is that animals shouldn't have rights and are \"just animals\" (in other words, you are totally denying their existing rights). Fair enough. But in that case, why should we test substances on animals and waste our money on their deaths and the deaths of the 'high and mighty humans' when 92% of animal tests fail anyway? Then that wouldn't really be \"improving the lives of humans\" like you so emphasised in your point. Now back to my perspective. Animals are not \"just animals\" and have rights by law. Yes, we kill animals for food but do we really need to kill or risk the lives lives of these animals for testing when it is clearly UNNECESSARY when we have so much more accurate and modern alternatives such as the 'In Vitro testing' that I mentioned earlier? In the previous round, I described only a few of the many modern alternatives that have been proven to be much more effective than animal testing, and I believe that they are the things that will not only protect animals but also \"improve the lives of humans\". Thank you and I beg you to oppose.", "qid": 15, "docid": "96b198c9-2019-04-18T13:13:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.76761394739151}, {"content": "Title: Animal Rights. Content: Animals should not be eaten nor used for experiments. Animals should have rights just like humans.", "qid": 15, "docid": "daec5d58-2019-04-18T18:29:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7675231695175171}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing Content: I am Con for this debate because I am against animal testing and I believe it should be stopped. Rounds 1) Accepting and presenting our arguments to the case 2) Rebuttal 3) Rebuttal 4) Rebuttal 5) Concluding our arguments. Animal testing is a cruel way of trying to find results that aren't always trustworthy. Whether the testing is drug tests, cosmetic tests, or toxicology tests they are all unnecessary and cruel to the animals. I think I knew way of testing should be considered maybe using humans who volunteer their bodies for the experiments. Mainly people who are very sick and volunteer their bodies so they can help so hopefully they can find a cure for future people who will get that disease or sickness. Humans will also be a more reliable source to test on because animals very different than humans, so if a certain drug works on a mouse that doesn't mean it will work on a human because their bodies react differently to certain diseases and medications. If we test on a human and that drug works then we can be much more certain that it will work on other humans as well.", "qid": 15, "docid": "61bcb28d-2019-04-18T18:20:07Z-00009-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.767458438873291}, {"content": "Title: This house believes: We need animals in bio-medical research Content: Throughout this debate, Pro has argued that animal testing is needed because it has helped humans in the past. After admitting that it is not accurate, he argued that it should continue despite the animal cruelty, which he also agreed with, as it will improve in the future, and might help more humans. What my opponent was unable to refute is that there are currently more accurate tests that do not harm animals, and as these are very accurate currently, there's no need to continue harming animals on the off chance that humans will be helped. My opponent was quick to mention that animal testing helped with polio, but there is no evidence that humane testing could not also have accomplished this. Pro failed to provide evidence for his statement that humane alternatives are more expensive than animal testing. As animal testing is not accurate, experiments have to be run multiple times, wasting money. In paragraph seven of my opponent's last round, he mentions \"[animals] share almost the same human system.\" This is just not true, as my earlier sources have backed up. In addition, it's just common sense that if animals were that similar to humans, we would see more than an 8% accuracy rate of medical tests on animals. \"Some questions can only be answered by animal research. All the technologies in the world cannot replace the immense benefit of animals in research, as the technologies themselves cannot replace the genes and other systems of the animal body.\" I ask the same question. If this were the case, we would see a significantly greater success rate with tests on animals, than the current one we do see, and that of alternate methods. My opponent has relied on mentioning several diseases that were researched in the past with animal testing, but I felt no need to respond to each individually, as he didn't prove they couldn't be solved with humane testing. \"Pro oppose researching on animals, yet he supports a method that research on humans. How nice.\" As I mentioned in the last round, testing on humans is not only accurate, but very safe, as only very small doses of medication are administered, so small in-fact, that they only affect humans on a cellular level. If this sort of testing were done on animals, it might be acceptable, but it is not done, as the lives of animals are not important in animal testing. Finally, I'd just like mention the strong bias in Pro's sources. In the last round, for instance, you see that two of my opponent's three sources are from organizations that attempt to convince the public that animal testing is needed. The statements is Pro's last paragraph quoted from these sources are simply false. As I have shown in this debate, animal testing is inhumane, not accurate, and not needed. Money should be spent on further developing the already accurate humane test methods, so that we can advance medicine for humans and animals. For these reasons, please vote con. I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun debate. Good luck at college!", "qid": 15, "docid": "dd5367d8-2019-04-18T15:51:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7674110531806946}, {"content": "Title: Animal Testing for Cosmetics Content: I love animals but it really comes down to the benefits outweighing the cost. We as humans use and are effected by many things. Testing on animals allows us to be able to test these potentially dangerous drugs and ointments that if proven safe can save more a significantly higher amount of lives then it put in risk. It also allows us to try and figure out how to treat or deal with diseases and vaccines a list of some of medical cures advanced by use of animal subjects include: Penicillin, Blood transfusion, Tuberculosis, Macular degeneration, Asthma, Meningitis, Kidney Transplants, Breast cancer, Parkinson\"s disease, and Insulin. The sad truth is that without it we would be possibly denying advancement for treatment of horrible diseases. And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.", "qid": 15, "docid": "901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00006-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7669874429702759}, {"content": "Title: It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans. Content: Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals. And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines. Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals.", "qid": 15, "docid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00161-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7669773697853088}]}
{"query": "Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7999465465545654}, {"content": "Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher \u201cself-diagnosing\u201d. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission\u2019s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00011-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7898519039154053}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: \u201cSpecific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.\u201d[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies. [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011, http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00008-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7667005062103271}, {"content": "Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug\u2019s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View \u2013 for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7641550302505493}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the \"diagnosis\" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their \"patients\" to have serious medical problems -Thank you", "qid": 16, "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7534902691841125}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: Ok, my opponent has basically just conceded the resolution. The resolution states that drug commercials should be legally policed. My opponent just conceded that they are legal and has not attacked my argument on constitutional legality. As far as my opponent's argument goes, he basically uses an example of a company using ads to mislead the public. Again, drug companies can do that. The question is whether or not the company should be punished. And my opponent says that these ads are bad as a whole. In most scenarios, they're actually good because patients learn about the product and the company makes money. Again my opponent just conceded the legality argument (which is what the resolution is about) and is losing the ethics argument.", "qid": 16, "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7534275054931641}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7470719218254089}, {"content": "Title: Creating a mentality of illness Content: Advertising to patients promotes a \u2018pill for every ill\u2019 mentality as the drug industry seeks to \u2018create\u2019 new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11\u2014rather than a medical condition\u2014were probably to blame for New Yorkers\u2019 stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission\u2019s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00015-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7457689046859741}, {"content": "Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on. Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00016-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7446175813674927}, {"content": "Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6\u201313.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7384918332099915}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7373530268669128}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.", "qid": 16, "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7270632982254028}, {"content": "Title: The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. Content: The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.", "qid": 16, "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7244481444358826}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: *NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term \"relative\". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word \"relative\" in the debate title defines as \"Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world.\" Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word \"Costs\" as used in the debate title is defined as \"The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as \"Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup.\" I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.", "qid": 16, "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.723585844039917}, {"content": "Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.", "qid": 16, "docid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00019-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7234205007553101}, {"content": "Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic", "qid": 16, "docid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.714248776435852}, {"content": "Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, \u2018Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour\u2019, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full", "qid": 16, "docid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00020-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7106996774673462}, {"content": "Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient\u2019s demand. In nationalized health services \u2018pester power\u2019 has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert. [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00017-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7089223861694336}, {"content": "Title: Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. Content: Consumption is wrong and should never be authorized. Legalising drugs would only make them appear more acceptable. This would undermine health campaigns by suggesting that drugs are not too harmful or even harmless.", "qid": 16, "docid": "a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00050-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7074939608573914}, {"content": "Title: ban targeted online advertising on the basis of user profiles and demographics Content: Better targeted advertising benefits consumers", "qid": 16, "docid": "273fa0b5-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.706509530544281}, {"content": "Title: Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits Content: Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].", "qid": 16, "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00008-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7048819065093994}, {"content": "Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7032516002655029}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. \"They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make\". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.", "qid": 16, "docid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.6978758573532104}, {"content": "Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: 1) the reason Tylenol doesn't need a prescription is because it is a safe drug whereas other medicines, including antibiotics, may have consequences depending on medical history or other drugs you are taking. .. . 2) I'm not citing the FDA there I read their mission statement which jut says what their job is. .. . And that doesn't dismiss how your site \"The FDA Kills\" isn't less biased. .. As for the \"Consumer reports\" that could replace the FDA, these small independent groups have not nearly enough influence, manpower, or funding to label, test, inspect, approve, and remove medical drugs on and off the market that the FDA does. .. Replacing the FDA with consumer reports would be similar to replacing the US Navy with armed fishing boats. .. Furthermore it is not my fault that the definition of drug is too vague for your standards, next time you should offer your own definition of what a drug is rather than just pay a meaningless opinion. .. As for the Cheerios argument, Cheerios are only classified as a drug, nothing else though has been done by the FDA. You can still buy them anywhere and they are not regulated by the FDa in anyway because last I checked you don't need a prescription to buy a box of them. .. A biased source is any source that gives a very unbalanced and slanted account of facts to imply any opinion over a matter that isn't true. The article you gave does exactly that. 3) if you think the FDA is slow to respond in removing a drug in one case where in other cases they acted rather fast in removing harmful drugs off the market other times then that debunks this argument. But I would like to add that since only the FDA can remove harmful drugs from the market then whether they do it fast enough to satisfy your demands wouldn't matter since they would still be protecting consumers from a harmful drug since they removed it from the market. .. As for your interview it seems that Dr Graham failed to acknowledge how the FDA protects consumers by labeling ingredients in drugs, requiring certain drugs to be accessible only if a doctor prescribes them, and prevents and removes many harmful drugs from the market at all. .. His biased rant against the FDA may be due to the fact that he was Simply over-critical of the performance of the FDa over a particular incident. Many people within the FAA thought the agency could have helped prevent 9/11, does that mean it should be abolished completely? No, because like the FDA it still serves a valuable and important service. .. 4) The Pro admits the FDA encourages drug companies to create safer drugs even without regulations. .. As for the number of drugs removed in 1980 then found onthe market in 1990, they could have very well been studied closer, reengineered, and limited to a more narrow client base to ensure safety. .. Some drugs may be harmful to some people but may also be completely harmless to others. .. As for the rest of his argument, The FDA can be occasionally slow or non productive, but you cant simply do away with it for the following reasons 1) the alleged costs drug companies face these days are not entirely due to FDA regulations, it could come from salaries, equipment fees, research, etc that could cost millions that are needed just to create a drug, not to make it meet standards 2) the pro wants to rely completely on independent, uncoordinated research institutes to do the FDAs job instead, but all of these independent institutes lack the manpower and funding to come even close to the productivity the FDA puts out 3) the regulations they impose are proven to protect consumers and the PRO annoy deny that. 4) the only reason the Pro wants to eliminate the FDA is because it harms the profits of a few dozen drug companies for the protection of hundreds of millions of people. .. 5) Most importantly, see number 3. ..", "qid": 16, "docid": "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.6970311999320984}, {"content": "Title: grant those diagnosed with terminal illnesses the right to access treatments that have not completed clinical testing Content: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine", "qid": 16, "docid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.6956425905227661}, {"content": "Title: Marketers are not catering to the needs, instead they are creating some new needs Content: I accept! I will be arguing that most marketers cater to the needs of consumers, and do not create new needs. I liked this topic as I am interested in starting my own business in the future, and starting a business requires a lot of marketing. So I thought it would be a good idea to accept this debate. I wish Pro luck. Rebuttals: 1) Let\u2019s take this from the top. Pro states: \"Marketers, create an untrue hype about things most of which have very little to do with the real problems that the product aims to address. Consider the latest adds that have successfully managed to convince the audience that perhaps drinking one kind of carbonated drink really determines your standards, thinking process and personality! \" Lets take the example provided of carbonated drinks. Take this Coca-Cola commercial: . http://www.youtube.com... While marketers do try to add personality, humor, etcetera into advertisements, they cater to the needs of consumers. For instance, people criticize soda because it is unhealthy. A healthier soda is a need (want) of consumers. In response to this need, Coca-Cola introduced low to no calorie sodas and assorted drinks. This is a direct response to the needs of consumers. Instead of introducing a problem, it is solving one. 2) Pro also states: \u201cI would rather say it really shows that the people have fallen a clear victim to the classical prank by the marketers, backed by the ambition to fool people to buy in their stuff! \u201d That\u2019s how advertising works. If they said: \u201cBuy our product. It\u2019s good, it\u2019s cheap. \u201d No one would buy it. Also, companies\u2019 goals are not to trick people into buying products. It\u2019s to make money, provide jobs, and provide products. 3) Another thing Pro states is: \u201cAnother example is the perfume advertisement that says women are more impressed by applying it! In fact it goes a step beyond that a seemingly unattractive guy gets too many girls pouncing on him just because he has applied that particular brand of perfume! Really, grow up buddy! who are they trying to prove a fool here! women, who would run after men only for the smell? ? While this is a strong argument, that is not to point of the advertisement. Consumers want good smelling cologne and perfume. They don\u2019t want bad smelling perfume because that would simply be counterintuitive. Marketers are simply showing that their cologne smells good. They are advertising to the consumers want. Arguments: Marketers are essential to the success of a company. Without making their advertisements interesting or informative, people would not most likely not buy their products, and go for a different brand. Thank you for setting up this debate.", "qid": 16, "docid": "55520480-2019-04-18T17:18:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6948597431182861}, {"content": "Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2]. \u201cU.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure\" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a \u2018blockbuster\u2019 drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia \u2013 United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6946990489959717}, {"content": "Title: drugs should be legalized Content: My rationale for insisting on this is as follows: The resolution, as currently written, could be fairly interpreted either in a way that is unfairly favorable to pro or a way that is unfairly favorable to con. By way of example, one could insist that the resolution means, \"there exist some drugs that are not yet legal for consumption that should become legal for consumption,\" which would be trivial for Pro to demonstrate, given that there exist many pharmaceutical compounds that have not yet been approved but that would have useful therapeutic effects. One could also insist that the resolution means, \"every compound that can be classified as a drug should be legal for consumption,\" which is a resolution that is very favorable to Con. One could also take a middle-of-the-road approach, which is what I believe was intended, and say that the resolution means, \"the substances that are currently used as recreational drugs should be legalized, with some conditions, for human use. \" I invite Pro to clarify the resolution according to the guidelines I have provided, and to begin his argument. I look forward to our debate.", "qid": 16, "docid": "42d0f61c-2019-04-18T16:45:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6946814060211182}, {"content": "Title: Everyone, stop doing drugs! Content: Two baseless assertions in Pro's conclusion. I will conclude by saying that the drugs do serve a purpose and can have a positive - and healthy - benefit on peoples lives.", "qid": 16, "docid": "c0de90c8-2019-04-18T16:31:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6936428546905518}, {"content": "Title: Its a business, a business doing its job Content: So what if they advertise? Its your self control that says \"no i shouldn't have that today\". If you don't like it, then don't like it. But lets face, they have hundreds of customers per day. Just because you dont agree with fast food doesn't mean no one does. Should we ban advertisements for cookies? Soda? Energy drinks? other 'junk food'? Besides, eating a big mac, some fries and a drink from mcdonalds is better than eating most dishes you can get at an italian restaurant. In face, pizza is really bad for you too. Should we ban pizza advertisements? Do some research to whats bad for you. Most things contain something that people complain about. From Vitamin Water to Perscription Medications. And yes, Meds that have advertisments could be bad for you too! In turn, with the logic of the \"yes\" argument, nothing should be advertised.", "qid": 16, "docid": "47553c48-2019-04-19T12:47:31Z-00015-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6933155059814453}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide should be illegal. Content: Thanks to FourTrouble. I'm going to shift up the order. 1. The Case The case is vague. What company would produce and distribute these drugs? No company is going to want to have their name associated with the spread of suicide meds. How would distribution work? What company would want to stock medication meant to kill its customers? Again, reputation matters. Pro seems to be advocating for an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, but with no regulation beyond a label and maybe a waiting period. What regulatory agency would approve this, in any country? Laws against suicide would have to be ignored, and people would understandably mistrust a government supporting the distribution of deadly meds and disregarding its own laws. Further, what is preventing someone from committing suicide without this? Pro is merely providing another means by which these individuals can commit suicide. They already have OTC drugs that are commonly used for the purpose.[1] The differences are intended function and less certainty of death. Pro will have to explain how his case provides any unique benefit. What is clear is that Pro is not legalizing suicide. He's making deadly drugs available, but not the action they facilitate. Thus, he's promoting an illegal act by providing widespread access to a drug that no one is legally allowed to use. Pro is also increasing the visibility of suicide. These drugs would presumably be widely available, exposing people to it every time they step into a drug store. That sort of availability makes every store that stocks it a reminder that suicide is just a small purchase away. So, what's the harm? First, Pro hasn't included any safeguards preventing those with mental disorders from getting these drugs. These people can acquire and use them, cutting their lives tragically short while they are incapable of informed consent. Assisted suicide acts has those safeguards. A doctor must obtain informed consent in order to prescribe medication. A pharmacist at the local CVS has no such duty with OTC meds. Assisted suicide also results in psychological evaluations that can help patients access effective mental health services and treatment. For those hiding mental illness, it opens the eyes of their doctors and families, giving them a network of support and knowledge of treatment options. When patients are mentally competent, the discussion that results from pursuing assisted suicide can address feelings of guilt and recrimination. These cannot be addressed if a person pursues suicide privately. Second, the drugs become a temptation. Regular exposure to that temptation can lead many to suicide when things seem at their worst. Whether they purchase it as a security blanket or simply walk by the Wallgreens every day to know that it's there, these people aren't always going to be stable. They'll have bad days, and be tempted when they do. Pro is allowing short-term temptations to turn into actual suicides. Third, Pro's system would allows anyone to acquire these drugs, dramatically increasing their spread without a means to monitor their ownership/usage. How can we determine that the person who took the medication did so knowingly? Societies have two choices: either every case where suicide occurs ends in a murder investigation, which turns Pro's privacy point, or countless murders get treated as suicides, allowing murderers to escape justice and kill again. 2. Unintended Consequences Pro talks about weak safeguards, but uses practically none in his case. At least assisted suicide (in my case) requires patients to make an appointment, discuss their decision with their doctor, get a psychological evaluation, and those appointments plus any waiting periods create a built in wait time (no \"perhaps\" here) during which they can change their mind. Pro's case uses none of these. Any risk of harm here is writ large in Pro's case. He allows anyone to acquire these medications, which means anyone can use them. When these drugs adorn store shelves and medicine cabinets, there's almost no barrier to their acquisition or use, and no means to prevent coercion by any other figure. A majority of doctors in the U.S. support assisted suicide,[2] and just because they can't prescribe these OTC drugs doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend them. Recommendations aren't regulated and it's much harder to hold physicians accountable for them. Governments endorsing the spread of a suicide medication sends a much stronger \"message that early death is respectable\", not to mention \"pre-approv[ing] all suicides\", than a tightly regulated system of assited suicide. But what's truly baffling is this statement: \"That's a scary prospect considering that 95% of suicide attempts don't attempt suicide again, because they're often just a cry for help.\" Remember, Pro is giving these people a very effective means to commit suicide. All of these \"attempts\" would become successess, which means that these cries for help are going to become death notes. This isn't a small number \" the CDC estimates that for every successful suicide attempt, there are 25 that are unsuccessful. That amounts to almost 1,000,000 people who are far more likely to succeed with their attempts annually.[3] And that's just in the U.S.! It also assumes that Pro's plan doesn't increase the number of attempts, which, as I explained earlier, it is likely to do so. Pro hasn't shown any evidence that these minority harms translate to assisted suicide, nor does he impact them if they do. 3. Corruption The view that it is intentionally harmful to give specifically requested drugs to fully consenting patients is absurd; continuing to treat ineffectively, often causing/prolonging/allowing further suffering is far more harmful and deliberate. The role of doctors is complex. It is the duty of doctors to support patient autonomy and self-determination, but a large part of those functions is ensuring that their patients can give informed consent. Pro's plan ensures that many patients will acquire deadly medication without that consent, whether as a result of diminished rational capacity or coercion. Doctors must also consider beneficence and non-maleficence in their decisions for their patients, both of which are achieved by minimizing suffering. As for R&D, individual doctors making the rare choice to prescribe this medication isn't going to change the reality of what suicide means for the vast majority of people. However, a government facilitarting the distribution of these drugs for easy acquisition definitely changes the focus of how funds are used, both by the population at larger and the government itself. 4. Suicide Pro shows a single instance in which it was used for a social message (that notably involved a much flashier form of suicide), but never clarifies why suicide must retain greater meaning. Why can't a message like this take other forms, like public protest? Pro hasn't stated any impact for lost meaning, nor has he explained how a medical choice necessarily has less meaning beyond this assertion of neutrality. A beneficial outcome for a patient is good, a hrmful one is bad. The messages that accompany such a decision can have value, too. But this whole point is non-unique. Suicide is a medical choice, whether it's made following conference with a doctor or by personal choice. Changing the means by which that choice is made possible (a doctor's prescription or an OTC drug) doesn't change the reality of its medical nature, just as performing surgery on oneself instead of paying a doctor to do it doesn't alter what surgery fundamentally is. If that nature makes it harder for some people to decide that life's worth living, then both of our cases suffer that harm. 5. Freedom Pro conflates assisted suicide and euthanasia. Remember from Pro's R1 clarification: \"the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death.\" Euthanasia requires physician administration of deadly medication at the patient's request. Assisted suicide is a two-way street \" the doctor must prescribe the medication, allowing the patient the capacity to administer it.[4] Thus, a doctor cannot \"mistakenly kill persons without their consent,\" as Pro claimed earlier. Nor does it lead to non-consensual euthanasia, as assisted suicide makes the patient the administrator. Doctors don't have to see the difference between withdrawing care and assisting suicide Both are based on the wishes of the patient, and both of which embody the right to refuse/consent. The doctor can do nothing, in either instance, without the refusal/consent of the patient or their family. The line between the two is, thus, drawn by the the consenting party. Death doesn't need to be a public event. Assisted suicide doesn't necessitate a deathbed viewing, but it is certainly still safer without this than Pro's own plan. 6. Equality Life doesn't have instrumental value, but life experience does. That value can be based on objective evaluations of circumstances; in this case, suffering and imminent death. The problem with Pro's reasoning is that he's saying society uses assisted suicide to apply that value, yet it is entirely personal and applied through their informed consent. The fact that society facilitates that decision doesn't mean that it's treating them as dispensible, certainly not any more so in my case than in Pro's. Assisted suicide sends no message of expendability \" again, these are consenting patients whose lives are almost certainly nearing their end. It's not based on someone else's evaluation of their worth. Recognizing the objective differences between the medical and psychological realities of these patients doesn't cheapen anyone's existence; it recognizes that these patients so thoroughly lack control over their circumstances that they should be allowed a means to acquire it. Over to you, Pro. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://ti.me... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly...", "qid": 16, "docid": "67a1de10-2019-04-18T14:49:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6928759813308716}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) Through marketing/advertising, comes interest from the viewers, causing them to buy the product. If the government could get a good amount of advertising, there would be a surplus of customers. 1b) Regulation would be somewhat easier if the drugs were sold in orderly and recordable pharmacies. Thus, regulating the drug trade would not be much harder than regulating and inspecting the condition and distribution of food, for example. 2a) By granting these criminals amnesty, it will be easier for them to find some sort of job. There would be no record of criminal activity (at least regarding first-time felons) to be held against them. 2b) As for the role of certain drugs in the commitment of crimes, this can be handled by keeping a record of how much of that drug one person owns, and setting a limit on it. For example, there would be a limit on the amount of ecstasy that could be purchased at one time, and if your record states that you already have an amount of this drug that would exceed the limit, you would not be allowed to buy it. You would also need to show a signed from that states the police inspected your home to make sure you don't have that drug. In addition, consider these scenarios from: http://www.taxfoundation.org... In this scenario, which is very common and could be considered the average amount of customers from one dealer, the drug dealer makes more money than the average worker. If you put a tax on that, it is very possible that whatever money lost through fundraising, rehabilitation, lawsuits, etc. could be gained back. I stated that the risk was worth taking because it is. The reason being, any financial hole that is caused by legalizing drugs can be fixed and replenished, and would make the government billions of dollars. Why vote pro: 1. Government income would skyrocket. 2. The crime rate related to drugs would decrease with the proper support (regulation). 3. Most, if not all, of the problems encountered can be solved fairly quickly.", "qid": 16, "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.692807674407959}, {"content": "Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree that modern commerce trade and industry cannot survive without advertisement. The most advanced advertising technology course gives new ideas and also acts as \"Survival of fittest\" in this dynamic decade. However there should be control over misleading advertisements. I believe that Advertisements should not mislead in any way by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise. More specifically, advertisements should not: 1-Misrepresent any matter likely to influence consumers\" attitude to any product, advertiser, or promoter; 2-Misrepresent any information to mislead consumers into believing any matter that is not true, such as the source of the product, quality of the product, obligation (or non-obligation) in using a trial product, and others; 3-Mislead consumers about the price of goods or services; 4-Underestimate the actual total price to be paid; 5-Mislead consumers to overestimate the value or mislead consumers regarding the conditions on the terms of payment such as hire purchase, leasing, installment sales and credit sales; or 6-Mislead consumers regarding the terms or guarantee, delivery, exchange, return, repair and maintenance; and mislead consumers regarding the extent of benefits for charitable causes. If a presentation (such as a speech, documentary and newsreel) is substantially an advertisement, it should be clearly stated as an advertisement. 1-Advertisements should not misuse research results or quotations from technical and scientific publications. 2-Statistics should not be so presented so as to imply a greater validity that they really have. 3-Scientific terms should not be misused; scientific jargon and irrelevancies should not be used to make claims appear to have any scientific basis which they do not possess. I would like to emphasize the important status of advertising in our society. Advertising helps us to orient among the wide range of products. On the other hand they use unethical practices, such as telemarketing companies who call random people and try to sell their products by using any methods. Nowadays people have to be extremely prudent when they sign anything and read everything carefully. Advertisement is everywhere.", "qid": 16, "docid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.692747950553894}, {"content": "Title: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Content: Before I begin, please allow me to clarify that I sympathise with the plight of my opponent's family member, and that I am equally angry at the poor conduct of her doctor. However, this will not affect the way I approach the resolution. As my opponent has not proposed a formal resolution in the form of a declarative statement, I will take the topic sentence of his paragraph as the resolution:The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Thus the burden of proof is on my honourable opponent to prove that doctors have to bear the greatest responsibility in the rise in prescription drug abuse. As my opponent has not delineated a set of rules for the debate, I will take the liberty of presenting my opening arguments and refuting some of the arguments my opponent has presented. I will welcome any attempts to present and clarify the rules of this debate by my opponent, for (s)he is the instigator. Constructive arguments1) Doctors are not responsible for the underlying causes of drug abuseThe motives behind prescription drug abuse can generally be summarised thus: (1) To feel good or 'high', and experience the metal effects of the drug To relax or relief pressure To reduce appetite, boost vigilance or improve academic performance As a result of addiction To 'fit in' Even if doctors did not misprescribe, as long as these motives exist, there would always be ways for drug abusers to obtain drugs, such as by receiving drugs from those who have not fully used their medication during previous treatment processes. Conversely, without such motives, there would be no incentive for drug abusers to abuse drugs, even if there were doctors prescribing drugs improperly. This shows that doctors should not be held responsible for drug abuse itself, which should be blamed on the abusers. The rise in drug abuse should be attributed to reasons why more people are having such motivations, and not to the doctors who are simply doing their job by prescribing drugs. 2) Doctors are not responsible for the availability of drugs to abusers. The majority of teenagers who abuse prescription drugs get their drugs from relatives or friends who have been prescribed the drugs; thus doctors did not prescribe any drugs to them. (2) Thus doctors are not responsible for the fact that they have these drugs at their disposal. Even in the event where the abuser was prescribed the medicine and decided to over-dose or to use the drugs for other purposes (such as 'getting high'), the doctors have only prescribed drug according to the patient's needs: if those drugs had been taken exactly as prescribed, there would be no quantity of medicine available for future abuse. Therefore, they should not be held responsible for the availability of excess medicine, which ought to be the fault of the patients who did not take drugs according to doctors' instructions. Rebuttals 1) Explanation at the beginning'So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. 'My opponent states, at the beginning of the paragraph, that the prescription of narcotics by doctors causes the rise in prescription drug abuse. However, (s)he has not yet given a clear explanation of how this has happened. It appear that (s)he has not explained this causal link clearly. By 'I am baffled at how', (s)he seems to imply that the causal link is obvious and 'goes without saying'; however, I fail to see this relationship. 2) Example of the family member's incidentMy opponent has given a detailed account of the personal experience of a loved one. However, I contend that one isolated example alone cannot prove the resolution, which is on the rise of prescription drug abuse, and implies the rise of drug abuse in society as a whole. To conclude that rampant prescription drug abuse is caused by doctors is, therefore, to over-generalise. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that his or her family member's case was related to drug abuse at all. She did not 'abuse' her drug in any way; she was simply following the prescriptions of a registered doctor, and in fact, she used fewer drugs than needed on some days. This alone is sufficient to prove that she had not abused the drugs. My opponent states that she had become addicted to the narcotics. While this may be true - it may not be, for she has terminated all her uses of narcotics and resolved not to utilise such medicine again - it does not follow that this is a case of drug abuse, which is the action of using drugs one should not be using, or using drugs in excess quantities. Addition is merely a state in which a body has become dependent on a substance or activity, or to be more precise, 'Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance' (3), and there is no necessary implication that the addict acts on the addiction. ObservationsMy final observation is that even if my opponent can show that this type of misprescription leads to drug abuse, it does not necessarily result in a rise thereof; it is therefore his/her responsibility to show that there has been an increase in misprescriptions which has led to an increase (positive change) in the number of drug abusers. (1) . http://cliniquemedecine.com...(2) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 16, "docid": "f0f76624-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.692368745803833}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) My opponent fails to understand the true rigor required in cost/benefit analysis. More advertising does not necessarily translate into 'a surplus of customers'. First of all, the legalization of all addictive, body-distorting, health-damaging substances is likely to produce enough 'advertising' on its own, through the mass media (PR, news, blogs, etc). Therefore, any additional advertising expenditures are unlikely to produce many new incremental 'customers'. This additional spending would simply be wasted. But this is aside from the point. The point is that we do not know, or have any actual idea, of the amount of revenues that could be gained from legalizing these substances. My opponent's guess is as good as my own. With that in mind, choosing to take an action regarding changing the current status quo, when that action will produce unknown or questionable results, is a suboptimal decision. The reason is simple. Unless the current situation is proven to be suboptimal relative to ANY other situation, change simply throws risk into the equation. Risk immediately lowers the trade-off value of the 'new' situation. 1b) Regulation would not be easier, because currently, there is no regulation. A new unit would have to be created and funded. This means IMMEDIATE sunk costs for the government, as there would be no revenues coming in at the time of creation. Not only that, officers would have to be trained. Pharmacies would have to implement new reporting mechanisms. Everything would have to be tracked. These are all real costs. 2a) I refer to criminals with prior records. There would obviously be no records for people who hadn't been caught in the first place. But even for these people...they are not trained members of the work force. Two problems arise out of this. (1) There will be an influx of people into the workforce. Considering the current economy, this wouldn't help the unemployment situation. (2) My opponent suggests making it easier for criminals to enter the workforce. Companies have restrictions against allowing criminals into the workforce because they don't want them there. My opponent proposes providing amnesty to these people as a way of 'tricking' companies into hiring these people. These companies are likely to oppose such a measure. If it did somehow pass, they would likely sue the government. This comprises ANOTHER cost of legalization. 2b) So police now have the right to regularly search your home. This would add even more to the overall costs of legalization, from 2 perspectives. (1) Training and hiring more cops to search homes. (2) People suing the government for invasion of privacy. My opponent proposes the removal of personal rights so that it can collect potential (POTENTIAL) tax revenues. In addition, people who are addicted to addictive substances will likely find ways to purchase these addictive substances, considering the substances are addictive. If they reach their limits with regards to what quantities they can purchase, they will then return to the black market to purchase more. And how do we arrive at these limits? Just arbitrary figures? According to modern medicine, the limits should be 0. As for the tax link, that is a biased article. In addition, it supports a flat sales tax, which is a totally different topic altogether. Firstly, my opponent should read Freakonomics, or anything else that examines drug dealer incomes. The large majority of drug dealers do not make much more than the poorest of legally employed citizens. The ones that do, that also live in the US, are likely to be paying sales taxes already. My opponent has completely ignored the potential costs, both financial and otherwise, of total drug legalization. He assumes that tax revenues would be ample enough to cover these costs, but he has no strong data on the revenues OR the costs. There is no proof that government income would SKYROCKET. In fact, it is very possible that the opposite would occur. But my opponent is 'willing to take this risk', with no data to support him. The crime rate would actually probably increase, per my previous arguments. And from using intuition, reading the news, and experiencing the government in general, most people could safely assume that any problems would definitely not be 'solved fairly quickly'.", "qid": 16, "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6922353506088257}, {"content": "Title: All store should stop selling drugs. Content: Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.", "qid": 16, "docid": "7e7e5efd-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6910821199417114}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: Thanks for debating with me. I don't see anything wrong misleading about advertising something but selling something different like candy and cigarettes. They are sold in every supermarket, numerous shops, and even petrol stations, and are a common product. There is no reason whatsoever to assume those produts are healthy. Parents, doctors, teachers etc will tell you they aren't healthy.", "qid": 16, "docid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6870180368423462}, {"content": "Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the \"ill-informed\" pubic.", "qid": 16, "docid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6851643323898315}, {"content": "Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than \u00a3300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between \u00a32.50 and \u00a33.40, yet the NHS pays \u00a310.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least \u00a3100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea. [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00019-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6847981214523315}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: So you want to argue agains the FDA? Great. Are you aware that the FDA manages the many medicines given to children? After all, children also require medicine just as much as adults do. Now, let us pose a hypothetical situation where the FDA was non-existant. The over the counter drugs, now contain harmful substances. Now, one specific spray-on drug, contains DDT, a substance which is known to cause cancer. The item in question, has its ingredients labeled, however, according to FDA standards, a drug must also label its possible side effects as well as banning those drugs which has more harmful results than good results(1). .. Woops! The FDA doesnt exist. Congratulations. Youve flooded the market with a drug that does more harm than good. This is what you fail to understand. The FDA doesnt exist to only ban drugs that have some harmful side effects. After all, ANY drug can have harmful side effects. However, the FDA exists to protect the population, a population which is ignorant of terms such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or arsenic. This is why the specific process of the FDA, is to first, legalize a drug for prescription purposes only, so that DOCTORS with medical degrees who understand the terminology, and side effects, can hand out these drugs to the patients who are both required, and who are suitable to receive these drugs. The FDA also PREVENTS these drugs that have MORE harm than benefits, from reaching the population in the first place. It is too late for a drug company to be indited for fraud and mislabeling, if the product has already reached a million people. Your position is absurd. By arguing against the FDA, you have essentially made every drug, an over the counter drug. If the general public was educated enough to understand the risks involved, as well as to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm, then we wouldnt need doctors anymore. It is their own choice. However, there is a difference between choice, and an INFORMED consent. 1. \". .. .it would have a label that says, \"Warning: Causes Brain Damage. \"\"-You Sorry. The FDA is the regulatory committee which has placed statutes as to what a label should include. (2) In other words, the FDA will only approve a drug, after studying both the clinical trials, and the proposed warning label on the Drug. If the drug does not have sufficient warnings, or fails to warn a potential hazard, the drug is pulled and the FDA bans it until it is fixed. \". .. it would say, \"Warning: Untested. \"\"-You Again, sorry. The FDA regulates what is placed on a label. Without it, it is up to the discretion of the Drug company whether to warn the user. There is nothing to stop the company from lying. Nor is there a reason to ban the drug if the drug blatantly lied, according to your view of not banning any drugs. Sure, the company could possibly receive a penalty or a fine. But the drugs would stay nonetheless. If the public is lucky, this will become a scandal, and people will know about the drug, atleast those who are smart enough to watch the news. If not, millions of people will continue to use the drug. \"So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal? \"-You First, several combinations of drugs can be harmful. However, most of these drugs which are harmful if taken together with another, are prescription drugs. Therefore, only a doctor understands the risks. However, if we make them all over-the-counter drugs, then there is no way for the general public to understand what combination of drugs are harmful. This is also why not many drugs have the lethal combinations written on the label, because there are just too many to list. Second, not everyone has an internet. Not everyone uses the internet. Not everyone has the time to look up every drug combination and its alternative names. Not everyone reads the label. If Nyquill suddenly placed a harmful agent into its liquid gel caps, how many people do you think, will take the time to read the \"Warning, may cause severe drowsiness, stomach pain, headache, and potential cancer\"? Hell, Ive never read the warning on my Advil bottle. 2. \"if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. \"-You Awesome. So you dont care about the homeless, the druggies, and rehab centres and all that? Clearly youve never had a family member who was a drug addict. \"Plus, it only speeds up natural selection\"-you Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so dont try and comment on it. I cant believe youre making the following argument. \"the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die. \"-You Congratulations. Now youve lost. First off, Suicide is not a trait that is inhereted. And neither is stupidity. Einsteins children are not Nobel prize winners. So, your absurd notion that allowing these people to die, is for the benefit of mankind, will do nothing to eliminate this \"trait\" from the gene pool. Again, you know nothing of evolution. Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. Your \"live and let die\" approach will be throwing these people to the graves. 3. Congratulations. What you are asking is banning drugs. Therefore, our discussion is over. Youve just admitted that we need to ban drugs if they produce harm to other people. This is basically your argument. And congratulations, that is the EXACT reason why we ban drugs. We ban them because of their ability to harm NOT ONLY the user, but also the people around them. (3) This is the point about drugs. While you are taking them, you are not lucid. Therefore, you might walk outside, beleive that the old lady accross the street is a demon, and kill her. Unless you have a room that has no windows, and have it locked from the outside, could you possibly be sure that you will not harm anyone. As for my opponents arguments: 1. Yes, i agree that anyone who wants to do whatever to their body, is allowed to. I agree that someone has the right to kill themselves. But guess what? It is illegal to suicide by jumping off a tower. The reason being, you are not only harming yourself, but you are also potentially harming others. By jumping off the tower, you might land on someone else, killing them along with you. This is the exact reason why drugs are banned. Its your own choice to destroy your body. But it is not your choice to harm others in the process. We have tons of instances were people who are under the influence of drugs, do things like rape, walk around naked, and kill other people. And all it takes is a little dose. This is different than things like alchohol, as Alchohol is not nearly as addictive as cocaine, bars can actually refuse to sell you alchohol if they believe you to be intoxicated, and being high completely changes your personality to the point that you believe you are the terminator, Sent back in time from the future. (4) Ive never seen a person get so drunk that he believes he is a fictional character from a movie. And by believe, i mean TRULY believe. So in other words, yes, he is doing anything bad, because he is placing nearby people at risk, at severe risk. Sources: 1. . http://www.fda.gov... 2. . http://www.cancer.org... 3. . http://www.newsday.com... 4. . http://uk.movies.yahoo.com...", "qid": 16, "docid": "2d0fc6c1-2019-04-18T19:20:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6847885847091675}, {"content": "Title: The Importance of Advertisement Content: I accept your challenge. Welcome to debate.org! This is only my second debate here, so we're both fairly new to this. Thank you for posting this debate, and good luck to you!Two questions:Would I be correct in assuming that we will be disregarding semantic arguments?Am I correct in assuming that my goal is to prove that advertising is only important for unnecessary things? If you could, so my questions don't make you waste characters in your initial argument, please post your answers to my questions in the comments section. I wouldn't want to limit the space you have to make your argument with initial questions like these. Thank you, and again, good luck!", "qid": 16, "docid": "9c94e930-2019-04-18T18:45:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.684050440788269}, {"content": "Title: Advertising: Manipulation or Information Content: My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. I have shown that advertising has many useful purposes such as providing information about goods in the marketplace or PSAs that give us information for the public good.", "qid": 16, "docid": "6182bf33-2019-04-18T18:41:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6836661100387573}, {"content": "Title: produce high quality generic drugs for Africa Content: Cheaper drugs aren\u2019t trusted by consumers", "qid": 16, "docid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6833568811416626}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Where pro states \"Relative (Framing) -- The word \"relative\" in the debate title defines as \"Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world. \" \"New\" may be ambiguous in the pharmaceutical world. I ask to strike that word alone, and if necessary further define in context of the debate.", "qid": 16, "docid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6828197240829468}, {"content": "Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: cost of the advertisement is not the primary concern for a company if it is compared with total expenditure on product if advertisement cost is taken as a whole then per unit cost will slightly increase so it's better and beneficial to aware the whole populace by awaring them ......a product's advertisement does not only decides the selling of products it only awares the people......if you are saying that effect on young minds then it is totally wrong and most of the big brands do advertisement if the product is of really quality ...just like for sachine advertises for boost and amitabh chyavanprash....regarding your third point it is not always that we can have available the fresh foods and vegetables so it's the only way....and most of the farthest areas is availed by it ...but the adverse effect of dry is not popularly known to me...regarding alchohals cigerette it gives a large revenue to our government so thats why it is not stopping ......misconceptions about products and transparency regarding product will not remains in a black box it'll come out with a speedy respond by contumer .it'll not decieve people at all ..if there will be any disastrous problem then one product is launched by permission of government then there will be an action.........", "qid": 16, "docid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6826329231262207}, {"content": "Title: Drug Commercials Content: There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.", "qid": 16, "docid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6819379329681396}, {"content": "Title: That we should not target children in advertisements Content: Thank you. First of all, we have agreement. Advertising may lead to consumerism, which is bad. There's no debate on this point. However, my argument that we should let children to get exposed to advertising, is for one thing; education and prevention. The best solution is (obviously is) to avoid advertisement at any cost. However, this is impossible. The reason is because due to modernization and globalization, we're constantly exposed to entertainment, including advertisement. My argument is: With the help of parents (and government), we should expose children to advertisement, so they're immune to the bad thing. Here's what I'm trying to say. An example will help: We're born as weak baby right? Since we're baby, we're given immunization. Those liquid that's injected to our body contains virus. The target of immunization is so our immune will grow up and defeat the virus. After this process of immunization, our body is immune to this disease. That's why nobody got Polio on later age like back in the 40s , due to this immunization. The same logic applies to advertising. With advertising exposed to our kid, bad things will be exposed to our kid, but with morale lesson given to our kids by our parents about bad effect of advertising, our kid is immune to the bad things such as consumerism. I'm not going to explain and debate of which parenting method is the best, since it's out of scope. Advertising is unavoidable, but once in our life, we must face bad things, so we learn from it and then avoid it and \"immune\" to it. You cannot learn which is bad and which is good, if we don't know which one is. How a kid will tell something is bad if they're not exposed to it. Parents are important in this education process. I'd like to restate this point. I like to make \"pressure point\" that exposed doesn't have to mean they have to do it. So if I say someone is exposed with drugs, it doesn't mean that guy uses drugs. It's just he know what is drugs.", "qid": 16, "docid": "5c790a75-2019-04-18T15:46:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6812549829483032}, {"content": "Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: 1. IntroductionIn today\u2019s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as \u201cdiseases\u201d, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is \u201cMedicines Should Be Made Free\u201d, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as \u201cshould\u201d is a synonym for \u2018duty\u2019 or \u2019 absolute necessity\u2019, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not \"absolute necessity\u201d and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that \"medicines should be given free\" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply \u201ccrazy\u201d; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the \u201cPharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits\u201d. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can\u2019t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying \"There is nothing called free lunch!!\"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...", "qid": 16, "docid": "c8c928fc-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6809753775596619}, {"content": "Title: Wastage Content: Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes \u00a3100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer.", "qid": 16, "docid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00017-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.679646372795105}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.", "qid": 16, "docid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6794252991676331}, {"content": "Title: Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better pro... Content: If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.", "qid": 16, "docid": "8f3cacc9-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00019-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6794016361236572}, {"content": "Title: Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known. Content: If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ea3a24b1-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00020-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6794016361236572}, {"content": "Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body", "qid": 16, "docid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00008-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6792149543762207}, {"content": "Title: Restrictions reach out to the general population Content: How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this", "qid": 16, "docid": "292b475e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00009-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6791192889213562}, {"content": "Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 \u2013 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products. [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS\u2019 PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00018-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6781878471374512}, {"content": "Title: universal health care Content: \"The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug.\" Useless argument. Patients aren't the ones writing the prescriptions, doctors and other health care professionals are. A similar survey with doctors will reveal that a great percentage of doctors will be familiar with LDN and its efficacy. Please do not forget that doctors themselves do not get any money from prescribing one drug over another, so prescribing LDN off-label will be fine. \"You said that it would take \"billions of billions of dollars\" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so.\" I apologize and retract my statement, replacing it with the term \"billions of dollars\". \"If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue.\" I'm glad you understand my point. Are you then aware that the reason drug companies have money to make new drugs is that we pit drug companies against each other and let the free market boost our economy? Implementing universal health care would decrease cash movement, and make us LOSE money. I am glad you concede this point. \"The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE.\" Wrong. Your view is naive, unfounded, and contradicts the practices of drug companies and economics. Private drug companies research medication based on profit. Our economy is mainly capitalistic, profit drives businesses in order to satisfy the public. You are WRONG in saying that drug companies research in order to save lives. They do it to make profit. If there was no profit, private drug companies will no longer research drugs and only government sponsored facilities will research drugs. This makes things much less efficient and will make things much more expensive. Taxes will have to be raised enormously in order to research just a few drugs. Please understand our economic system and that our country does not work on the ideals you just stated. Yes, it would be nice if it worked out the way you said, but it doesn't. That's called socialism. And it never works. \"One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE.\" Medicare. Medicaid. Besides, people aren't being denied the right to live. To say so is a gross exaggeration and makes you seem overly emotional and biased about this debate. Health care is expensive. Insurance makes it cheaper. You obviously have no idea of the economic repercussions of universal health care. I will clarify this in my concluding statements. \"The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK.\" Incorrect. Money does matter because it is how it will be done. For a person who gets sick 3-4 times a year, it will be extremely unfair for him to pay thousands of dollars extra in order to provide a person on welfare and unemployment enough money to get prescriptions filled. We don't live in fairy-land. Money runs this country and doesn't pop out of thin air. You propose a lot of good things but they aren't realistic. *********** My opponents points have all been invalidated. He proposes nothing new in his concluding remarks and has failed to respond to all the points I have made about universal health care being detrimental to the welfare of this country. I will now restate them: \"Drug companies use the profits to research more drugs. After selling one medication, they use the profits to pay their researchers and scientists to come up with more drugs to make more money and the cycle keeps going. The U.S. churns out new medicines because drug companies keep competing with each other over profits. New drugs = big profits, that's why they keep churning out new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world! With universal health care here, drug companies would stop competing with each other because prices would be regulated too heavily. What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it? So if we implement universal health care, it's bad for everyone in the long run.\" I combine this previous argument with my new explanation of economics in general, which my opponent severely lacks understanding of. My opponent makes a grandiose speech about how we should not worry about money, that \"that's what taxes are for\", that life should come before everything. He portrays himself as a valiant crusader for the poor, and I applaud him for his noble aspirations. However, REALISTICALLY, universal health care will be terrible in the long run. Setting aside how universal health care will decimate the drug economy, it will also put great strain on the citizens. Welfare, unemployment, medicaid, these things all benefit those that do not deserve it. The tax dollars of hardworking, productive members of society are being drained towards these people. It is forced charity. However, it's not that bad. People do have some right to life, because they may hit on hard times. Universal health care would more than double the amount of money being taken out of the pockets of the middle class, to benefit the feeders at the bottom. Most people only get sick a few times a year, why should they have to pay thousands of dollars to the poor lower class? It may be \"mean\" or \"inhumane\" of me to say these things, but it certainly isn't fair, or just. The middle class suffers too. In addition to being ridiculously unjust to the population, universal health care would shut down the economy. No more competition, no more insurance companies, this would cause stagnation in a major part of our service-oriented economy. Since my opponent has made not a single argument for universal health care, I rest my case.", "qid": 16, "docid": "2a507379-2019-04-18T19:50:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.677869439125061}, {"content": "Title: Address real issues Content: We do need to address these underlying causes, however this is not by legalising drugs- that is not helping to find out what drove the people to take drugs in the first place, it encourages their addiction; their sickness. We should develop better healthcare or stronger societies to reach out personally to these people and offer free consultations and counselling to help them back on their feet. Advertise, do what it takes, to make the new system well known and make people want to help themselves.", "qid": 16, "docid": "917a6a48-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00027-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6775000691413879}, {"content": "Title: advertising is harmful Content: Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ea3a24b1-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6772183775901794}, {"content": "Title: Health care is a human right Content: Alright. Let's say that Universal Health care becomes a right today. What's going to happen next? Let's look at the medical industry, And how it works. More specifically, Let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. The pharma companies are mostly in charge of providing new medications. How do they do that? Through Research and Development. The pharma companies are currently researching new medications that could help the average person, Like you and me. But these \"new\" medications aren't cheap, As you and I know. That's why generic medications exist: same effects as the brand name medication, But at a lower cost. How do generic brands exist? Through the free market. The free market dictates what they want, And if there is a good chunk of people who want to pay less for the same brand name medication, Then the free market creates an opportunity for that to happen. Now what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? Actually, Before I get into that, I am going to explain why pharma companies have incentive to create new medication. These pharma companies mainly appeal to hospitals because since people go to hospitals for basically everything from ER operations to getting a check-up, They know consumers who go to hospitals will most likely pay for more expensive medication, Which are the brand-name medication. But the generic medication exist so that retail clinics can create lower prices for non-emergency causes, Like if you have the cold or the flu. Mind you, I am not saying that the cold or the flu are not important to treat, But I am saying that they are less important than, Say, Someone with a broken leg or someone who got a heart attack. These retail clinics, Given enough legal headroom to operate so long as they have professionally licensed doctors, Can create relatively dirt-cheap prices for the middle class, And in some cases, Even the poor people. What am I saying? I am saying that If the free market is allowed enough room to open more retail clinics and allow these retail clinics to compete with each other, They can actually help more people while operating more efficiently and having lower prices. Now, That doesn't mean we should get rid of hospitals. Hospitals are great for emergency operations and urgent care. But for everything else, Retail clinics are the preferred method of treatment due to lower prices. Now, Back to the question: what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? What happens is that these big pharma companies don't have incentive to create new medications because they have no competition. Without generic brands, Big pharma sees the opportunity to significantly slow down progress on new, High end medication while increasing the price of currently available medication. \"So, Why don't we regulate the prices? \" you might be asking. Let me tell you why: Once you start implementing price control, Especially to the medical industry, These already existing medications become absurdly scarce to the point where it's nearly impossible to get the medication you need without waiting in line for hours on end. You know what else makes you wait for ours on end because of a scarce item? Rationing. Eventually, We will reach the point where we say \"there aren't enough medications for everyone. Let's ration. \", And we start restricting the amount of medications one can get. These big pharma companies will see that governments are controlling how much a person can get of a medication, And these pharma companies not only lose incentive to create new medications, But also lose incentive to keep a sustainable production rate. Why? Because when you ration something, Production of said rationed item will have more supply than there is demand, And that cost these companies a lot of money. So to alleviate this issue, The pharma companies slow down production to the point where there is now more demand than supply. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Due to their leader giving free medication, People wait in lines for hours on end, Hoping to get their ration of medications they need, Only to be greeted with a \"We just ran out of medications to give out. Try coming back tomorrow. \" Not only does this screw over the people we waited hours on end only to not get what they absolutely need, But it also creates a bigger health crisis than there needed to be. More people get sick due to scarcity of medications, And we eventually start to see all but the very elite who can afford to pay for the importation of medication die. All because we made health care a right. Let's step back for a moment and see what went wrong. By making health care a right, You just eliminated the free market that allowed for most people to afford medication. By eliminating the free market, You created an endless cycle of expensive and scarce medications that will only get worse as time goes on. That is why health care is not and should not be a right. By making it a right, You mess with the absolute fundamentals of the medical industry, Thus causing this endless cycle of scarcity we see right now in Venezuela.", "qid": 16, "docid": "50687b66-2019-04-18T11:16:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6769626140594482}, {"content": "Title: Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist Content: My opponent has forfeited. The resolution remains unaffirmed, and my opponent has not shown that promotional diet advertisements should not exist.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ae6b8e77-2019-04-18T16:43:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6769300699234009}, {"content": "Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. \"If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that.\" I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that \"these claims indicate that Cheerios\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia.\" Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be \u2018used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for \u2018safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts \"\u2026companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company.\" This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment \"would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price\" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between \u2018drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.", "qid": 16, "docid": "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6763446927070618}, {"content": "Title: The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers Content: It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others\u2019 personal lives.", "qid": 16, "docid": "d9ed761f-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00012-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6763110160827637}, {"content": "Title: Advertising: Manipulation or Information Content: The case for advertising To cast dispersion on such a broad swathe of industry is astounding. Advertising is clearly information and not manipulation. Let's look at two categories of advertising that serve the public good: 1. Public Service Announcements (PSA) PSA's can be used to inform, educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues, such as HIV/AIDS, political ideology, energy conservation and deforestation. David Ogilvy once said, \"Advertising justifies its existence when used in the public interest\u2014it is much too powerful a tool to use solely for commercial purposes.\" Perhaps, the most remembered is the Smokey Bear commercials with Smokey saying, \"Only you can prevent forest fires\". There's hardly an adult alive in the US today who does not remember that saying when camping. Countless forest fires have probably been saved through the use of PSA advertising. 2. Political Advertisements Everyone knows who the two major candidates for US president are but what about Governor or State treasurer? The sad reality is the lesser known candidates don't have a chance to get their message out for free like major ones do. These unknowns pay for advertising which helps level the playing field somewhat. It would be a sad day when the public only got to hear from the rich parties such as Democrats and Republicans. Political advertisements serve a useful purpose to get information out to the masses. So, clearly advertising need not be even commercial in nature, so pro's premise #2 is false. But even when advertising is commercial in nature it's not manipulation. Think if you're a small business owner, say a bike shop, how would anyone know your location that didn't live in the immediate area? They wouldn't. Businesses need to reach outside their small neighborhood to be successful. Nobody's twisting arms saying you have to buy. They're just saying look here we are, here's what we have. That's the way it's been for thousands of years and businesses will continue to offer us the goods that we want. And we'll know about it through advertising.", "qid": 16, "docid": "6182bf33-2019-04-18T18:41:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6754736304283142}, {"content": "Title: Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive Content: Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.", "qid": 16, "docid": "90f04eb0-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00029-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6753733158111572}, {"content": "Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: Advertisements\u2014especially those that identify symptoms\u2014can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.", "qid": 16, "docid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00012-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.675068736076355}, {"content": "Title: ADHD Medication Should Require A Brain Scan For Diagnosis Content: I disagree because if this happens depression rates will increase in the country even more as everyone uses depression as a way to get free pills from the NHS. This is a bad thing because if say claiming to be depressed was the only way to get free pills it would soon be stopped for those who really need it. An argument to this cannot be, it doesn't matter because people should not do it, because people always will. I think people should be tested to see if they are taking medication.", "qid": 16, "docid": "83564eca-2019-04-18T18:08:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6747381687164307}, {"content": "Title: It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. Content: Taxing one product, such as recreational drugs, differently than another product, such as prescription drugs, places an unfair burden on one segment of consumers. It could be claimed that drug users have the right to not pay the tax simply by not purchasing the drugs, but this gets away from the fact that citizens should be treated equally under the law. People have the right to choose what they consume. The use of taxes to control behaviour is wrong and it is not the role of the government to decide how its citizens should behave. It is for the citizens to decide what acceptable behaviour is and for the government to implement those limitations while also not restricting basic rights. It is also important to note that imbalanced taxes show favouritism to one segment of producers vs. another. Naturally, people favour less expensive products over more expensive ones, which means that government can create unnatural market conditions that favour products that are taxed less.", "qid": 16, "docid": "a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00066-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6732175350189209}, {"content": "Title: drugs should not be banned Content: My opponent should\u2019ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a \u2018drug\u2019, which eliminates the idea for it to get \u2019banned\u2019 or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn\u2019t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone\u2019s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of \u2018drugs\u2019. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste \u2018freedom\u2019, which could eventually kill them. Well, here\u2019s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher\u2019s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person\u2019s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ca3299b0-2019-04-18T18:27:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6730335354804993}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements do more harm than good Content: thank you very good points your first point is irrelevant were are debating if ads to more harm then good, your point explains why we advitisments are needed. my opinion on your second point i agree ads do contribute to the economy, inorder for business to succed in societys attention they need ads. but, nowdays business are brainwashing us with millions of ads. Consumers are exposed to hundreds of commercial messages per day in one form or another -- from the boring, copy-laden radio commercial to the easily skimmed, forgettable newspaper ad, and from the billboard on the side of the bus to the logo on the side of the building. The average American is exposed to 247 commercial messages each day. Consumer Reports Website http://www.consumerreports.org... CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=18759&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=18151 People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses. you last point is confusing in round three could you explain your point please and its relation to the debate topic? thank you", "qid": 16, "docid": "61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6719741821289062}, {"content": "Title: Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices Content: ToTo begin, the list of studies is not misleading. My opponent believes that the studies fail to prove my point because their are \"many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse.\" This would lead one to assume that the United States is the only country that has problems with drug or alcohol abuse, which is not the case. These so-called \"factors\" are also factors in other nations, meaning my attack on your a priori holds water. By the way, I would like a citation for your comment about the Canadian president using doctors here BECAUSE the particular procedure isn't offered in Canada. To clarify, no I am not advocating a set price for doctor's pay. I am advocating that the individual doctor charge the amount he/she deems adequate and they shouldn't do what all other companies do with prices, which is advertise how low they are and how high other competitors might be. This way doctors are paid what they need to be paid. Some companies like Best Buy price their computers so low in price that they actually lose money on them, but they do it to be competitive. Once doctors start losing money, there goes the quality. Moreover, my opponent mis-quoted me when he claimed that I said the doctors should be paid on their quality of their service when I said \"Doctors should be paid for the service they provide, not set prices for each visit\" Such as, they should be paid for their time, their assistants time, use of the equipment, and any other overhead. I would now like to address another issue. My opponent has stated that the rich will always get the best doctors, this is true. But there are still good doctors that can treat the middle and lower classes. It is these doctors that I worry about losing. Next - my opponent brings up the point that the medicine is what is most valuable to the patient, and this is true. But I would ask him and all the readers how that medicine is given out. The doctor must prescribe it. I do not limit this to prescription drugs, but also more complicated procedure like surgery and chemotherapy. Tests must be done, numbers crunched, more tests must be done, and then finally the best course of action must be taken. As stated earlier, we want these doctors to prescribe the best course of action not the cheapest. When doctors compete for the bid of the insurance companies, they are essentially owned by those companies. As stated, the company doesn't want the best course of action they want the cheapest and those two things rarely go together. I cite the teenager in California who died when the insurance companies refused to pay for a liver transplant deemed necessary by her doctor's and I encourage everyone to click on the link below and learn more about the reluctance of insurance companies to pay up. http://www.pajamadeen.com... Finally, some more of those statistics my opponent seems to dislike. Keep in mind the previous (and unanswered) quote above were I stated \"Evidence suggests that over one third of health care costs goes to unnecessary tests, duplicate tests, unproven experimental procedures, bureaucracy, and overpriced drugs (which I have shown above how companies monopolize new medical breakthroughs.)\" While doctors in the United States earn more money than doctors in other nations, they also pay less for other related expenses such as prescription drugs (the latter costing more money than the former) and almost all workers in the U.S. are paid salaries higher than those in other nations. The average doctor makes around $250,000 a year, which is a nice sum of money, but the average CEO and other high ranking executives of a drug companies can make million's more in that same year. I will end with a comparison, that of teachers and schools to that of doctors and medicine. If you want to cut costs in the school in order to better the system and make it more efficient, you do not do that by cutting the salaries of the teachers for performing an invaluable service. Your do things like reduce waste, use both sides of the paper, ect. Same goes for doctors, if you want to cut cost, look at my citation above for the culprits. I would like to make a small comment about my opponents \"Value, Value Criterion\". Justice is defined as \"the moral principle determining just conduct.\" Looking out for those who need it is just conduct. Furthermore I would contend that my opponents Value criterion does not apply, because even if my proposition isn't upheld (As I mentioned before, doctors do not compete normally as Home Depot and Lowes does they have something called managed competition which is why there are no commercials advertising their low low prices.) The reason for this being the basic principle of supply and demand. Demand comes from the consumer's needs and the supply comes through producer. In the case of medicine the supply and the demand comes from the doctor because the consumer (patient) doesn't know what they usually need, especially in cases of severe diseases like lime disease, diabetes, STDs, cancers, ect. Since one person controls both forces, the free market system does not apply no matter what happens. I hope that I didn't leave any of my opponent's points un-attacked, as he seems to think I have (like he would have actually given me the heads up if it were true). I would like to also apologize to my opponent seeing has he dislikes my long arguments, but that is a small side effect of having facts. http://hypertextbook.com... - doctor salary http://www.forbes.com... - For what they are paying these high rankers. P.S. Citations are a nice touch.", "qid": 16, "docid": "cbe3fa7b-2019-04-18T19:42:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6717299222946167}, {"content": "Title: Emergency Contraception Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "qid": 16, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6715676188468933}, {"content": "Title: is drug selling is legal or illegal Content: The world of drugs is among the most fascinating in that one never knows what or which drug will create problems for society. About 10% of pharmacies in the United Kingdom have discovered a new way to make money from the drugs they sell to patients\"just sell it to patients in other parts of the world! Theoretically, some drugs are only supposed to be sold in the UK, but some pharmacies have uncovered a loophole which allows them to sell to anyone, including people in other nations. Actually, the law says certain drugs should only be sold in Great Britain. For example, a month\"s supply of Ferma sells for about $110 in England, but some pharmacies are offering this product abroad for about $150. A woman in Hertfordshire was informed by her druggist that he had no Ferma, then said he could get a few tablets, but the women really could not tell her body to get along with a few rather than the amount required. Ah, the world of drugs and making money.", "qid": 16, "docid": "cc60bdc0-2019-04-18T18:06:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6711717844009399}, {"content": "Title: You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs Content: Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs. improve this", "qid": 16, "docid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00017-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6709637641906738}, {"content": "Title: Net Neutrality Content: You say that we have been unable to regulate businesses in the real world, so why try in the digital? In reality, the two are not parallel. I do indeed realize that advertising is part of the business, and the advantage gained therefrom is exactly what logically follows for having been the first to market. Economic growth is hindered when the rewards for success do not necessarily follow from the success itself, for example, legal smothering, or in this case, the imposition of unreasonable fees to get into an online market. Something like advertising does follow from the success itself, since it is directly related to the product and does not try to seek its own in extracompetitive methods by altering the playing field itself.", "qid": 16, "docid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6705264449119568}, {"content": "Title: End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal. Content: In my opponents argument, he said that although being physically dependent on a drug is bad, it shouldn't be criminalized. This I agree with. No consumer of a drug should be criminalized and it should be considered a medical issue - of addiction and dependence. Those selling, growing and distributing that drug though, should be criminalized. If it were legal, as the proposition says, then it would only take one try of that drug to become addicted - or frequent use will have the same effect. To per-empt, that physical addiction and spare many the painful steps of withdrawal, it should be banned from being sold. Now, my position is that no-one should be criminally prosecuted for taking drugs. Instead they should be offered medical help. For those drugs that are too addictive, it should be stopped from being sold (or at least be changed and regulated to make it less addictive). Think about it this way. If a product doesn't fit with food/drink/drug regulations to make them safer and less addictive, then it can't be sold and is as such \"illegal\". Why should drugs be any different. If some drugs are too dangerous or addictive and it fails to be regulated to change that, then it shouldn't be sold and should be \"illegal\". Therefore, to argue that all drugs should be legal to consume, you are therefore arguing that there would be no regulation. If you tried to regulate it, some drugs will still not be allowed to be sold and go into the black-market, making it illegal. For all drugs therefore to be legal all regulation on medical, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs would have to be taken away. Not everything can be legal. Are companies allowed to put anything they want into our food or medical drugs? No, and rightly so. Some drugs and food do not meet our regulations and are illegal. This shouldn't change.", "qid": 16, "docid": "7f8a714c-2019-04-18T14:25:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6704748868942261}, {"content": "Title: Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease Content: There is little to be said against this particular argument for the banning of fast food advertising. The only conceivable rebuttal that could be brought to bear is that of personal choice and responsibility. The sole purpose of advertising is to convince the individual they have a preference or desire for one product over other available options. It becomes a matter of personal responsibility to either abstain from consuming unhealthy foods or use in moderation. All the health risks listed can be mitigated through self control with regards to frequency and portion sizing combined with a healthy lifestyle including exercise.", "qid": 16, "docid": "47553c48-2019-04-19T12:47:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.669944167137146}, {"content": "Title: Should food Advertisements be targeted at children and teens Content: I accept. This should be interesting, because I actually personally agree with my opponent's position, and I'm passionate on the subject to the point where I wrote a term paper on the topic. I just thought it would be fun to play devil's advocate. I will be offering two major points here. 1. The companies need revenue. 2. Self-control solves the issue. Back to my first point, companies need revenue. As my opponent stated, these companies draw customers in for life when the customers are at a young age. I'll provide some empirical proof [1] for this claim, which I agree with. Now, obviously a customer that has a habit of returning is going to be helping the profit margins of these \"junk-food\" companies and continue to support the business. This is actually going to flow to my side of the debate, however, because keeping these companies in business is a vital part of economic stimulus. Without the fast-food industry, many jobs would be lost, and customers would be forced to choose between low-quality food at middle-of-the-road prices or high quality, high priced food. It would the pockets of the consumer [2]. Now for the second key point, self-control solves. As my opponent admits, \"All you have to do is ignore the ads so you and your children don\"t get overweight.\" Thereby admitting the advertisements aren't too powerful that they overpower our own free will. This means that parents can deny these products to their children and effectively deter the negative health effects that they come with. Thank you. [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [2] http://www.qsrmagazine.com...", "qid": 16, "docid": "37fbeeac-2019-04-18T15:13:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6697086095809937}, {"content": "Title: Buy Accutane 30 mg Online Content: So you're basically saying I should buy a medicine online from a shady website with a ton of side effects to MAKE MY SKIN CLEARER? 1. Why would I risk health issues and overdosing on medicine to get rid of something that is not causing physical harm to me? 2. I can cover up my acne with makeup, And just upkeep my hygiene for free. 3. This is an ad on a debating site. Why are you posting an ad on a debating site? 4. I can go buy some other, Cheaper medication, One that has no side effects, And that I know works/ how it works. 5. You are risking awful side effects and overdosing WITH NO GUARANTEE OF RESULTS. 6. Seriously? Like, Are we gonna do this?", "qid": 16, "docid": "7b73bd78-2019-04-18T11:17:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6683849692344666}, {"content": "Title: universal health care Content: Pharmacy student here. I have some good news, and some bad news. Naltrexone is a widely accessible medication used for detoxing addicts. Low dose naltrexone is simply Naltrexone at a lower concentration. I am very interested in this usage and I find that your explanation is very fitting. I am glad you decided to enlighten us on such an amazing drug and I do regret that drug companies will refuse to manufacture it. However, there is probably something you don't know. Doctors are allowed to prescribe medications for something called \"off label use\". I did a quick wikipedia search to verify this and found that doctors are indeed prescribing low dose naltrexone for all the purposes you stated. So yes, people's lives are being saved at a low cost. That was the good news. The bad news is that I just debunked your opening argument! **** The reason I believe universal health care will not work in the U.S. is simple. Countries all over the world have universal health care, and many of our citizens look at the U.S. and cringe. Greedy drug companies don't want universal health care because that would cut their profits. That's bad right? Not really. People say that a pill costs 10 cents to make. That's true. For the second pill. The second, third, fourth, hundredth pill costs 10 cents to make. But the FIRST pill costs BILLIONS of dollars to make! When a new drug is developed, it gets a patent for about 10 years. This allows it to be sold as a product to gain a lot of money. However, it's more like gaining BACK the billions of billions of dollars to research the drug. Drug companies use the profits to research more drugs. After selling one medication, they use the profits to pay their researchers and scientists to come up with more drugs to make more money and the cycle keeps going. The U.S. churns out new medicines because drug companies keep competing with each other over profits. New drugs = big profits, that's why they keep churning out new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world! So a drug company may spend a billion dollars making the drug, but a company in another country can just make that drug for just 10 cents. Countries with universal health insurance can steal our medication ideas. With universal health care here, drug companies would stop competing with each other because prices would be regulated too heavily. What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it? Research between competing drug companies would stop. The only new drugs we would get will be from government labs. And the government won't have enough money to fund science when its pouring all the money into universal health care. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that the other countries won't be able to rely on the U.S. for medications anymore. They won't be able to synthesize the medications we discover. So if we implement universal health care, it's bad for everyone in the long run.", "qid": 16, "docid": "2a507379-2019-04-18T19:50:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6678746938705444}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the United States Content: Whats been great is that we've had an amazing round over a very hot issue, but never once got personal or aggressive. Since this is the last speech I'll just summarize the round. The 5 key arguments in this round are as follows. 1. Will drug use increase or decrease? 2. Do drug users violate the rights of others? 3. Does the War on Drugs fulfill my opponent's burden? 4. Does affirming solve the black market? 5. Do medical benefits outweigh harms? Here's why I believe I win these arguments. 1A: Deterrance My opponent did not address my argument that her own sources are telling you that people are deterred from drug use by criminal sanctions. All she says is that most people aren't deterred. However, \"most\" does not equal \"everyone\". So when she argues \"most\" will still take drugs, she concedes that \"some\" will not. At that point, since its been proven that drug users cause harm to other people, I win the round because there will be more of these harms occuring when we take that deterrance away. 1B: Availability We have both given examples of drugs being legalized. I gave four, where drug use spiked. She gave three where it did not. Here's why you prefer my examples. In the four examples I gave, two of them involved drugs becoming available to everyone. One legalized them for all adults, and the other was prescription heroin for addicts. Her examples only involve heroin being given to adults who are severe addicts. Look at her sources for these. They specifically tell you that these drugs were only made available for hardcore addicts over a certain age. You cannot draw conclusions from these until these drugs have become available for everyone. But I did offer examples where everyone had access to drugs, and we saw what happened. 2. Do drug users violate other's rights? I have proved that drug users increase our insurance and hospital costs, which equates to taxation without representation (which violates our right to, well, taxation without representation), and that drug users damage their families and injure coworkers at a high rate. Pro has never denied any of these. Her only argument is that obese people increase insurance costs just as often as drug users. Let me go over this quickly. She argues that heart disease causes 35% of deaths. Deaths, not hospital costs. So 1. This is not relevant to my argument. She then says 34% of Americans are overweight. However, she has not given us anything showing how many of those overweight people have heart disease. So she is missing a huge link here, and without it these arguments fall apart. Pro contends that the government cannot be paternalistic and that it can only restrict rights that can harm other people. I have shown that drug users do indeed harm others and violate rights, so by her own logic, we are justified incriminalizing drugs. 3. Does ending the WoD = Legalizing? After proving that ending it does not equate to legalization in my last speech, pro makes an absurd claim that I \"would not advocate a WOD\". That is completely false. In addition to showing why the WOD is not Aff ground, I then attacked every single argument she made about it anyway. Never in this entire debate have I said we should end it. That was her only argument about this in her last speech. She completely dropped mine, which stated that even if she wins all War on Drug arguments, she still loses because it doesn't mean we legalize. This is HUGE. She loses access to all arguments related to it due to this concession. 4. Does affirming solve black market? In her last speech, pro claimed I dropped this. She herself refutes that. Here are a couple of her quotes. \"Con completely drops this huge contention\" Later, \"Con's response has been a market would still exist. .. \" So she claimed I dropped it, but then said I made an argument against it. In any case, Pro makes the claim that a black market for only underage users is insignificant. I already explained this isn't true; my evidence showed you that the underage drug users is literally over half of the entire market. Over 50% is not \"insignificant\". Against this, she says that she doesn't know why there would be cartels in the first place if you affirm. The reason is that she only legalizes for people over the age of 18. So the cartels remain for everyone under that, which is 51%. So what we hopefully see is that the black market will not be solved through her legalization system. 5. Do medical benefits outweigh harms? Pro claims some illegal drugs have medical benefits. Yes they do. However, the harms of them outweigh. For example, wild mushrooms are high in fiber, so they provide a nutritional benefit, but they are also poisonous. So the harms outweigh the benefit. I give sources explaining the negative health effects of drugs and pro says thats true of your everyday painkiller. I ask my opponent, does Tylenol cause permanent depletion of seratonin levels, like ecstasy? Does Aleve cause Psychosis, like LSD? No, they dont. We need to realize that the harms of illegal drugs like E and crack are much stronger than your regular over-the-counter stuff. To finalize, I stronly urge you to reread my initial argument on Deterrance, showing what happened when marijuana was made freely available and heroin was available with a prescription. These really show you what happens if we affirm. While my opponent's examples are equally interesting, they simply do not involve enough of the population to draw conclusions from. For all of these reason, I urge a con vote. Thanks for the debate.", "qid": 16, "docid": "c5e70a48-2019-04-18T18:53:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6673588752746582}, {"content": "Title: Health care should be free Content: Hello, thank you for your response! Here I have another point of view, Clearly, because of economical reasons the country can't provide free medicine to all its citizens. But nowadays, doctors taking our money. Even if inspection and some procedures are free, medicaments are not, and they're very expensive. Therefore, many of doctors work with pharmaceutical companies, and have contracts with them. When we enter into doctor's office we see different titles on their instruments, or stickers, or pens. They advertise the certain product. They advice us to take exactly that medicament, which was produced from certain firm, and we don't have another choice, except buying and taking it. So, does they do money on our illnesses? I would say yes. The average citizen, with his average salary can't afford buying many of medicaments. The government should take care of its citizens. The goverment should provide the best sourses. The government must make such thing as our health, and well-being accessible.", "qid": 16, "docid": "7244b597-2019-04-18T17:09:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.667203962802887}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use. Content: This is a debate for A341 to finially finish his debate on this topic and I took him up on this. I thank him ahead of time for accepting this challenge. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, \"No round as argeed upon.\" If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. All- every (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Legalized- to make legal (http://dictionary.reference.com...) recreationial (drug)- (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition: ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) *Note- this debate is about legalizing drugs for recreationial purposes not medicinial.", "qid": 16, "docid": "c60fac17-2019-04-18T15:41:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6668521165847778}, {"content": "Title: advertising is harmful Content: Advertising helps us choose between different goods.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ea3a24b1-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6667662262916565}, {"content": "Title: Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school. Content: people should know how to take care of their body so they can prevent the majority of diseases and cancers and get off of the dependency of pharmoseutical companies or cold hearted pill pushers which ever name you prefer. Maybe not all but my overall view of pharmosuetical companies is pretty negative because they choose not to spend any money on commercials or info on prevention. they have the knowledge and power yet choose to take advantage of people and thier money.", "qid": 16, "docid": "b818a298-2019-04-18T20:03:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6666600704193115}, {"content": "Title: advertisment aimed at children should be banned Content: My opponent says a few more things: 1. Children demand products. ----> Extend my arguments about parental responsibility. 2. Sometimes parents can't afford what children want. ----> This doesn't have anything to do with my points regarding advertising rights and the good that comes from marketing, nor does it challenge anything I said about parental responsibility. 3. Advertisements should promote healthier things. ----> This isn't a debate about what advertisement should advertise; it's about whether advertisement aimed at children should be banned. I've explained throughout this debate that advertising is vital to a company's success. Said company employs many people which is good for the economy and society in general. Many times advertisements are the only way to successfully promote a product. Children can inform their parents of the product, and the parents can use their best judgment about whether or not to make the purchase. Regarding the harms of self-esteem from advertisement, extend my arguments from the previous round.", "qid": 16, "docid": "24195d9e-2019-04-18T19:02:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.666551411151886}, {"content": "Title: Fast Food and Your Dental Health Content: Business has a right to advertise its product. Without successful advertising the industry would undoubtedly shrink. The resulting loss of employment for fast food workers would bring its own set of dangers to health and well being.", "qid": 16, "docid": "47553c48-2019-04-19T12:47:31Z-00013-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6664589047431946}, {"content": "Title: Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US Content: I am a proponent for the free market in the Healthcare business. I believe doctors and hospitals should be competing for customers in order to deliver the best value at the lowest price. Doctors and hospitals should openly publish their prices so customers can make their own decision as to the best value for them. Government needs to reduce it's presence in the industry to that which increases competition among providers.", "qid": 16, "docid": "37f23c40-2019-04-18T16:23:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6659840941429138}, {"content": "Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: Resolved: Medicines Should Be Made FreeI am Con, so Pro should start the argument first.", "qid": 16, "docid": "c8c928fc-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6655991673469543}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) I did not bring up advertising expenditures. My opponent did. Therefore, there was no point for me to prove. In addition, by definition, revenue itself cannot represent a loss. Loss occurs as a result of the costs associated in generating that revenue. The costs of total drug legalization are much broader in scope than simple advertising expenditures. I have already outlined these costs in my four previous arguments. This point was originally meant to highlight the lack of any legitimate sourcing or data by my opponent with regards to his 'estimates' of potential legalized drug revenues. 1b) A new regulatory unit would not be funded with the purpose of performing simple inspections. This unit would be required to oversee all aspects of the new industry. Police do not inspect airlines, the FAA does. Police do not provide standards for allowing pharmaceutical companies to see meds, the FDA does. Police do not inspect people's taxes, the IRS does. The regulatory units are responsible for the creation of standards, the monitoring of the industry, the maintenance of quality, the detection of issues, the promotion of solutions, the suggestion of changes, the analysis of data, the presentation to legislators, etc. All three of the units I mentioned earlier (FAA, FDA, IRS) are very underfunded, meaning they need more funding to operate optimally. This new agency would encounter the same problems, aside from its initial funding costs. 2a) The W-2 program itself and the supposed success of it are outside the scope of this discussion. In addition, we don't know what portion of these criminals would join welfare or that program, should it actually be successful on a national scale. The whole point is that the program and welfare both represent COSTS. More people in the program means more COSTS. In addition, the portion of criminals that would not enter such a program would likely re-enter the black market. Another cost, and an impediment towards crime rate reduction. 2b) In order to obtain a warrant, police need probable cause that a crime or evidence of a crime exists in a household. If drugs are legal, then it makes it that much more difficult for police to obtain a warrant with regards to 'excess drugs'. How would a police officer obtain a warrant due to probable cause, where he/she suspects a legal drug use to have too much of a legal drug? In addition, the necessary work involved in finding this proof and obtaining the necessary warrants represents yet another COST. Time and resources cost money. 3 main reasons the drug trade may be somewhat profitable: 1) They are oligopolistic in nature. Therefore they can control prices; 2) Barriers to purchase exist. People cannot buy them legally, so dealers place a premium on the price. 3) Depending on the dealers, lower quality (and potentially dangerous) substitute substances can be used in the production of some of these drugs in order to lower costs All of these reasons would disappear if all drugs were legalized. Throw a tax in there, and all of a sudden, most (if not all) of this supposed surplus disappears. I could write more, but all of my points have been stated in the previous four arguments. The main point is this: The costs of legalizing all drugs (regulation, tax collection, litigation, productivity, rehabilitation, life-damage, etc, etc, etc) exceed the benefits (a guessed-at tax revenue figure, based off of journalistic data).", "qid": 16, "docid": "dfb23292-2019-04-18T19:45:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6650199890136719}, {"content": "Title: universal health care Content: Ok. Good one. But there are some things you seem to have overlooked. First, I am well aware that doctors are allowed to prescribe medications in the fashion that you described. As I stated before, I know people that have used LDN successfully. The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug. This is because the drug companies refuse to sell it and therefore no one has heard of it. If you asked anyone in this country what drugs they had heard of, they would probably only name drugs they had seen in advertisements, unless of course they were pharmacists or pharmacy students like yourself. Sure, these medications like LDN CAN be prescribed, but WILL they? You said that it would take \"billions of billions of dollars\" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so. \"new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world\" If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue. \"What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it?\" The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE. One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE. The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK.", "qid": 16, "docid": "2a507379-2019-04-18T19:50:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6645814180374146}, {"content": "Title: Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated Content: I am going to argue that the advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated. 1 round acceptance only. 2 round argument 3 round rebuttals", "qid": 16, "docid": "3c94c126-2019-04-18T15:48:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6644192337989807}, {"content": "Title: Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results Content: Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. \u201cThe FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.\u201d [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. \u201cThe pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D\u201d [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. \u201cDrug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political \"contributions\" over the past decade in the US alone.\u201d[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi", "qid": 16, "docid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6640951633453369}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: Again, thanking my opponent for his response. And no, i fail to understand where the mixed message resides, although i am hardly surprised as to why you feel this way. \"I know that the FDA is necessary.\" The vital part of the FDAs system is to ban drugs that are lethal. Please explain how the FDA can properly enforce their rules if they are unable to ban the drugs. \"Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad?\" I agree. Clearly, this government, that has banned Child Pornography and selling assault rifles to minors, could not possibly tell us what is good and what is bad. Clearly, the government should not be trusted. Putting that to the side, are you telling me that organizations such as the ATF, which crack down on underage drinking and unregistered illegal firearms passing from person to person, are bad organizations that should not be trusted? \"People should read the labels.\" I have a bottle of Advil right infront of me. It states: Warning: Do not take Advil if taking acetylsalicyclic acid or other products containing Ibuprofen, or if allergic to ASA, salicylates, or anti-inflammatory drugs, or any of its ingredients. Now, how many people do you think, out of a random group of 1000 from the general public, understand any of those chemical compositions or its derivative names? Furthermore, will you visit the doctor every time you have a migrane or headache? Or every time your child scrapes his knee? I shall make my point, after you answer said question. \"It should require things on labels\" It already does require things on labels. \"it should be able to ban things outright.\" Ill take that as a typo. \"we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug.\" First off, one clinical trial, no matter how bad the results, is sufficient to be labeled as \"tested\". So, the untested drug absurdity is gone from the label. Secondly, I dont understand what you mean by wanting to \"Re-label said drugs once theyve been tested\". \"You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them.\" My opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never complained or claimed to have said that we need labels. We already have labels. We do not need what is already present. I did however say that the FDA is responsible for what goes on the labels. \"If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead\" First you advocate letting them all die, as that would be good for mankind. Now you advocate that we should heal them, as that would be good for the economy. Please make up your mind. \"No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment.\" Eliminated how? Last time i checked, the average lifespan of the disabled, are roughly the same as the lifespan of a non-disabled. \"The option to use drugs is natural\" I dont understand this either. How is it natural to be able to use Cocaine, pot and other drugs that are currently restricted. \"we don't kill off druggies\" Youve done nothing but advocated this. By \"kill off\", i dont mean that we kill them, i mean to purposefully eliminate them from the population. And that is what you are doing by advocating this. I will quote from you: \"Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool.\" Youve basically said that Legalization of Drugs allows us to recognize those with the Suicide \"trait\", allowing for their immediate removal from society. Therefore, you are advocating that we recognize and remove them from society. Otherwise, why else would we need to recognize them in the first place? \"If they can survive, then by all means, they survived.\" Of course they will survive. Suicide is not a trait. \"We don't know that there is no suicide gene\" The problem with this statement, is two fold. First, suicide is an act. Can you say that Working as a bakery chef, is an inheritable trait? Of course not. For someone to want to become a Bakery chef, there are certain emotions and experiences that are required. The same for Suicide. Secondly, most drug users are not suicidal. There are many recreational drug users who use, for example, ecstasy, as a sexual enhancement drug. As for Intelligence being inherited: Although, by stupidity, i didnt mean intelligence, but rather the specific stupid act, in this case of taking drugs, that is inherited as your suicide trait would naturally conclude, intelligence being inherited is a mixed issue at best. First off, Herrnstein and Murray both caution the interpretation of the bell curve, as they acknowledge that environmental effects could be present. Secondly, studies done by people such as James Flynn have concluded that the IQ has increased over the past 100 years(1) and other studies have determined that various environmental effects have affected the IQ(2). \"If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would.\" Even if they ant afford health care or cannot afford to see a doctor on a regular basis whenever they need to buy a bottle of aspirin? Or cannot understand english as well as others? \"My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal.\" My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have never even stated that Companies have the authority to ban substances of any kind. That is what the FDA is for. Perhaps my opponent has misunderstood my argument. I am fairly certain that my opponent also believes that driving under the influence of such drugs should also be prohibited, as is walking around the streets freely smoking or snorting these drugs. Therefore, my opponent is advocating that if the usage of the drug places any person nearby in danger or harm, that person should be barred from using such drugs in those specific locations or circumstances. This is essentially why we made drugs illegal. \"People should simply be held liable for their actions.\" My opponent has made another foolish argument. He is now stating, that we should be concerned more about the liability than prevention. This is absurd, as anyone would understand that they would rather have prevented a situation rather than be compensated for it. Especially if it involves the loss of a loved one. \"but this would not be punishable by law.\" Again, my opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never stated that the Government will punish the worker. \"turns people into dangerous beasts\" If by dangerous, you mean unpredictable, deranged and paranoid, then yes, it does. \"only use their drugs in their own home.\" What about the streets. Parks. public locations which contain people, but are not under the jurisdiction of a specific property owner. Also, i disagree with how drug useage in your own home prevents harm to other people. Firstly, youre only alone in your home if you are a loner or a loser. Secondly, there is a door. You can walk through it. There are windows. You can jump through them. Now for my opponents contentions: 2. So would Child Pornography help the economy as well. Pass. 3. Again, so do child pornography holders thrown into jails as well. Its hurting the economy. However, illegal stuff are still illegal. Pass. \"\"Why can't we wear hats in school?\" -wjmelements\" Hats dont hurt anyone. No one goes on a killing spree because they were wearing a hat. Drugs do. People go on killing sprees all the time because they were under the influence of drugs. Let me ask you this, as a final question in this round. Who would you hold liable if a man who was high on cocaine, went into a public school, killed a dozen children and then proceeded to shoot himself? Sources: 1. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51. 2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of Intelligence: Theories, Measurements, and", "qid": 16, "docid": "2d0fc6c1-2019-04-18T19:20:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6640690565109253}, {"content": "Title: Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America Content: I agree with the burden of proof as well as the definitions. Lets have at it! ========== Lower Costs ========== -Electronic Conversion This is simply a non-unique argument. Offices are already doing this without being forced to by the government. We would be spending more money by making companies do this, while they are already doing so. We would just be spending money to enforce what does not need to be. -Better care for chronic patients Quality cannot be forced. Quality occurs because of competition. This is simple economics. If doctors have to compete for patients, they can lower their prices, and increase the quality of their work. If there is competition, there is quality. If there is no competition (under Obama's plan), there is lower quality. If doctors are paid the same, there is NO incentive to increase the quality of their work. The remaining parts of the \"argument\" are simply excerpts of the plan that I have addressed. I will address one more segment though. \"'Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers.'\" This is ridiculous. This will not lower prices since drug companies already sell generic drugs. They lower prices BECAUSE they already sell generic drugs. If they did not, they would hurt themselves. If Wal-Mart stopped selling generic Ibuprofen, Walgreens would profit. This would not be wise for Wal-Mart, and thus has never happened. This is another non-unique argument. ======================= STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH ======================= Once again, there is no argument made. My opponent simply spouts verses from the HC plan. \"'(1) EMPLOYERS. [...] To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts.'\" Pay close attention to the last line. Whenever the President \"encourages\" or \"rewards\" a certain action, it means more money being spent. Obama has already promised not to raise taxes on people who make under $250,000 a year. With such a large part of the population not being taxed higher, the US starts to lack funds. (Anyone notice we are already in trillions of dollars in debt?) If he is going to reward these actions, he needs funds. Where are the funds coming from? If not from taxpayer dollars, then he can resort to either extreme taxation on the upper-class, or printing off more money (which he has already done). Then we are left with either extremely disproportionate taxes (which discourages achievement) or inflation. Do any of these options sound like a good idea? If we let the free market do its thing, the best interests of the economy and the American people are brought to the surface. \"'(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic [7] [...]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.'\" Once again, note the term \"increased financial support.\" Where is that money going to come from? \"'(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives \u2013 if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the new public plan.'\" Here is what this section is really saying: The smart people who take care of themselves are going to be paying for the dumb, lazy people who rely on taxpayer dollars to live. Plain and simple. With this plan, we award stupidity. People work hard for their money. If they want healthcare, they will buy it. If people do not work, and do not make money, they will not buy healthcare. If the working class is forced to pay for the health of the lazy class, then there is absolutely NO incentive to be a hard worker! How is that good for anyone, much less the economy? ========================= Bad news for those with Healthcare ========================= Obama's health-care plan is drawing criticism from one of his own advisers, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein. In today's Washington Post, Feldstein warns that \"For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement.\" Obama's plan would \"cost more than $1 trillion,\" and raise the top federal \"income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent.\" That certainly doesn't sound like it helps the American people. Are we going to disregard that 85% of Americans? ============ My Conclusion ============ If we go with Obama's HC plan, we have two major issues. 1-Insufficient funds 2-Extremely detrimental effects to 85% of Americans To me, that sounds more than enough to deject the HC plan. The resolution is negated. ============ Sources ============ http://www.hovservices.com... http://www.openmarket.org... http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com... http://www.barackobama.com... http://www.mlive.com...", "qid": 16, "docid": "68aff0ce-2019-04-18T19:19:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6640660762786865}, {"content": "Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients\u2019 over-the-counter purchases, but a patient\u2019s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer\u2019s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.", "qid": 16, "docid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00015-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6637614965438843}, {"content": "Title: The Illegality Of Recreational Drugs Results In Unnecessary Risks For Those Who Choose To Consume Them Content: The health concerns of consumers of recreational drugs are irrelevant. Not only are recreational drugs inherently unhealthy (and so consumers of recreational drugs consent to consuming something which is detrimental to their health) but consumers of recreational drugs engage in illegal activity by so doing. The health concerns which result from illegal activity are not something which should be considered when assessing the legality of such activity.", "qid": 16, "docid": "f55b3008-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00009-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6637166738510132}, {"content": "Title: In the US, All drugs should be legalized Content: IntroductionGenerally a pretty weak round from con. He ignores substantial parts of my arguments and continues to make non-sequitors despite them having been exposed to him. He also insists on using C3 (no matter how poorly he argues for it) as an argument. I have complied and organized it with the others.Repeatedly my opponent makes the egregious error of assuming that non-violent drug crime is limited only to drug usuage. Obviously it applies to drug selling too.C1I conceded that many drugs can be harmful and that removing market distortions will increase demand. These are basic facts. However, what my opponent has utterly failed to do is demonstrate why these facts mean that drugs should be illegal. He merely iterates that drugs have harmful effects. I ask again; so what? He has not demonstrated that any body has the right to intervene to prevent an individual making a free choice which may have consequences for themselves. The individuals are choosing the utility gained from using the drugs over the utility lost from the health risks. Any body deciding that they can make that choice for other people and then forcibly enforcing this decision would be acting unethically (see ethics arguments).There are many products which are legal which are harmful to the individual; TVs and digital devices with small LCD screens can harm the eyesight, the bag of pretzels I am eating right now contains a dangerous amount of salt, Jersey Shore has caused premature mind rot in thousands and alcohol ismarvellous is very harmful. These are well documented dangers, yet the products remain legal.Should these be made illegal the number of users would decrease. Does this mean they should be illegal? Of course not! People should have the freedom to harm themselves in any manner they please.This argument must be considered completely irrevelent.C2Here my opponent shows a worrying lack of knowledge of how black markets work, despite my explanation provided last round.Black markets are formed by some sort of government artificial market distortion being imposed upon a market. This could be tax or a law. If there was no law decreeing the use or purchase/selling of drugs to be illegal to provide this market distortion, a black market could not exist, as it wouldn't be profitable and therefore smuggling cartels could not exist.My opponent makes a bizzarrely ignorant assertion:\"Banning it may hurt the black market overtime as its goal (and has been working ok so far) has been to discourage people from using drugs, and this constricts black market profit.\"As explained before, the oposite is true. Banning drugs is the only thing that keeps the black market in existence.If we do decide to legalize but not tax (a position I do not support, and a proposition utterly irrelevent to the debate at hand), it would still reduce the size of the black market massively, as they would only be able to charge market prices, rather than at inflated costs as a result of the removal of some of the market distortions.This argument must be considered utterly false and self-defeating in that it is easy to demonstrate that legalizing drugs would reduce smuggling.C3My opponent drops my second and third reasons why this argument is irrelevent. This alone would be sufficient for me to consider this argument dropped.However, I shall also point out the foolishness in my opponents counter argument. He makes the non-sequitor leap that laws must be made by an authority to; that authority must be the government in this resolution. If the legal entity prevent legalization is a UN treaty, then that is the mechanism by which the resolution pertains. This is obvious, and frankly it is disappointing that my opponent keeps persuing this line of argument.C4The latter two of con's links do not work, so I cannot see to what \"facts\" I am responding. The first link is an essay with no direction as to where the facts can be found. However, I managed to find the supposed statistic; its source was \"40. \"MTV Show Favors Drug Legalization,\" Drug Policy Report 1 September 1994.\". This source does not corroborate the supposed foundings. Therefore, in this case my source should be given preference.Furthermore, it is irrelevent whether only 700 where arrested for drug usuage only. It does not take into account the vast many more numbers who were arrested for selling drugs only - these crime figures would fall vastly.Con's latter two points are irrelevent; the violent acts commited under influence are the acts which should (and are) be illegal. If it were found that wearing a cone on your head made you more prone to violent acts, would it be sane to ban cones? Of course not! The violent acts are already illegal. We punish the act, not the conditions.My opponent has also dropped my argument that he is using the post hoc fallacy.At this point we can consider every single on of my opponents arguments thoroughly refuted.Counter-argumentsEthics.My opponent claims that because drugs cause crime (an assertion totally unproven - he has still dropped my false causality argument) people in support of the NAP would be against drugs. I believe there are two ways of considering my opponent now:a) he did not read my argument, which is quite rudeb) he is practicing some odd form of trollery, in which case I take my hat off to him.To reiterate in the hope he reads this time; any act which does not initiate force against another or his property can not be considered unethical. To initiate force is unehtical. There is no way that the use of drugs can fall into the unethical catagory, and no way the prevention of use of drugs can fall into the ethical catagory.His next argument also demonstrates a sheer lack of comprehension:\"My opponents argument also lies upon it is my right to use drugs etc. Well first basic civil rights argue or prohibitive drug laws. Also there is no right if it infringes on life or pursuit of happiness\"It should be obvious that at no point ever on the planet in any sane persons mind could the NAP be advocating a positive liberty as my opponent suggests it does. His argument here is incredibly bizarre. The NAP advocates negative liberties; that there are things you don't do to others, such as initiate force. As drugs do not fall into any form of iniation of force they must be ethical.I would heavily recommend my opponent reads my argument carefully for the next round if he wishes to have a chance of winning.Practicality1. Economic - percentages are irrelevent. If it is doing something bad (see above), we should be spending no money on it. Furthermore, your source does not include all costs of the drug war - the 11 billion statistic is not true as of 2009.2.700 statistic only refers to drug users. Everyone else referred in my statistic was (by process of elimination) a drug seller. They would be out of jail too.Thus the savings here still stand.3.The additional cost to users caused by a black market price distortions. The black market wouldn't exist if there were no taxes on the drugs (as has been trivially proven above). If it were legal and taxed (again something irrelevent to the resolution and something I don't support) the black market would charge at under the white market prices. ConclusionOverall, the last round from my opponent was notably poor. His arguments were weak and his counter-arguments a mixture of red-herrings and poor reading comprehension.", "qid": 16, "docid": "910e95f4-2019-04-18T18:24:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6636858582496643}, {"content": "Title: People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to g... Content: Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.", "qid": 16, "docid": "8f3cacc9-2019-04-19T12:44:38Z-00011-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6631907820701599}, {"content": "Title: Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers. Content: Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.", "qid": 16, "docid": "ea3a24b1-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00013-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6631907820701599}, {"content": "Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: 1. Rebuttals: Firstly, there has been a very fundamental doubt in the topic of the debate itself, which I would like to clarify. In one of the rounds, Pro wants to \u201cremind Con that this debate is just about medicines being made free; not about treatment costs or medication. \u201d In fact, Pro has already given the definition of the term \u201cmedicine\u201d in Google dictionary is \"a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. \u201d For curing some diseases, it takes more than just a tablet or syrup in order to cure the condition! It requires careful scanning, medication and treatment by using various other instruments or surgery. So, Pro\u2019s arguments on saying treatment and medication is not in the realm of medicine simply does not make sense at all. This is very necessary because if Pro wants to make medicines free, this includes treatment costs as the topic is \"Medicines Should Be Made Free. \u201d Therefore Pro cannot make the cost of treatment rise as it would be contradictory to the debate topic. Secondly, Pro states that \"basic medicines\u201d for cold, fever and pain should be made free. But, the topic is \"Medicines Should Be Made Free\u201d which means all medicines, be it treatments, medication, tablets and syrups for every disease should be made free. Making only basic medicines free is against the whole topic of the debate. I would like to rewrite the burdens of the debate for Pro, and her burden is to show that it is an absolute necessity to make every medicine free of cost. Thirdly, pro states that pharmaceutical companies can still \"mint money\" if medicines are made free, but gives very little proof of such a type of event can actually occur. Again, I repeat, there won\u2019t be any medicines to give if they are made free. Last, but not the least, Pro states that medicines are absolute necessity, therefore it is prudent to give them free of cost. If we go by that logic, almost everything becomes an absolute necessity for us, therefore, should everything be given free of cost. A home, an absolute necessity for any individual, is not given free of cost, is it? Any person gets his/her reward for the amount of hard work and effort they put in. The elders say: \"There is nothing called free lunch. \u201d But I would like to rephrase, \"There is nothing called demand for free lunch\u201d either! 2. Misuse In the 20th and 21st century, misuse of drugs has been prevalent. There has been misuse of drugs in many fields, including sports and academics. There are a number of addictive drugs in both markets and black markets which allows any person to misuse these drugs. Even though these drugs were made for the benefit of the population, they are mainly being used today for the addiction of the population! Finally, all these addictions are psychological, a person always does a careful cost benefit analysis before misusing the drug, and once misused out of curiosity, it becomes a dirty habit hard to get rid of. I believe that the cost of these illegal drugs plays an important role in preventing the population for misusing the drug. There are a number of fools out there who misuse these drugs regardless of the cost, but there even few of them who take the cost into consideration. Fear for both the consequences and cost plays a major role in ruling out the curiosity in their mind while performing a cost benefit analysis for a lot of people, finally taking the decision not to misuse the drugs. If medicines are made free, then the cost (money) part of the analysis gets ruled out, curiosity being more favourable than fear, a large amount of the population can misuse the drugs if they get the chance. Therefore, more bans on illegal drugs will be imposed, which are futile because, anyway, the drugs are free, thus gangs and drug lords will supply drugs more easily to the population. I believe we must work hard enough so that we can get all our treasures and rewards. In a nutshell, this debate is comprehensive to many fields in today\u2019s world, and opposes Pro's statements in each field. The debate is itself a subject of morality, where the people who work hard succeed and secure their future and health and the lazy fail to do so. Apart from this, this debate is also economically and scientifically connected, highlighting the consequences when no research, payment of salaries and distribution of medication can take place when there is an economic deficiency. Lastly, this debate is related to the psychology of the human mind to or not misuse drugs.", "qid": 16, "docid": "c8c928fc-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.663109540939331}]}
{"query": "Should recreational marijuana be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: This is a debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal for recreational use. My stance is against the use of recreational use. This first round is for acceptance so please post something like \"I accept your debate\" for round 1. The remaining three rounds are for contention and debate. Legitimate debaters only.", "qid": 17, "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9126163721084595}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8988628387451172}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.", "qid": 17, "docid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8926225304603577}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Should marijuana become legalized for recreational use? In this debate, I am taking the Pro stance, meaning I support the legalization. 1st round - State your stance. 2nd round - Evidence to support stance. 3rd round - Counter the opponent's stance. 4th round - Closing statement/Final evidence and/or opinion. I will not stand rude or childish responses. I'm looking for a fun, cordial debate between people who can handle the topic. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to debating!", "qid": 17, "docid": "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8672415018081665}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: I do not think recreational marijuana should be made legal, this is because of a multitude of reasons for which I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I look forward to this debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8598735332489014}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use. It is not good for the body or for society. Legalizing it for recreational use would greatly endanger communities, and I feel that the idea of legalizing it is foolish.", "qid": 17, "docid": "14b9fbff-2019-04-18T12:11:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8568333387374878}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Full resolution: \"Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 17, "docid": "59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8470195531845093}, {"content": "Title: [Drug legalization resolution too long to post here] Content: Full resolution: If marijuana, as a recreational drug, is legalized for those over the age of 18, it should be legalized to grow on a commercial basis only and any domestic growth of it should remain illegal. First round is up to Con. They can either accept or make a case.", "qid": 17, "docid": "8b859a7-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8437809944152832}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8430219888687134}, {"content": "Title: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. Content: Resolution: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con must simply refute my case and show it should *not* be legalized. The debates will be 4 rounds with 5k character limits. Ideally this will be kept under 4k characters though. ==Definitions== Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Recreational: Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: Cannabis ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. No Kritiks 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up may merit a loss. ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's case, Con rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.", "qid": 17, "docid": "cb307ee3-2019-04-18T14:46:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8399021625518799}, {"content": "Title: weed Content: Since I will get the final argument, I shall allow my opponent to go first and present their case in R2. I do want to clarify for the voters. The topic is only \"weed\" however, based on the previous debate [1] that my opponent referenced and their statements on \"it should not be illegal\" it is reasonable to conclude that the debate is about the legality of recreational marijuana use. I await my opponent's argument. [1] . http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 17, "docid": "81c397d0-2019-04-18T18:04:57Z-00007-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8382307291030884}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Though his argument and rebuttals may have been short, he was attempting to disprove my arguments. I will respond to that before I move on to the facts he stated about why recreational marijuana should be be legal. Pro's RebuttalsPro stated that \"the person doing it chooses to do it is his body he damages by taking any relatively strong drug. \" This is true, but as citizens of this country, we want there to be more people who are not ill or dead. We want people to have good jobs so they will pay taxes. People are less likely to be hired for a job if the interviewer can tell they have been smoking, which is a hard smell and behavior to cover up. Pro has not given any more arguments against mine, so I shall move on to his facts about marijuana in round 2. Pro's Arguments Towards Marijuana1. \"Prohibition failed\"Indeed it did, but that is because the government did not have as much control as it does today. If that happened again today, there would still be illegal uses, but not as many because more people would be caught. What needs to happen is greater funding of the DEA and police. is un-supported by facts and statistics which have shown that since the war on drugs started more and more people use drugs[sic]That is not true. There is plenty of evidence for health issues and statistics. I will mention some evidence in a moment.2. \"Better Quality and Possibly less use\"There's no such thing as 'better quality' marijuana. It's a plant. It is not synthesized. And it will only be used more, not less. If it is legalized, it will be easier to find, which will lead to more people using it. It's simple logic and statistics.3. \"Hemp\" I do not really know what to say about this energy thing. I personally think we need to move on to electric cars instead of bio-fuel or oil power cars. 4. \"It is not as harmful as legal drugs\"Actually, it is. It turns down brain activity until it is very low. When it gets to that point, it is barely capable of complex thought. Alcohol is better for the brain than marijuana because it doesn't shut it down as quick or as much. Cigarettes destroy the mouth, lungs, and throat, so I guess you could say that's worse. 5. \"Prison and Tax money\" Yeah, more people paying taxes sounds pretty good to me. That is what I was talking about earlier: we want less people dying from drugs so we can have more taxpayers to pay their taxes. I patiently await Pro's arguments.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8366671800613403}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.", "qid": 17, "docid": "e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8324961066246033}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.", "qid": 17, "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8324961066246033}, {"content": "Title: Marjuana should be legal Content: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use for any person over the age of 18. Weed, as its called, has been used for many purposes all through out history, even George Washington had hemp is his personal garden. Marijuana should not have been made illegal and it should not continue being illegal. I will make my main arguements in later rounds. I look forward to a good debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "40e4b6f7-2019-04-18T19:05:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8278396725654602}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Should medical marijuana be legal or no?", "qid": 17, "docid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8253918886184692}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.", "qid": 17, "docid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8188723921775818}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized in the US. Content: I, pro, will be arguing for the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, also known as weed. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements (not arguments) Round 2 - Pro begins opening argument, con rebuttals Round 3 - Final arguments and statements Rules: 1. Don't troll 2. Use correct grammar and spelling 3. You will have 72 hours to respond. This should be more than enough time and both person's are expected to submit their arguments during this time frame to prevent bugs and glitches 4. Be civil 5. There is a max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put it on a Google document and post the link as your argument. 6. If you need extra time or wish to continue the debate, message your opponent.", "qid": 17, "docid": "629701cf-2019-04-18T12:24:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8166730403900146}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: I believe that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use and by legalizying it, our society will benefit in certain aspects.", "qid": 17, "docid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8163464069366455}, {"content": "Title: Making marijuana legal in the U.S Content: I accept! I will be negating the resolved in that marijuana should be legal for recreational use in the United States.", "qid": 17, "docid": "ac6030a1-2019-04-18T12:27:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8155041933059692}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational consumption. It should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to consume marijuana, regardless of what ever health effects it has on the body. If one enjoys passing their time by smoking marijuana that should not be an activity that is considered illegal. The three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the catch to these rights is you only have them if you are not infringing on another individuals rights. therefore if murder is how you pursue happiness that would not be allowed due to the fact that it infringes on your victims rights. As long as ones consumption of marijuana does not infringe on the rights of another individual, one should be allowed to consume it as they see fit.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d3fcb99b-2019-04-18T15:37:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8118658661842346}, {"content": "Title: Decriminalizing recreational marijuana. Content: I thank Con for instigating what I hope would be an enlightening debate. In this debate, I am arguing that 'Recreational marijuana should be decriminalized,' or 'Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is right.' Con, on the other hand is arguing that 'Decriminizing recreational marijuana is wrong' or 'Recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized.'As the rules explicitly state that the first round is only for acceptance or stating your position, I shall wait until the next round before giving definitions.", "qid": 17, "docid": "cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8112401366233826}, {"content": "Title: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited Content: NOTE: Because it has already been established in many other debates, we know that marijuana is harmful to one's health. Unfortunately, so is alcohol, tobacco and...gasp...even the hamburgers we get from our favorite fast food chains so please don't waste your time proving that aspect. Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even \"death.\" I am not a professional debater, and certainly not an experienced one on any level, so I know this may be unorthodox, but PLEASE list your problems with my statement with your arguments and it'd make me happy to answer/refute each one of them. :)", "qid": 17, "docid": "e3b7cf32-2019-04-18T19:40:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8063219785690308}, {"content": "Title: Recreational cannabis should be illegal. Content: My stance is I believe recreational cannabis should be illegal.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c2b1862-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.804632306098938}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Content: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that the decriminalization of marijuana has no place in society.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to this debate!", "qid": 17, "docid": "ae791dd7-2019-04-18T17:53:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8043323755264282}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Refine the point you are arguing for. When reading through your Initial text, there were several points as to why you should think marijuana should be legal for. Should it be legal to the same extent that cigarettes and alcohol are legal? Should it be legal to cut down on the imprisonment of less dangerous individuals to society and leave space in prisons for violent criminals? Should it be legal for monetary gain to propose a more efficient way of create a federal monetary gain? Should it be legal because it is a means of a perceived safer way of medicating, than man made prescriptions? Should it be legal because that's just what you want? Refine your argument please.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d267acd4-2019-04-18T12:17:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8041672706604004}, {"content": "Title: Persuasive Debate! (Video Format) Content: Okay its' about time I started this!This is a persuasive video debate I had made a forum back like 4 months ago trying to find an opponent. http://www.debate.org...) So here is the introduction video..pretty simple.Sources (if used) shall be posted in the debate round. Resolution \"Recreational Marijuana Should be Legalized in the U.S\" http://www.youtube.com... By the way, I meant to say \"Should be legalized\" Not \"It shall be legalized\"", "qid": 17, "docid": "7ce7243f-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8027609586715698}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legalized.", "qid": 17, "docid": "12148574-2019-04-18T14:19:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8023515939712524}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: I think Marijuana should be legal. I would love to discuss this topic with someone, but I would rather talk about this when someone has accepted this debate!!", "qid": 17, "docid": "86fca339-2019-04-18T18:03:35Z-00008-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7991893291473389}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of marijuana Content: The topic of today is weed. Whether or not it should be legal shall be discussed in the following rounds:First round is for acceptance Second round is for argumentsThird round is for arguments/ rebuttalFourth round is for rebuttalFifth round is for rebuttal and conclusionNo new arguments are to be made after the third round. Rounds four and five are for debating merit and deficiencies made in two and three.Conditions of victory for pro/con:Pro: Must provide sound arguments for legalization of marijuana and successfully undermine con's arguments for prohibition with factual information. Con: Must provide sound arguments against legalization of marijuana and successfully undermine pros arguments for legalization with factual information.I wish you luck con. This will be a good one.", "qid": 17, "docid": "575d7777-2019-04-18T16:50:05Z-00008-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7960701584815979}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Great! I will post my opening statement again for you to respond to. The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7948464751243591}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Marijuana Content: This is my first debate here and I think this will be an interesting topic. I have not seen it on this site. As Pro I will contend marijuana should indeed be legalized. Con will argue it should NOT be legalized.", "qid": 17, "docid": "40d97d90-2019-04-18T18:47:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7945930361747742}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.", "qid": 17, "docid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7941250205039978}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: I accept, though you should have also appointed some conservative judges. ;PJust kidding, your selections are fine. I'll let you post your arguments first.To clarify, this debate is about marijuana legalization for all purposes, including recreational. :)", "qid": 17, "docid": "eda04888-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00008-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7936058044433594}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should not be legalized. Content: My opponent copied the whole article in without changing anything or even citing. I refuse to rebut such a thing. I extend all arguments and expect rebuttal next round. CONCLUSION:My opponent has failed to prove that Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that he copied and pasted his article in the second round, and most likely in the first. I have proven it should not be legal due to the health risks and how it can really effect you in the long run. Doing so, I believe I have won this debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7935095429420471}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: My position is that marijuana ought to be legalized. I will let my opponent make the opening arguments but i ask that he/she forfeits the last round. Thank you to whoever accepts.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d0a91579-2019-04-18T18:58:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7923583984375}, {"content": "Title: Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America. Content: As far as the risks go, which is pretty much the only thing that stops you from thinking recreational marijuana should be legalized, they shouldn't matter, since there is a risk to everything. For example, the risk to driving a car is that you could possibly get in a wreck and either injure yourself or even die. 1.3 million people die in car crashes a year. Does this mean we should ban driving? Of course not! Is addiction a problem with recreational marijuana? Well, did you know medicinal marijuana can also be addictive? Does this mean we should reject the legalization of medicinal marijuana? Of course not! Maybe you're right; maybe we shouldn't ban the smoking of cigarettes. But it still makes no sense to me as to why we shouldn't legalize the smoking of weed. http://www.narconon.org... To summarize my argument, legalizing recreational marijuana does have risks, but it also has benefits. Just because something has risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. And majority of America wants it to be legalized! Therefore, I see no reason why recreational marijuana shouldn't be legalized, and my opinion is the same as it was before this debate. http://thehill.com... This has been a good debate, Con, and I really enjoyed it. I\"m not the best at debating, but I feel you have gave me a challenge that has improved my debating skills, so thank you. Good luck in the voting period!", "qid": 17, "docid": "eec21427-2019-04-18T11:48:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7923104763031006}, {"content": "Title: 1st DDO Census Debate: Drug Legalization Content: The Resolution:The USFG Should Legalize all Drugs for Recreational Use.Summary:With the pending legalization of Marijuana in most US states, the topic of universal drug legalization has become more common. With elements such as drug health risks and drug war costs being thrown back and forth, the debate has gained momentum on DDO.Rules:- No wars (source wars or definition wars, etc...)- No kritiking.- No Conduct or S&G votes.- Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.Pro side is represented by FourTrouble, and advised by F-16. Con side is represented by Donald.Keller, and advised by RoyLatham.Definitions:Recreational Use: The use of a drug for providing preasure rather than to cure or treat disease or medical conditions.Drug: A medicine or other substance which has a psychological and/or physical effect when introduced into the body.Legalize: To make legal for production, distribution, and use of a product.", "qid": 17, "docid": "447b51d1-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7919188737869263}, {"content": "Title: The United States Should Legalize All Recreational Drugs Content: Welcome! This will be a debate on whether or not all recreational drugs should be legalized. Con must not have less than 3 debates completed and must have knowledge that he or she will be able to complete the entire debate without worry. If you wish to accept this debate, then say so in the comments.Burden of Proof will be shared. I must prove that drugs should be legalized and my opponent must prove that they should stay banned.The debate will be 4 rounds, with Round 1 being for guidelines set on my part, and acceptance / first arguments from Con. Rounds 2-4 will be for arguments and rebuttals. I hope for a fantastic debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "3324b83a-2019-04-18T16:42:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7892544269561768}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: The resolution is that marijuana ought to be legalized. I stand in firm affirmation of this topic. As this has become a main issue, I thought I would try my hand in defending the legalization of marijuana. I would like to make a pre-case observation that the resolution states that by \"marijuana ought to be legalized,\" it means it SHOULD be legalized and we must debate the place marijuana would have in our society and whether or not legalizing marijuana will be for the balanced good or the balanced harm of our society. My definitions are as follows. Marijuana- a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared Ought- Used to indicate obligation or duty I will present my arguments once my opponent accepts this debate in round 2. Good luck", "qid": 17, "docid": "d0a9155a-2019-04-18T19:00:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7878707051277161}, {"content": "Title: should marijwana only Be legalized only for Medicinal purposes Content: Nothing will stop the recreational use of marijuana, so the legalization of marijuana would benefit everyone. Those who use marijuana as a recreation drug would not have to worry about getting in trouble, we as taxpayers wouldn't have to pay as many taxes, and people like teachers would get higher salaries. So please tell me why we shouldn't legalize recreational marijuana when it has such great benefits? And also what do you mean by marijuana can be turned into a liquid and be used for the skin?", "qid": 17, "docid": "4ab35585-2019-04-18T11:47:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7876601815223694}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should be legalised Content: I congratulate my opponent on knowing his own beliefs. It remains to be seen whether he can back them up. I represent the status quo in this debate. Pro argues for a change and he must justify it. He must show that cannabis should (not could or will, but morally ought to) be legalized. I await his opening arguments. First, though, by way of clarification, let me make it clear that I will assume unless corrected that he means \"Cannabis (marijuana) should be made legal to possess, grow, sell, use, and transport in the United States. \"", "qid": 17, "docid": "a8be11b0-2019-04-18T18:58:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7867492437362671}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should be legalized Content: \"Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, and by numerous other names is a preparation of the cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.\" This is my definition of Cannabis, or what we will be calling it; Marijuana. I will be arguing Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but for recreation purposes as well. We are not talking about legalization in a specific country, just legalization period. The rules are as follows: 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: 1st argument (1 point only!) 3rd round: 2nd argument (2 points only!) 4th round: Rebuttal We will be only doing rebuttals in the fourth round. Good luck my friend DarthKirones", "qid": 17, "docid": "b4affe28-2019-04-18T16:19:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7866793870925903}, {"content": "Title: The United States should legalize all drugs Content: Full Resolution: The United States should legalize all drugs for recreational use. This is for the Winter Tournament. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. \"Recreational use\" is \"any non-medical use.\"", "qid": 17, "docid": "dfcfd9c7-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7866425514221191}, {"content": "Title: The Legalization of Marijuana Content: I absolutely believe that marijuana should be legalized. It is a harmless plant that has less fatalities than Tylenol or other drugs that you trust. marijuana has many benefits and therapeutic values that the people of America want. Marijuana may be illegal but that does not affect the demand for the drug. The laws set on marijuana only incarcerate many non violent people. Marijuana is widely used and I believe that our government should legalize this herb and take it out criminal control.", "qid": 17, "docid": "1e41346c-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7862948179244995}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.", "qid": 17, "docid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7858993411064148}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.", "qid": 17, "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7852770090103149}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legal Content: I think marijuana should be legal..", "qid": 17, "docid": "efda0a4-2019-04-18T13:23:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.785149335861206}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for adults. (Debate sponsored by King La Ding Enterprises). Content: The Full King La Ding resolution: Recreational AND medical marijuana should be legal for adults in the United States, because the benefits clearly outweigh the positives. King La Ding Enterprises sponsors this debate with a set of rules, and this set of rules is as followed: If you are caught in an incorrect fact or anomaly, you must formerly recognize the opponent (who is roughly 99.99999999% likely to be me) as superior to you in every aspect of life.", "qid": 17, "docid": "68c97443-2019-04-18T12:30:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7849254608154297}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should remain illegal Content: I accept. I am for the legalization of recreational and medical uses of Marijuana. Good luck and I hope we have a good debate. Since no definitions were set up I'll do some. Marijuana- Cannabis Illegal- In this context, to have the sale, possession, distribution and growth illegal to be punished by the law", "qid": 17, "docid": "986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7844687700271606}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons.", "qid": 17, "docid": "59d20097-2019-04-18T15:00:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.784229040145874}, {"content": "Title: Should pot be legalized Content: My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to \"get high\", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal.2. Marijuana is one such drugC. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.", "qid": 17, "docid": "3f13792b-2019-04-18T16:30:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7826326489448547}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Marijuana is natural; dispensaries should be allowed", "qid": 17, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00087-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7818189859390259}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized. Content: Sadly my opponent as forfeited the round, thus all of my arguments still stand and my framework ought be accepted. I will use this opportunity to express another important argument. It is critical to remember that even if one does subscribe to the idea that marijuana ought in fact be legalized I ask that you judge this round objectively. So you may completely disagree with what I'm saying but I ask that you consider the superior argumentation on my side (considering my opponent has been rather silent as far as opponents go :P). Once again I ask that you judge based n the argumentation not on who you actually agree with (I say this because I have seen the comments of people who disagree). As far as argumentation goes, remember the statistics, remember the argumentation, remember what we both have brought to the debate. At this point in the debate no reason has been provided for one to vote contrary to my position.", "qid": 17, "docid": "1101c85a-2019-04-18T19:09:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7811069488525391}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the United States Content: This debate is whether or not the idea of legalizing Marijuana should be initiated. I am on the side of \"Pro\" meaning that I am for the legalization, while my opponent will argue the opposite on the side of \"Con\".Rules:No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.No Trolls please!If you use a source, post its link in a \"Source Category\".Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules.Structure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3 & 4: Both sides RebuttalRound 5: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Please follow the structure for this debate so it is fair. Failure to do this is a disqualification. The reasoning why certain people can Rebuttal at certain times is because of keeping it fair, because I discovered that the person accepting the challenge always recieves one more Rebuttal. So, I thought about evening it up so both sides has a fair shot at Rebuttaling against each other. This debate is actually the test for this idea.Definitions:Marijuana: The dried leaves and female flowers of the hemp plant, used in a cigarette form as a narcotic or hallucinogen.Should: Used to indicate what is probable.Legalized: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. United States: Country, made up of 50 States, that is in the middle of North America.Good luck to whoever accepts!", "qid": 17, "docid": "f74ed338-2019-04-18T14:26:53Z-00008-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7810320258140564}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be legalized in the US Content: I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized in the US. Good luck to my opponent.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d76e473f-2019-04-18T18:19:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7808651328086853}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of marijuana Content: Addressing P1: Laws exist to limit personal freedoms for good reasons. There are good reasons for not legalizing this substance. These reasons are outlined in my premises in Round 1. Addressing P2: According to your argument, there is no reason to legalize marijuana. Consumers can purchase it either way. Addressing P3: Legal medicine has been found to have profound medical use with all that you mentioned. Addressing P4: There is no direct correlation between your premise and your argument. While this may be a fact, it does not imply that marijuana should be legalized. My arguments from Round 1 still stand.", "qid": 17, "docid": "575d7a7e-2019-04-18T16:34:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7802510261535645}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide Content: Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.", "qid": 17, "docid": "5992fb47-2019-04-18T13:36:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7789002060890198}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: I would argue that marijuana, and probably some additional drugs, should be legalized because legalizing them would create more benefits than keeping them illegal has. I am not arguing for the complete legalization of marijuana, but rather the regulated use of it. My opponent: Round 1) acceptance & arguments 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) rhetorical statement of choosing. Me: Round 1) terms and conditions 2) arguments/rebuttals 3) arguments/rebuttals 4) conclusion May be done through political, medical, economic, or philosophical arguments. No plagiarism.", "qid": 17, "docid": "1102483a-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7775969505310059}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: 'it should not be legal because it is misused more often than not. ' That is my opponents opinion that is certinally not universal , also who are you to impose your own morality onto others , If a person smokes marijuana he accepts that there is a risk , should we start banning extreme sports ? suicide attempts ? junk food? '. the world would go insane if it was legal and then there would be a death toll.' death toll? there is no recorded death from the use of marijuana . Also saying that its insane is also my opponents opinion and cannot be used as an argument , It is already legal in Urugway , Colorado and Washington and none of the scary scenarios conservatives have represented have happened also marijuana was legal for a long time it was only starting to get criminalized at the start of the 20th century because of propaganda campaigns and the wood industry campaigning for it because hemp (made from marijuana) was powerful in the paper producing business.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c71011c-2019-04-18T16:27:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7775009870529175}, {"content": "Title: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited Content: I negate: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited [Contentions] Contention I: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. According to the Surgeon General (Year 2007) Marijuana is a gateway drug. This means that once a given high is established the user would seek a larger high from more harmful drugs. This includes Cocaine (the most common step drug from marijuana), LSD, and Heroine. Marijuana creates a high different from substances like Alcohol, which increases the urge for a greater high that can only be achieved through more harmful drugs. With marijuana more readily available, teens would more likely be hooked on it now, and thus make them want harder substances. Contention II: Increased Criminal Activity Since we have established that marijuana is a gateway drug we will now look to one major disadvantage to society, Criminal Behavior. Since marijuana would increase the urge for harder substances, which are illegal, then people would resort to crimes to obtain them. The addiction for drugs is so great that people addicted would go to great lengths to get these substances. Allowing marijuana in society would increase the want for harder substances which in turn would lead to higher crime rates. Furthermore, higher crime rates could lead to more violent activity. For these reasons I negate. [Rebuttal] \"Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even \"death.\" My Response: Ok, universalize your action. By allowing marijuana we should then allow any other harder substance. Yes, it may come with it's own set of responsibility but that doesn't mean that government should bend down and condone it. Furthermore, legal prescrpiton drugs have medical benefits. One reason for the illegilzation of drugs is for these 2 reasons: 1) Has no major medical benefits 2) The cons outweigh the pros Therefore, marijuana used for recreational purposes rather then medical should not be allowed for the public. Drop my opponents argument. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.", "qid": 17, "docid": "e3b7cf32-2019-04-18T19:40:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7770669460296631}, {"content": "Title: marijuana should be legal for rec use Content: marijuana should be legal because it is not bad for you at all. it can not kill you and in some cases is good for you", "qid": 17, "docid": "548752a9-2019-04-18T18:38:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.776986837387085}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized in the United States Content: I will be affirming that Marijuana should be legalized in the United States. My opponent whoever they may be will have to give proof that it shouldn't be legalized. First round will be for acceptance. Good luck to whoever accepts this challange.", "qid": 17, "docid": "bc8b6552-2019-04-18T18:41:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7768468856811523}, {"content": "Title: The United States should legalize marijuana Content: I will be affirming that Marijuana should be legalized in the United States. My opponent whoever they may be will have to give proof that it shouldn't be legalized. First round will be for acceptance. Good luck to whoever accepts this challange.", "qid": 17, "docid": "3c45def3-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7768468856811523}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: I just realized that my topic was a bit vague. What I should have said was \"Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use\". While I still disagree with medical uses, I am most passionate about it being legalized for recreational use. I strongly believe it should not be. You were right regarding the THC chemical. I have no problem doing some more research as you requested, but I hope you can respect that I feel there are better ways to handle medical problems than using marijuana. So, with this topic established, how do you feel about legalizing marijuana for recreational use? The way I see it, doing so would greatly endanger communities.", "qid": 17, "docid": "86fcaef8-2019-04-18T12:12:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.776340126991272}, {"content": "Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: The use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because there are little to no arguments based on scientific fact to say why it shouldn't be. Many people in the United States use marijuana whether it be legal via prescription or illegal, there are no statistics to show a death toll from marijuana use. If marijuana were legal in the same way that alcohol is it may take it out of the category of \"illegal drugs\" therefore somewhat nullifying the \"gateway drug\" argument.", "qid": 17, "docid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7759773135185242}, {"content": "Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.", "qid": 17, "docid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7758023738861084}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7756049633026123}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7754420042037964}, {"content": "Title: legalize cannabis Content: I humbly accept this argument.For the sake of clarity, I offer a more apt resolution: \"Resolved: Cannabis should be legalized.\"Before any argumentation is to take place, I offer these definitions (the accordance of these definitions is to be determined by my opponent):Cannabis: A tall annual dioecious plant (Cannabis sativa), native to central Asia and having alternate, palmately divided leaves and tough bast fibers.Legalize: The act of making lawfulI will present my argument in three contentions:Contention 1: The recreational drug use of cannabis is safer than the use of tobacco products and alcohol (both of which are legal) and does not bear any signficant long-term effects for users that do not have pre-existing mental illness.Contention 2: Cannabis has many medical properties and can be used as an herbal alternative to pharmaceutical drugs.Contention 3: Cannabis in its industrious form, hemp, can be used to make a variety of products including paper, construction material, clothing, rope, fabrics, protein powders, and much more.I suggest the next round's use should be to provide elaboration of the contentions/arguments, and for the initial rebuttals. Definition sources:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnthefreedictionary.com/cannabis", "qid": 17, "docid": "8f1cede1-2019-04-18T18:13:29Z-00008-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7753505706787109}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legal. It isn't as harmful as many legal things. More people die from the use of alcohol and drive under the influence of it. Marijuana isn't addictive like alcohol and it is impossible to overdose on this \"drug\".", "qid": 17, "docid": "59d1f8b8-2019-04-18T18:19:18Z-00009-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.775288462638855}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized. It is nothing less than a drug. Legalizing it increases the likelihood that it will be used. Marijuana is not good for the body or for society. Legalization would endanger the economy, and it would be foolish to do so.", "qid": 17, "docid": "86fcaef8-2019-04-18T12:12:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7750380039215088}, {"content": "Title: marijuana legalized Content: Alright this is my first debate. I know you may not think I am a good debater since no one has seen mine. Marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to the reasons that the high is too powerful for most people to control. I understand it is used for medical purposes as a painkiller, but there are other ways to relieve someone's pain.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6b19fe82-2019-04-18T18:49:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7750377655029297}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana legalization. Content: In this debate I will be arguing that legalizing Marijuana should not be legalized. My opponent must argue why it should be.", "qid": 17, "docid": "946ce747-2019-04-18T16:43:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7750295400619507}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: now when we look at the topic of debate, we can see a couple of things that must be shown before any actual debate begins- First, the burden of proof is on the Pro, in order to win they must prove that marijuana should be legalized; conversely my job as the Con is not to prove it should not be legalized, but that my opponent is wrong. I have no burden of proof to prove. Second, the realm of debate needs to follow whether or not Marijuana should be legalized, meaning that the classification of whether or not it is a drug or an herb is completely and utterly irrelevant. The fact that marijuana is classified as a drug by various people is not the reason it is illegal; If it where then people who took cold medicine, or ibuprofen would be in violation of the law. Now that we have this in mind, I will proceed to disprove my opponent Now currently, marijuana is illegal for the mass of the american society; and there is good reason for this. If there where no logic behind this substance being illegal then it simply would not be illegal. And so for my opponent to win, they need to show us some reason, and reason why the status quo needs to be altered. Thus far my opponent has spoken nothing on marijuana's legality, only on it's substance classification. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to vote for her, and you must default to the Con until she can prove her stance. Thank you, back to Pro :3.", "qid": 17, "docid": "90bdd48b-2019-04-18T18:52:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7744041681289673}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) Content: In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.", "qid": 17, "docid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7743912935256958}, {"content": "Title: Drugs should be legal Content: Drugs should not be legal. Drugs of harder caliber drawl people powerless and incapacitate them. The danger can not be underestimated and the feds should pursue such potent drugs out of american life. Drugs with a peaceful recreational use should be regulated by state and its municipalities. Responsible Use, and Responses to Abuses --should be the focus on lesser mind-altering substances Beer and Wine should be left as is over-the-counter. Tobacco products could be re-regulated(cleaned up) with its consumers well-being coming first. Hard liquor should be tagged with an extra tax, giving way to.. Marijuana Reform..which is so CRUCIAL that one can only wonder why/how it has not already been undertaken in its sensible manner. I have a layout for its reformation..for another argument. Legalizing Drugs could only endanger every human being", "qid": 17, "docid": "c27a55cc-2019-04-18T15:07:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7740384340286255}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal in the United States Content: I believe that Marijuana should not be legal in the United States or even be considered to become legal. I believe Marijuana should not be legal for two reasons. One reason is that there are too many long term effects of Marijuana. Another reason is that if you legalize Marijuana and try to illegalize it, it would be too hard to do. I would like to set some ground rules: 1.) Support your reason with facts for evidence 2.) No opinions are allowed", "qid": 17, "docid": "1d872123-2019-04-18T16:38:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7739536762237549}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be legalized Content: I appreciate that my opponent has made his case in round one, giving me to open with a rebuttal, as I do best (especially given the constraints of the debate).When my opponent says that he thinks marijuana (cannabis) should be legalized, he has not specified where. He also has not stated what about it should be legalized: its possession, its traffic, its cultivation, or anything else. He has just jumped in and stated that it should be legalized, and stated some of its uses. The traffic and possession of marijuana has indeed been decriminalized in a number of countries, so my opponent is being rather ambiguous in his opening argument.Your use of yourself as an example is interesting. I'll do the same: in a sports injury, I once suffered stress fractures of the lumbar (large vertebrae). I did not receive an accurate diagnosis, or treatment, for months, yet took no pain killers. You do not need to be stoned to endure a knee injury.I shall make my own case in one of the next rounds.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d6ea1958-2019-04-18T18:02:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7733696699142456}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: My opponent claims that Marijuana \"Should\" be legal; should indicates an ideological change to the status quo; i. e. \"You should go to bed\" or \"the other canidate should have won\" Point being that the only burden of proof I have is to show why my opponent is wrong, I do no need to make a case for why marijuana is bad or shoud be Illegall That said, let us examine my opponent's argument; First; My opponent makes no clarification of the realm of legality that marijuana will be legal. Are we to assume then that we will be allowing kindergarten children to now legally smoke marijuana dunring recess? Second; My opponent tries to make marijuana seem good by making it sound less harmful than another vice (Alcohol) however we already know that alcohol is bad, thus he really makes no positive case for marijuana and we have no reason to legalize it.", "qid": 17, "docid": "6c710062-2019-04-18T18:52:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7731059789657593}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be nationally legalized? (US) Content: In this debate, we will be debating whether or not marijuana should be nationally legalized. I will debate for Pro/For legalization of marijuana while my opponent will be con/against legalization of marijuana.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d9c294ad-2019-04-18T15:44:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.771855354309082}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: My stance is that Marijuana should be legalized. Round one is Acceptance.", "qid": 17, "docid": "59d20078-2019-04-18T15:03:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.77176833152771}, {"content": "Title: allow weed Content: We (the united states) currently have a lot of states that do NOT allow marijuana (weed) for any purpose and I think this is stupid do you think it should be legal? It's NOT addictive. (despite what some might say)", "qid": 17, "docid": "32391c6d-2019-04-18T16:58:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.771581768989563}, {"content": "Title: Drug Legalization Content: Well, My arguments will consist of arguments for Cannabis legalization. I believe that Cannabis should be legalized for recreational use, But most other drugs such as pills should stay purely for medical use. If you agree with Cannabis legalization, Then I shouldn't have challenged you and I apologize for doing so. Marijuana has been proven through many studies to be less harmful to the human body than cigarettes. THC doesn't have addictive properties. Studies suggest that only 30% of marijuana smokers have some sort of marijuana use disorder. Which is still a somewhat high number, But marijuana is addictive for the same reason that masturbation is addictive, Because of dopamine receptors. Cigarettes however harm the body with Nicotine, And smoking tobacco is proven to cause lung cancer, Which is pretty much common knowledge at this point. I feel that the only reason that cannabis is illegal in most states is because the government cannot tax the people who grow and sell it on their own. I have a feeling that if people couldn't grow it in their homes that it wouldn't be illegal. I will spare you a super long argument because I don't even know if you disagree with me.", "qid": 17, "docid": "74e91666-2019-04-18T11:19:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7712484002113342}, {"content": "Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: Recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized because it leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and other hard drugs. While the use of marijuana may not have adverse health effects on a person and no addictive chemicals it is as afore mentioned a gateway drug. Many people who use hard drugs started out smoking marijuana and wondered \"If i have this much fun being high on pot what could cocaine do for me?\" I understand this isn't the case for everyone who uses marijuana but it is a growing problem in the US.", "qid": 17, "docid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.770917534828186}, {"content": "Title: should weed be legalized Content: I will argue that marijuana should be legal according the the United States Constitution and also to prove that high does not make people crazy, I will be high the entire time I read your arguments and write my own. I look forward to debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "1ee51b76-2019-04-18T13:26:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7708721160888672}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: I would like to argue for the legalization of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use within the United States. First of all, as many states such as California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Jersey, Michigan, Maryland, Hawaii, And the District of Columbia, as well as a handful of other states within the US have legislation approving the use of medical marijuana for different types of patients. This shows that there are legitimate benefits in using marijuana. I am also arguing for the use of marijuana for recreational purposes because of the fact that it can generate an extremely large tax revenue for our country and will help to relieve some of the stress and tension that our national debt has put on individual taxpayers. NORML.COM ( National Organization for Marijuana Legalization) has examined many surveys of the daily and yearly usage of marijuana in the united states and states that between 2.2 and 6.4 billion dollars could be generated from the legalization and taxation of marijuana within the United States. It is no secret to anyone that the current restrictions in place prohibiting the use and distribution of marijuana within the United States are not effective, with the legalization of this drug our government would be able to gain a better control over who can produce marijuana, what chemicals and substances can be used to produce it, who can use the substance, where it can be purchased, and where and when. To anyone who looks at this topic objectively it is easy to see that this is a much safer system for the production and distribution of this product that what is in place today in which a buyer does not really know what they are buying, and the government does not have a share in the revenue that is generated. One more reason that I believe the use, distribution, and production of marijuana should be legalized and regulated within the United States is that the harsh criminal penalties imposed on otherwise harmless offenders of these outdated laws creates a burden on all of society. A portion of our hard earned tax dollars are used by our government to fund the increasingly expensive process of convicting these people and housing them in over crowded prisons. The FBI stated that in 2009 there were 858,408 arrests for marijuana violations within the united states and I feel that the resources and man power used for these violations can be allocated much more efficiently in finding and prosecuting other criminals.", "qid": 17, "docid": "90bdd46c-2019-04-18T18:54:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.770797610282898}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Marijuana dispensaries should be regulated, but allowed", "qid": 17, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00088-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7703592777252197}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. Content: Well my reasoning for the use of marijuana as a recreational drug is that weed could most likely fix the economical problems by taxing weed.And also everyone says its a gateway drug but to be honest in my experience most people who smoke weed dont go on to do cocaine and heroin.", "qid": 17, "docid": "16893daf-2019-04-18T18:37:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7700463533401489}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana dispensaries will exist whether legal or not. Content: Marijuana dispensaries are popping up in places whether it is legal or not. It is better to legalize and regulate these dispensaries then to let them exist under the radar.", "qid": 17, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00103-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7696003913879395}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States (to at least a level equivalent to that of alcohol's) . I will begin by presenting a few main statements and their subset points if they apply. I respectfully request for my opponent to refute them, then I will challenge their arguments. This is simply to establish a sense of organization, please and thank you. Also feel free to add any points you may have or to not address any of mine that you choose (if you don't however, I will assume you either acknowledge my point or cannot refute it). I do not wish to focus on other drugs besides cannabis although I intend to mention them for argumentative purposes if necessary. If you do not understand anything I say, simply ask and I will clarify, no need to be rude. My Arguments 1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization. a) Marijuana is not addictive. b)Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on c) Marijuana's supposed \"negative\" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true. d) The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed e) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user. f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased g) assuming it is true that marijuana's potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged. 2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization. a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country b)The medical benefits of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for many c) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, stopping drugged driving) d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. e)Cannabis integration would benefit our culture and uphold our rights as a nation under the constitution.f ) Violent crime revolving around marijuana will cease. 3.Marijuana Prohibition altogether is a colossal failure. a)The whole purpose of prohibition is to prevent use nationwide, yet, marijuana use is still very prevalent.b)Because of point a, the adverse societal effects of marijuana (however miniscule) are in effect despite of prohibition, therefore prohibition is purposeless. c)It is exactly the same as the 20's alcohol prohibition save for the failure to end it. 4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all.a) Proof of the government's failure to do this is how a constitutional amendment was needed to sign alcohol prohibition into law (and is now beng used to prohibit marijuana). This proves that the views this nation was built on differ from those that allow/support prohibition.", "qid": 17, "docid": "86fca3f3-2019-04-18T17:26:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7687971591949463}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal all across the world Content: 1) Proper grammar and spelling to be used throughout I. e. no text speak 2) If information has been obtained from sources other than your own knowledge please provide link to the source. Now as this is my first round I would like to explain why I feel that marijuana should become legal all across the world. I feel this way as many people see marijuana as a 'gateway' drug and also seen as a substance that is incredibly dangerous to the human body. I am not going it to much detail as I still want plenty of material for further rounds.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d42a9277-2019-04-18T16:35:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7686894536018372}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Recreational marijuana use should be prohibited Content: Rules:1) No trolling!2) Have proper debate etiquette!3) Do not use fake or satire sources! (A list of fake and satire websites can be found here: www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/)4) Use MLA-style citations. (Citation generator: http://www.easybib.com......)Layout:FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCESECOND ROUND IS FIRST ARGUMENTSTHIRD ROUND IS REBUTTALSLAST ROUND IS WHY YOU DID BETTER THAN YOUR OPPONENTDefinition(s):Marijuana - \"the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa).\"PRO ARGUES THAT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USE SHOULD NOT BE LEGALCON ARGUES THAT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USE SHOULD BE LEGALLet the debate begin and good luck to my opponent! :-)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MESSAGE TO VOTERS: TO BE SURE NO VOTING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED BY MODERATORS, I HAVE DISABLED VOTING COMMENTS FOR THIS DEBATE. POST ALL VOTING COMMENTS IN THE COMMENT SECTION, IF YOU WISH TO DO SO.", "qid": 17, "docid": "aca376a0-2019-04-18T13:45:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7683765292167664}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana legalization Content: Thank you for posting your next argument. My opponent says that the point of this debate is not to see the reason why its illegal, but instead to see why it should be legal. If he wanted that kind of debate he should have started a debate with the resolution \"Marijuana should be legalized\" My opponent did not say that, he said that there is no REASON why marijuana is illegal. I have already said what a reason is, a basis or cause, as for some BELIEF. The people who legalized marijuana believed that there were some hazards. My opponent also just picks certain things that he can argue and does not argue my against everything I say. Even though my opponent has one more round left, I heavily urge a con vote. Thank you.", "qid": 17, "docid": "154dda41-2019-04-18T19:13:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7677805423736572}, {"content": "Title: Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal Content: I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.767709493637085}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: I think marijuana should be legalized. For the purposes of the debate, let's assume laws under legalization would make pot similar to alcohol (21 age limit, no driving under the influence, etc.) 1. Other substances Alcohol impairs you more, yet is legal. Cigarettes offer all of the same health concerns, but offer no significant benefit (high) and most cigarette smokers smoke more than marijuana users on a daily basis. Also, marijuana has been medically proven to be non-habit-forming, unlike cigarettes and alcohol. 2. Tax revenue The government could tax and regulate the marijuana industry, generating state revenue at a time when it is needed. Also, the birth of a high demand industry would foster jobs and economic growth. 3. Criminals With the ever growing popularity of marijuana, middle-class people who are not drug or street savvy are having to deal with dangerous people and frequent the more suspect areas of town to procure their product. Legalization would stop this. Also, legalization takes away a large portion of criminal funds, without the cost of policing. By offering the legal sale of marijuana, the criminal organizations who deal it now are out that revenue. 4. Quality The medical purposes of marijuana (while they may be suspect) would be improved with improved quality. If people are able to grow it freely, it can be privatized professionally and developed at lower cost and higher quality yield. 5. Civil Liberties The political history of marijuana is suspect. Many believe it was outlawed under false pretenses (i'll go into detail if so requested). Also, in a free country, a citizen should be able to indulge/harm themselves in any way they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon or danger the rights of others. While other harder substances may offer this risk, the private consumption of marijuana doesn't. I'm looking forward to hearing from someone on this topic. Thanks in advance.", "qid": 17, "docid": "d9e091e3-2019-04-18T19:28:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.767438530921936}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legislation should not pass. Content: Medical marijuana as well as recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized in the United States. I do not live elsewhere so i wont include any other countries. Medical marijuana may have certain benefits, but they are not benefits that out do any other type of medication allotted. Marijuana is a drug. It fogs up your brain and changes your perceptional views of reality; as well as your five sense. Cocaine is also a drug. Cocaine has some benefits. It wakes you up. So should cocaine be legalized in a sense that all professionals are using it to stay awake for work; like energy drinks? I personally don't think so. Medically speaking individuals will begin to find any reason and sore to take the drug. To even have fun and enjoy. That's a little strange if you have a traditional mindset. The world should not go down the wrong path. Marijuana will usually make a user eventually lazy, paranoid, and slow. It is proven that it slows your ability to learn. Recreational use, is a big no no. Recreational use makes it look acceptable to children and young adults. Would you like to walk around and just smell marijuana all the time, lets be honest some people may not think its that pleasant. Would you like to go into work where your coworkers are high? Or out to eat and the couple is high behind you? If many people were stoners it would be a major downfall to society. But in the end it would just weed out the people whom don't fall into social pressure and choices. Children don't need to be exposed to such drugs and them to be embellished and shown as something beneficial. People used to say it was a gate way drug. Looks like society itself will enter the gate lol. Many people whom smoke marijuana are usually the people who want it legalized. Those who haven't experienced the drug may have different opinions. Someone who has smoked in the past. (No longer a user) Am happy to have stopped. In doing so life changes, and it becomes more brighter, and honestly more yourself (and cleaner). There are different choices people can take to ease their pain than taking illegal drugs. HOWEVER (a whole other piece of mind) There is a chance medical marijuana could benefit certain people. But these specific people who get seizures, and have life threatening issues, that only cannabis should treat should have special access to the governmental system in which they specifically receive medical marijuana. Only to those who have had excessive testing. People are trying to get certified because they have a scratch or slight back pain, that is not what the drug is for. Other opinions are welcomed!", "qid": 17, "docid": "2bdac55a-2019-04-18T13:14:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7669531106948853}, {"content": "Title: Cannibas should be legalized in the U.S. Content: My opponent only has one source. The source does not prove any of his points other then the fact that Marijuana is a drug. He has given no proof of why it should be illegal and how it harms others. I however, have proved that legalizing it would help society. Until my opponent Inferno gives reasonable sources for his claims I see no reason why we (especialliy the voters), should actually take it seriously.", "qid": 17, "docid": "4ff0c27e-2019-04-18T18:25:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7669480443000793}, {"content": "Title: Using, selling, growing, or possesing marijuana should be legal Content: Greetings! So, as you can see, this debate will be about the legalization of marijuana. Pro will argue that it should be legal, con will argue that it should be illegal. The rules: - The debate will not be about the US, the UK, Belgium or any other particular country. So please don't quote your constitution. - First round is for acceptance. - No new arguments in the last round The definitions (according to the Oxford dictionary): Use= take or consume (an amount) from a limited supply Sell=give or hand over (something) in exchange for money Grow = cause (plants) to germinate and develop Possess = have as belonging to one; own Marijuana = cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes: Should = used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone\"s actions Be= having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified Legal= permitted by law I 'm looking forward to the debate.", "qid": 17, "docid": "b9e1a102-2019-04-18T17:32:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.766785204410553}, {"content": "Title: marijuana legalization Content: I think marijuana should be legalized. It's safer than alcohol.", "qid": 17, "docid": "cf97ca8b-2019-04-18T16:58:30Z-00009-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7662018537521362}]}
{"query": "Should churches remain tax-exempt?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition", "qid": 18, "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.897458016872406}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.", "qid": 18, "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8543027639389038}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] \"Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.\"For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:\u25a0 the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, \u25a0 net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, \u25a0 no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, \u25a0 the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and\u25a0 the organization\u2019s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: \"We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike.\"[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: \"At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large.\"[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...", "qid": 18, "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.846234142780304}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: Hope you are having a good day! My opponent said, \"Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. \" Sure churches are the center for religion, But they shouldn't be tax exempt. All places that make money pay taxes, Except churches. Churches make money, Lots of it, And they don't donate that much. Also, I just went to your source and found that it has nothing to do with the topic. Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches", "qid": 18, "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8429222702980042}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of \u201cChurch/Mosque/Synagogue\u201d being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word \u201cChurch\u201d will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren\u2019t being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn\u2019t sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn\u2019t matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n\u2019t be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn\u2019t how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business\u2019 are hurt more than large business\u2019. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn\u2019t work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating \u201cendorsement\u201d by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller \u201ccompetitors\u201d. Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I\u2019ll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro\u2019s first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn\u2019t matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn\u2019t really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won\u2019t at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn\u2019t provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I\u2019ll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church\u2019s views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic==", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00008-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8428114652633667}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: In this debate, both individuals will argue that churches should or should not be taxed like other organizations. The debate is to be determined by whichever person has outlined better points for their case. Round 1: Acceptance (Only type that you accept the challenge) Round 2: Argument (State your point / No referencing or rebutting Pro's Argument) Round 3: Rebuttal (Rebut each others Round 2: Arguments) Round 4: Conclusion (Conclude your argument) I wish my opponent the best of luck.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.837482213973999}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions.", "qid": 18, "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8322309255599976}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book \"To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be \u2018double taxation\u2019 indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy.\"[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: \"Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate.\" Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches \"making millions\" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8260982632637024}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from \"a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations\". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.", "qid": 18, "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8228784799575806}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8182071447372437}, {"content": "Title: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: Case 1.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 2. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. Response to what opponent said: This will not be directed at Catholic churches is his main argument and I agree with that so we agree on one thing. Also I personally go to a poor church with like 18 members and it is Apostolic so yeah I know where you are coming from. My solution to what your suggesting would to be just to remove tax exemptions from of course churches with a decent income but with poorer churches give them maybe 5-10 years before removal and time can be extended a bit if church is starting from scratch. It still would be removing their tax exemptions but after a period of time.", "qid": 18, "docid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8158546686172485}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying \"if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right\" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to \"benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;\" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.", "qid": 18, "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8151944279670715}, {"content": "Title: Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe Content: Removing the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups reflects their business-like character. If they are not really serving the community as a whole, they should be held to the same laws that businesses are. The pastor, rabbi, or priest is a CEO. He should pay taxes on his organization to help the Federal Government feed the poor. Particularly if his church is not doing that on its own. There is something wrong when the Federal Government is doing more for the low-income class than the religious groups who bark the loudest about the motivation for doing so. Making them like a normal business in tax world would make sure that they are paying their fair share and not having an unequal market advantage. It would force them to compete better. Churches that are incompetent would fold. Many foolish people would have more time on their hands to actually help their brothers and sisters in their community. Much better than paying your pastor to brainwash you with his interpretation of an ancient religious book he does not really want to obey.", "qid": 18, "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00010-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.812971830368042}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: I would ask Pro if the next round, or perhaps the round after, be made the concluding round. This debate will devolve into repetition and nonsense if we go all 5 rounds. Proposition: My Opponent challenged my view that Tax Exemption is natural. However, he does not elaborate further. Therefore, he has effectively left the matter in my favour. What we earn is naturally ours, ergo, to have what is ours taken is not natural, even if necessary. I will follow up later. Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: My opponent claims that we will simply label churches as Corporations. Counter: Churches are not Corporations. This is simple, objective fact. Pro can no more relabel them then he could relabel me rich. Pro claims that Churches seek to make money. This means nothing. All charities seek to acquire revenue. What matters is the use of this money. A Corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit. A church seeks to gain revenue in order to benefit everyone else, through charitable means. Ergo, the Churches are in fact Charities, and cannot be labeled as anything else, any more then he can relabel the Salvation Army. To do so in order to expand tax revenue would be a grievous abuse of power, and a sign of a Government that is falling beyond the threshold. No, Churches will be labeled as what they are, Charitable organizations. Pro says Tithes are mandatory, I ask for sources. Social Pressures are also given when charities stand outside walmart, or when we are asked to donate at the register. But this doesn\u2019t change the nature of the charities responsible. No, Pro may be too weak to resist social pressure, but he cannot redefine \u201cVoluntary\u201d. No matter how much pressure is applied, the fact that you can say no (Often times without people knowing) means it is completely voluntary. I, for example, did not give tithe in church today. Conclusion: Pro failed to prove that Churches are Corporations, and merely declared them to be so. Or rather, declared that he would label them Corporations, regardless of what they actually are. Counter-Case II: \u201cCounter-Cases\u201d / \u201cCases\u201d Summarization: Pro has attempted to attack my Counters, while presented a new case that Churches aren\u2019t Charities. Counter: \u201cWhen these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. \u201d This is one of the most philosophically bankrupt views I have seen in awhile. Again, to keep what we earn is the natural way, and to be taxed is unnatural, if necessary. To act as though taxation is inherent until otherwise said shows a lack of understanding of the nature of taxation. Saying that government withholding tax is a sign of support further shows his flawed philosophy toward taxation. The inability to distinguish between not having our income stolen, and being money suggests he views our money as Government Property, with the money we have left being our allowance. I will allow the Voters to make of this philosophy what they will. Once the smaller Churches begin going under, Pro will then give them a stimulus. This means taking money from wealthier churches, and giving it to smaller churches, to make up for the tax that is now implemented. This is the endorsement of religion the First Amendment is against. This means benefiting the smaller churches at the expense of the large ones (ironically, more so than Pro\u2019s claim that exemption benefits larger churches more). Or perhaps we not tax them at all, and not need to give taxpayer money to Churches. Or they collapse. Then tax revenue is lost. Now no one gets Social Aid. My opponent declares SCOTUS to be the final authority, yet again committing the Appeal to Authority, without giving evidence that they are right. SCOTUS has been wrong before. They are largely an opinion with authority, whereas my sources are academic. I have shown the flaw in their reasoning, Pro has not shown flaw in my sources. Pro says that our education system is underfunded, without source. I have sourced that it is among the most well-funded in the world. All other problems are in administration, and therefore extra funding won\u2019t help. Our SS problems are derived from a broken system. Money will be wasted without change. Pro fails to express how taking the money from a charity, and wasting half of it will benefit us more than just letting the Charity use the money. Paying the debt is no better than war. It is taking more money to pay for the government's own inefficiencies, rather than trying to fix it from the government\u2019s (expenditure) end. Pro fails to show how these churches are not charitable. Rather, he makes the unsubstantiated claim that they \u201ckeep a cut for themselves\u201d. What he is referring to is unknown, and thus irrelevant. Any administrative/maintenance/debt costs are normal for charities. They are still Charities. Scientology has a controversial tax status. It has even been revoked because it didn\u2019t meet the requirements to be a non-for-profit Church. {1} Thus Churches can lose status. Pro also mentions that bureaucracy won\u2019t waste the money. I sourced that there was waste. Here is another {2} Conclusion: Pro\u2019s Counters fail to dispel my arguments, and he fails to revive his own. As it stands, his logic is shown to be faulty. Pro says my argument relies on Churches being Charity, but as this is the established fact about Churches, it is actually Pro\u2019s job to show they are not Charities. He has failed in this endeavor, as his statements, when looked at carefully, can be seen to apply to any Charity. His failure to show that churches can even be taxes further defies his claim that taxing them will benefit social programs. He further continues making unsubstantiated claims that adding money to these programs will help, when I have shown the problems are often not financial. Sources: 1} Wikipedia: . http://bit.ly... 2} Slate: . http://slate.me... Case: Long-Term Loss Thesis: I will show here that increasing taxation will only lead to a less successful future, with a dangerous precedent in place, and decreased taxation is prefered. Rationalization: A fact that many people seem not to realize is that taxation harms long term economic growth {3}. With less capital, business/people have less spare income for expansion. This will not change for churches. Their decreased growth will lead to the revenue from them dropping overtime relative to inflation and government spending. Eventually, the Social assistance gained from this tax (which is already less than lost by taxing charities) will further decline relative to had the Churches been able to simply invest the money into expension (something Charities are allowed to do). But worse, is the precedence. After taxing the Churches, the Government will find that it is not enough. Because 71 Billion won\u2019t fix the anything. Instead of fixing their fiscal incompetence, they simply added a tax, on a 501c3 eligible group with strong legal defenses. The precedence is almost certainly set. If it has already been set (very likely given increasing tax/GDP ratio {4}), it will be further enforced. New taxes, expanded taxes. This will lead to slowed economic growth, and cause long-term harm to revenue. If taxes are lowered instead, the economy will grow from increased investment/ease-of-business. The increase in economy will eventually reach a point will more revenue can be brought in with lower and less taxes. A long-term solution, along with fixing the bureaucratic mess, and destroying waste. Far better and more efficient than the short-term solution of taxing more, which will only necessitate (and precedate) further taxation increases. Conclusion: Pro\u2019s economic policies would see decreased economic/church growth, leading to a situation where tax revenues will be lower (relative to inflation) in spite of higher tax rates. Lower taxes and smaller/efficient government is best. Sources: 3} TPC: . http://tpc.io... 4} . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro fails to resuscitate his arguments, often merely repeating them without further elaboration. He fails to realize that simply referring to SCOTUS\u2019 position doesn\u2019t justify their claims. Pro doesn\u2019t really make any headway against my claims, beyond relying on the notion that he can tax them as something they aren\u2019t (Corporations). And if they don\u2019t fit the classification, he\u2019ll tax them as such anyhow. This doesn\u2019t work, and Pro failed to show Churches to be anything but Charities, as his descriptions of the churches are little different than other Charities once analyzed. Perhaps most crippling is Pro revealing his faulty philosophy toward taxation, implying that theft of our earned money is natural, and to be allowed to keep all of our earned income is a gift from government. This is a dangerous notion. Pro may not have stated this philosophy word-for-word, but the implication is there. Especially, when he says not having our money taken is the same as being given money. This is a stockholmesque view. Taxation is Theft. Taxation is necessary, but it is theft. It must be done carefully, and every single effort must be made to keep it as low as possible. If government fails in this endeavour, and choses to keep raising tax, then it must be seen as an aggressive parasite to our economic system, taking more, and giving less. Pro would prefer this parasite, because his disdain for religion justifies expanded taxation on charities simply due to their religious nature. {5/6} Sources: 5} . http://bit.ly... 6} Mises: . http://bit.ly...", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8064567446708679}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: 1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)", "qid": 18, "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8027065992355347}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: INTRO: Yes rich churches have overall a lot of money and are using it wrong I agree that is a problem that must be fixed but there is one thing this resolution forgets to back up and why judge it can\"t be passed. The reason I am going neg today is because I believe the tax exemptions should only be removed from churches that are rich not the poor churches that actually need it. 1.Poor churches need the money \"Not enough to pay off tax emptions \"A lot of smaller churches start out in poorer areas 2.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. So yes I agree that rich churches shouldn't have this money but what you have to understand is their are poor churches that doe. I personaly go to one that has about 10 members without tax emptions we wouldn't survive. NOt all churches are good big buildings in fact a lot of Baptist or apostolic or those religions have buildings in poorer areas.", "qid": 18, "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8017458915710449}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: 1. Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a deep-rooted historical practice. In Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it requires an extremely strong case to overturn a rooted historical practice. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to make such a case. 2. The bulk of my opponent's argument focuses on the first amendment, which forbids any law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" This prohibits direct state aid to religious institutions, but it does not prevent \"incidental\" aid which is neutral among sects. Thus, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned as follows: \"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding the church support the state.\" If churches are taxed, it would actually create an impermissible entanglement between church and state, as it would DEMAND every religious SUPPORT the state. This would be unconstitutional, as it would create a law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" It would also violate the Free Exercise clause, as it would challenge the religious view that religious institutions have tax-exempt status. The purpose of the first amendment is to establish religious liberty and to maintain neutrality among different (often opposed) religious groups. It is therefore imperative that churches are given tax-exempt status, as a tax on churches would violate the fundamental premises of the first amendment.", "qid": 18, "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.801118016242981}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Content: In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): \"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: \"Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. \" [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. \"Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes \"Pulpit Freedom Sunday,\" encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status.\" [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, \"The Church of America,\" www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, \"Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit,\u201d iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011", "qid": 18, "docid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7952331304550171}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.", "qid": 18, "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7939081192016602}, {"content": "Title: Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. Content: I will contend against tax exemptions for religious institutions.My opponent will contend for tax exemptions for religious institutions. Burden of proof will be equally shared.Definitions will be common definitions unless otherwise expressed and agreed upon.StructureRound one acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to your opponent's arguments yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to your opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to your opponent's round three.Thanks in advance for accepting.", "qid": 18, "docid": "439c18e2-2019-04-18T12:33:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7925041913986206}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Argument 1: Tax exemption constitutes an endorsement of religion. Tax exemptions give these institutions more money. This is a simple fact. Regan v. Taxation with Representation (US Supreme Court) decided that a tax exemption has the same effect as a cash grant. This is unconstitutional. Argument 2: Tax exemption favors larger churches, which are often predatory. This credit varies from church to church. Your average church may pull in a good amount, but definitely not as much as Kenneth Copeland's church worth hundreds of millions of dollars. A larger amount of money would be taken from his church if it was taxed than your average church. This means the bigger churches (which don't need help) are helped more. Sadly, these big churches are often the predatory ones, taking money from sick people in exchange for a promise of healing that never comes. Argument 3: We need the money Source 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source 2: http://bigthink.com... According to source 1, churches have $300-500,000,000,000 in untaxed property. According to source 2, this could make us $71 billion per year. This could have paid for the war in Vietnam. This can pay for free college tuition (estimated cost $60 billion per year). This could be channeled into social security to increase benefits or to be saved for the future. It could be used to help the drastically underfunded VA. This money could be used for so many things that are a good for all of society.", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00009-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.790972113609314}, {"content": "Title: Should Churches Pay Taxes Content: I thank Zwatt for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent has made opening round arguments, this gives me licence to open with arguments, too. I am going, at least initially, to use the United States as an example of why churches should not pay taxes. Negation Case A1: The First Amendment In the United States, \u201cthe First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances\u201d [1]. It would violate the U.S constitution to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. It would also violate the right to freedom of expression (freedom of speech) in that the government could shut down or reprimand a church that defaults on their payments, which would not allow them freedom to expression. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court found this very conclusion to be the just one: \u201cthe power to tax involves the power to destroy\u201d [3]. Violating the constitution strips humans of their basic human rights, which are natural and require good arguments to explain why they should be infringed upon. A2: Churches are not-for-profit Not-for-profit organisations are not taxed because they are not charging for a service. You can attend your local church, receive a service and not pay a dime. Yes, there are collection bowls, but you are not required to give anything, unlike a business wherein you will not be served if you do not pay. So, my opponent\u2019s claims of \u201creligion in general is a multi-billion dollar business\u201d is incorrect, for religion does not register as a business. Religion meets the \u2018tax-exemption\u2019 requirements of 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and hence classifies as a not-for-profit organisation [2]. Therefore, taxing churches would violate this religious legislation which exists to protect not-for-profit organisations since not-for-profit organisations contribute to the public\u2019s wellbeing without charging a price. What my opponent is suggesting is equivalent to taxing charities which also fall under the tax exemption of 501 (c)(3). A3: Disadvantaged and poor people rely on assistance from churches If churches were to be taxed, churches would suffer according to Vincent Becker (Monignor at the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, \u201c[his church] base[s] all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings\u201d [4]. In effect, what this will mean is that the once charitable services performed by the churches would now be eliminated or delegated to local governments. A4: Church members who donate will be taxed twice First, there will be an initial income taxing for the members, Then, the money that is donated will be taxed again the church is taxed. Why is it fair to tax these institutions twice? A5: Small churches will suffer greatly A survey, undertaken in 2010, found that \u201ccongregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover\u201d [5]. If churches were forced to pay taxes on top of that, a lot of church\u2019s existences would be threatened [7]. Counter-Arguments \u201cYes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes\u201d Here, my opponent has committed a Negative Proof Fallacy, in which he shifts the burden of proof onto the people who should be negating [6]. Seeing that he is to affirm, he is the one to give reasons why \u201cchurches should pay taxes\u201d (i.e. the resolution). To put this into perspective, it would be like him asking me to disprove that pink unicorns exist (his effective words: show why churches should not be taxed), and if I cannot, then pink unicorns exist (his words: \u201cthere is no legitimate reason\u201d). \u201c\u2026just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt.\u201d As shown earlier, churches are exempt due to not-for-profit status, not due to \u201cclaim[ing] religious belief\u201d. \u201cReligion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.\u201d As shown earlier, religions are not businesses. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.irs.gov... [3] John Marshall, US Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland, supreme.justia.com, 1819 [4] Brian Quinn, \"Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?,\" www.wellsvilledaily.com, Mar. 1, 2011 [5] Nicole Neroulias, \"Study: Churches Inching Back from Recession,\" www.usatoday.com, Apr. 20, 2011 [6] http://rationalwiki.org... [7] Scott Tibbs, \"Should Churches Pay Taxes?\" ConservaTibbs.com, June 24, 2009", "qid": 18, "docid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7909258008003235}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: So, I will let Pro start. I am offering the following definitions: \"Private non-profit clubs\" - will be known as social clubs, and subject to 501 (c) (7) categorization. Churches will be categorized as a 501 (c) (3). Con stipulates that laws vary from state to state, which means that in some states, a church may or may not be treated differently. For the purposes of this debate, we shall assume there is indeed different tax implications for each category. As such, we will focus on the federal (IRS) definitions of these non-profits for this debate, since if the IRS says they are tax-exempt, they are for state purposes as well (whatever that entails). The debate is over whether social clubs ought to be treated equally to churches for ALL tax purposes. Good luck to Pro. If Pro does not agree to these terms, say so in the next round, and we will quickly end the debate in a tie, thus allowing Pro to issue a new challenge without revealing his hand.", "qid": 18, "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7894314527511597}, {"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:\"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay\" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a \"megachurch\" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: \"If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith\u2026I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. \" [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: \"no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. \" [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): \"Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. \" [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup \"faiths,\" which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that \"exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations\" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend \"seminars. \"The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a \"thriving cult of greed and power\" and \"a hugely profitable global racket,\" was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this \"saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. \" 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish \"megachurches\" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, \"when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. \" [9]10) The \"parsonage exemption\" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy \u2014 and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.789366602897644}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: I agree with my opponent\"s definitions. I disagree with their proposition II which states that the natural state is not being taxed. Rather, churches are corporations, not charities, which are subject to tax. This is how I plan to implement the resolution, by changing churches\" status to that of a corporation. First, let\"s look at what a corporation is through looking at what it attempts to do. A corporation\"s goal is to make money [1]. This is exactly what religion has done since the dawn of time. Since ancient Mesopotamia and before, religions have required sacrifices of property to be part of said religion, sometimes enforced at gunpoint. This isn\"t the case now in most of the world, but let\"s take churches in America as an example. The collection box, basket, etc. is passed around in front of sometimes the entire town. This incredible social pressure combined with the fact that many religions command a tithe make it so that \"donation\" is not truly voluntary. You pay for the service of religion. This is how religion has been viewed by the cynical upper class for millennia, and why the cynical upper class proselytizes. Thus, the burden of proof is on both of us. I must prove that churches are corporations (see above) and my opponent must either prove they are not or that churches must be an exception to other corporations. 1-http://www.investopedia.com... Counter-Case I My opponent makes the point that allowing groups to keep money doesn\"t count as an endorsement. That is EXACTLY what it is. When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. When the government chooses not to act on this, it shows the government is in support of the group. Thus, the government is neutral towards the private citizen and the corporation, but not to the charity. My opponent called my use of the SCOTUS an appeal to authority, but if that\"s an appeal to authority, so is every source we both used. The SCOTUS decides what the Constitution means. They decided that the government giving money to a lobbying church is no different from tax exemption [2]. I take that line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion and say that the government giving money to a church is no different than a tax exemption. My opponent claims that our money doesn\"t start as the government\"s to take. Rather, when a group such as a church enters a democratic government, they give the government permission to tax them, as I note above. My opponent also makes the claim that small churches could fall under and fail. So what? The government can then provide an economic stimulus as it would to any other business, or let it file for bankruptcy or die. The government is in no position to keep a failing business afloat. If so many would go under, though, churches can utilize tax credits given to small businesses once classified as them. My opponent then points out that we shouldn\"t take money from the rich simply because they are rich. That\"s not what I\"m saying. I\"m saying that 30% of a million is more than 30% of a thousand. We are allowing these large, predatory churches to grow exponentially, leaving the smaller churches (often the ones doing the charity work my opponent references) in the dust, thus incentivizing churches to adopt this model. 2-https://en.wikipedia.org... Counter-case II First, Con discounts my source because it\"s a blog. Well, the Washington Post puts the number possibly higher while referencing the same study. [3] Con talks about bureaucratic waste and how funneling more money in to programs doesn\"t solve that. First, our education system is worse than others not because of bureaucracy but because of a lack of funding for poor schools and because our focus on testing and curriculum sucks. However, college is a different sort of thing. Our universities are some of the best in the world. [4] More money helps more people access them. On social security, Con points out it is well funded by the payroll tax. I don\"t dispute that. But Con\"s source points out that some people may be entitled to as few as around 10,000 dollars per year. That\"s less than the poverty line, which is already too low. This money could be used to increase their benefits. On the Vietnam War, that comes from the standpoint of the Ford or Carter administration which wants to offset the damage done. The examples Pro gives of bureaucracy gone awry aren\"t where the money will go, and so the bureaucracy isn\"t the problem here. Hell, the money could simply be used to pay off the debt! 3- https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4- https://www.timeshighereducation.com... Case The Con\"s case rests on the church being a charity. A church\"s motivation is not to be a charity, nor does being a church necessitate charitability. Take Scientology. Not exactly a charity. It exists to make money. Even the smaller churches which may be genuine in their efforts to be charitable take a cut for themselves, and the charity is merely an additional \"product\" they sell to their members who want to be charitable. Join the church, pay a tithe, and you can be charitable. When something exists to make money, and second help their consumers, it is no longer a charity; it is a corporation, and ought to be treated as such. Conclusion We need to implement this resolution through making churches considered corporations because that\"s what they are, not charities. We can use this money to fund things listed above, or countless others.", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7889763116836548}, {"content": "Title: A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: cont 1:Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? cont 2: misuse of money/lies \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property.", "qid": 18, "docid": "7dd07516-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.787632942199707}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Premise:Churches ( referring to place of worship) have to go under stringent IRS protocol. Premise:Religions like Scientology and the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster do not fulfill these criteria. Premise:One of the Biggest reasons why Churches are not taxed is to show separation of church and state, as seen in Supreme Court ruling of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. Conclusion:Taxing religious organizations that follow the rules of the IRS is in strict violation of the first amendment. http://www.irsvideos.gov... http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7866208553314209}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: I don\"t understand how your debate relates to the topic. Did you accidentally put this on the wrong debate? If so fell free to tell me in the comments of this debate. Anyways, Churches make money, And don\"t donate that much away. The should be taxed for what they make. That is all I have to say.", "qid": 18, "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7860330939292908}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: My opponent has once again forfeited a round. No clear rebuttal was made by my opponent. No closing argument was made by my opponent. This is unfortunate as I believe this was an interesting and thought-provoking topic. With that said, I would like to thank my opponent for the initial argument and look forward to any and all challenges on the topic in the future. In closing, I have provided my audience with what I believe to be a convincing argument for the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the Government. Furthermore, I aimed to provide a convincing rebuttal against my opponents initial claims. In doing so, it is my hope that I have provided a convincing argument for my audience to ponder when personally deliberating this topic. I ask humbly that you please consider my opponents forfeits when casting your vote.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7855928540229797}, {"content": "Title: That we should tax religions. Content: Today, I am proud to propose the topic 'That we should tax religions'. I wish to represent the PRO side. We will argue that religions should be taxed. I expect that my opponent on the CON side will argue that religions should continue to have a tax-exempt status. ==DEFINITIONS== 'We'- America 'Religions'- Organizations that preach about the role of deities [1]. 'Tax'- A government placing a debt onto an individual or company to raise revenue [2]. My model will be as follows: \u2022 Religions will be taxed in line with ordinary tax rates for businesses and \u2022 Charitable work completed by religions will be tax-exempt. I recognize that as instigator I hold the burden of proof. For this reason, I ask my opponent not to begin his argument until round two. This debate will have four rounds. I thank my opponent in advance and look forward to this debate. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7851365208625793}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:\"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a \"rock star\" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim \"avoiding\" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a \"franchise\" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also inci\u00addentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net invest\u00adment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses prop\u00aderty both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for exam\u00adple, a building in which the foundation\u2019s charita\u00adble and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7797518968582153}, {"content": "Title: remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Content: Religious institutions are not created to be Tex-Exempt, ergo taxation is needed to stimulate the economy as well as to ensure no fraud is being perpetrated from these institutions. \"With the smallest Catholic Churches in America seeing money in the range of $350,500.00/month cross their nose, fraud and scams run rampant. Thus taxation is the one sure fire way to keep them honest. This won't be used to target strictly Catholics. Muslim mosques, Jewish sinnogaues(Spelling error, my bad), and other types of religious establishments will be taxed as is seen fit by the IRS. \" said Iowa Senator Jenna Hurst(L) at a 2013 conference. This will be the backbone of my argument and following contentions. I anxiously await your response and any questions you may have.", "qid": 18, "docid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7795538902282715}, {"content": "Title: That we should tax religions. Content: When we look at the religions of today, we see increasingly grand and decadent churches, mosques and synagogues, while at the same time we see secularism rising exponentially [1,2], and all of this begs the question: why should a purportedly secular government not be treating religions like the rest of us? Why are religions considered tax-exempt while businesses and individuals are taxed? But firstly, what is our tax system and why are some organizations not taxed? A tax system in a Western Democracy is a simple on a principled level. The purpose of taxation is so that public services can be made available to all. But in our tax system we allow certain organizations to be let off the hook when it comes to taxation because we believe that these organizations operate to benefit the community as a whole. We can see this particularly clearly when we consider that the organizations that are tax-exempt are predominately charities, trade unions and art organizations [3]. The standard for tax-exemption is clearly the overall public benefit to everyone of the society. In the instance of religions, given that recent surveys suggested there were as many as 45 million people in the United States who were not religious, we think that religious organizations don't help the wider population, and for this reason they should be taxed. Secondly, we believe in the separation of church and state and that allowing religions to be tax-exempt effectively violates this separation for two main reasons. Firstly, we think that not taxing religions gives them in-principle support, which a secular government should not do. Secondly, on a practical level, in the current situation we see a government that is forced to decide which religions are valid and which are not. Currently, our government must decide whether it should tax religions such as scientology [4] (which is currently untaxed by the United States but is by major nations such as France), which many consider to be criminal. Scientology has allegedly abused its members [5] and been involved in other criminal activity. I would ask my opponent: under his model, would religions like this be taxed, or would the government continue to allow a seemingly immoral organization off the hook? Thirdly, we see that religions often have a negative effect on their community. I have already discussed scientology, which is an important example. But even more mainstream religions have a negative impact. Consider America's most widespread religion, Christianity [1]. We think it has a negative impact in twomain ways. Firstly, we say that the church has been accused of worldwide instances of abuse, and that it has even been threatened by legal action in a trial of war crimes in regard to this abuse [6]. Allegations of abuse of children to the highest levels, and the admission by the Pope that he personally has covered up these scandals [6] show the widespread nature of these practices. The government should not be treating these organizations as charitable, or as benefiting the whole community. Secondly, many Christian doctrines take part in inherently prejudiced practices; in some doctrines women are not allowed to become priests, and moreover the religion as a whole has moved against gay marriage [7]. Because religions have a net negative impact on society as a whole, we should tax them, as we do ordinary members of society. I wish my opponent luck for the next round. https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nytimes.com... Robertson, Geoffrey, The Case of the Pope; Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 18, "docid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.776431679725647}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: I accept this debate, and as per the rules put forth by Con, I will begin by arguing that the United States should remove tax exemptions from religious institutions. In America, approximately $71 billion worth of tax exemptions are provided to religious institutions each year [1]. Basically, the government is subsidizing religions, making everyone pay for them to continue to run. There are multiple reasons why this is problematic. In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. With the government subsidizing churches, the line between church and state starts looking skewed. For example, with all of the push from the right wing against Obama, churches were actually telling their constituents that God wants them to vote a certain way, or more specifically for a certain candidate [2]. The institution that claims to hold the answer and the key to everyone\"s afterlife should never begin to tell people that God wants them to vote a certain way. More specifically, threatening eternal hellfire if you vote for a specific person is wrong on almost every level. When you start to look at the exemptions, it very much resembles what is going on with tax loop holes with large corporations. These large companies (and religions) will benefit by a certain party in power, because that party pushes to maintain or increase the exemptions, therefore increasing the wealth of the organizations. In return, the organizations give back to the party. In the case of corporations, they provide political \"donations\" to the parties. Once again, in return, they get a party who is willing to push for legislation to make them more money. In the case of religions, they make money from the exemptions and in return, they push specific political ideologies. It is a constant circle in which both sides benefit (one gets more votes and the other gets more money). It is also problematic because in providing all of these exemptions, it is costing more tax dollars to the majority of the population. It would be one thing if only people of a certain faith were paying for their church to grow in terms of both wealth and power, but when everyone has to pay money, regardless of religious beliefs (or a lack of such beliefs) then there is a serious problem. Consider that certain religious organizations are very vocal against certain other groups. Why should a homosexual atheist have to pay money to subsidize the building of a church that preaches to disallow gay marriage or even to criminalize homosexuality? To liken religious institutions to corporations even more, let\"s look at a list of the ten wealthiest religious leaders in America [3]. Why does any man, preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ need be worth $18 million and have two mansions, or have a $1 million annual salary and own a $1.4 million mansion? Isn\"t Jesus the one who said \"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God\"? It almost seems humorous, how hypocritical the extreme right wing has become in America. They are so against paying taxes or have the government be in control of anything, unless the tax money they pay goes towards religion (not just our own religions, but everyone\"s) or military. The people who are the most anti-tax and anti-government are the most willing to have government funding religion, and the people who should be most against fighting and killing (war) and against government growing in strength and power, are the ones most willing to put trillions of dollars into the building of massive, deadly weapons to go kill countless numbers of others. There should not be tax exemptions for religious institutions because it goes against the idea that the church and state are two separate entities in the sense that they both become politically motivated to work together in order to benefit each side. Religions should get their money from the people who are willing (or threatened, by threat of eternal damnation) to donate to the church to which they belong. [1] http://www.patheos.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://rollingout.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.775117039680481}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I\"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations", "qid": 18, "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7743807435035706}, {"content": "Title: Churches Paying Taxes Content: Churches should pay taxes because they are just like other companies that pay taxes. Churches make money, And all companies who make money get taxed. By taxing churches their would be an estimated $71 billion worth of taxes. $71 billion is a lot of money that could be spent to benefit the world. Yes, Churches do donate money, But the Mormon church spends only. 7% of their annual income on charity. The American Red Cross spends 92. 1% of their income to assist people. \"Wal-Mart, For instance, Gives about $1. 75 billion in food aid to charities each year, Or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012)\" Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches", "qid": 18, "docid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7723472118377686}, {"content": "Title: resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Content: My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation.", "qid": 18, "docid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7705636024475098}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: Churches should receive donations tax free. However, this should not exclude them from the various other forms of taxes.(Image via The Washington Post) I. Property TaxChurches are not required to pay property taxes on their land or buildings. A pastor in Weddington NC purchased a $1.4 million mansion in October of 2013. The mansion features 16,000 square feet with 7 \u00bd bathrooms, according to building permits. The land cost another $325,000, for a total cost of more than $1.7 million. In the year 2013, this luxury home managed to skip out on roughly $344,690.00 (Calculated via http://www.iras.gov.sg...) in property tax.(Picture of pastor's home in Weddington NC. Via WCNC News) II. Sales TaxWhen churches buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. From a $2 box of pencils to a $3,000 big screen television churches are not required to pay one cent. Lets take the television and do the math. At an 8.25% sales tax, the $3,000 television would equal to $247.50. Lets be realistic however, what church only has a television inside of it? Take this time to use your imagination. Think of the average American church, and ponder at how much money in sales tax is being avoided.(Picture of the inside of a church) III. Capital Gains TaxWhen they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. A Mormon mall named the City Creek Center, located in Salt Lake City (2 Billion Dollar Tax Free Project) is one such place that profits from a lack of capital gains tax. It does not take someone with a degree in finance to fathom how much money a super mall like this profits, again tax free. (Picture of City Creek Center) IV. Why these numbers matterThe substantial amount of money that churches across the country avoid via taxes, is mind blowing. A recent study conducted by the Council of Secular Humanism, compiled numbers into an easily readable chart. 72 Billion Dollars a Year in tax exemptions. You could feed 3,600,000,000 starving people a day, or 9,863,013 people for an entire year! Did I mention that is three square meals a day?V. Why churches should pay taxes?To simplify, churches are earning astonishing amounts of money through various flawed tax exemptions. Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious establishments should go unchecked. No, separation of church and state is to protect religious beliefs from governing our politics. Tax exemptions should only be applied to donations to the church.Thank you.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.768489420413971}, {"content": "Title: Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. Content: The reason why religious institutions should not be taxed is because of the first amendment. The first amendment states the following-\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. \" The problem with taxes is that not every religion will be taxed the same. If a religion is taxed less than another than that could be viewed as respecting an religion over another, which is against the first amendment. Also churches use the tithes as ways to build churches, temples, and/or meeting houses to areas that don't have such buildings. With taxes that could be prohibiting someone from worshiping by taking the money that could go toward building a church house and giving it to the government. Also the separation of state and church which means that both are separate and taxes don't follow this rule. I pass it to my opponent. sources . http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "qid": 18, "docid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7676312923431396}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Religious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status. Many amass great wealth and vast media empires - all of it off the tax rolls. They can afford to pay taxes.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7651587724685669}, {"content": "Title: Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify Content: An example might be an emerging group that informally meets at someone's home. They do not have the tax benefits that official churches have because they do not have the lobbying power or the time to negotiate a charitable status from the gatekeepers in government. Removing the tax favoritism that most churches enjoy would simply level the playing field and make sure new religious philosophies that are beneficial do not get squished because of political favoritism. Many of the early religious reformers had to flee persecution because they did not have the political mojo of the larger denominations. Removing the larger groups' tax-exempt status would force them to stay relevant and profitable to the community.", "qid": 18, "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00012-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7645242214202881}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Premise: Not all religious organizations enjoys tax breaks, only those our government deems legitimate. Premise: The way in which the government chooses which religious organizations to not tax seems unfair. Conclusion: Therefore, all churches should have to pay government taxes", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7635025382041931}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches\"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about\"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.\"\"All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7633309960365295}, {"content": "Title: Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Content: Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7630610466003418}, {"content": "Title: Churches Ought not be Taxed Content: Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.", "qid": 18, "docid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7626646757125854}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club \"may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public\" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs \"must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments\", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. \"Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status.\" I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.", "qid": 18, "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7623811364173889}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed. Content: 'It is said that death and tax are the only two certainties in life, it's ironic the church dodge both these, the latter quite literally.R John'The anti-theist group I am part of on facebook posted this quote and it really made me want to find out your views on the fact churches are not taxed! I would like to make it clear that I am refering to American churches when I say this. I shall be Pro; Chruches should be taxed. Please no trolling, thank you.", "qid": 18, "docid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7610273361206055}, {"content": "Title: Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. Content: Religious institutions essentially evade 71 Billion dollars in tax revenue each year. The congregations of Christian religions tithe so why not pay some of that to the state and federal like everyone else. A church should not be considered special in comparison with other citizens of the United States.", "qid": 18, "docid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7596020102500916}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: You are right to say that Churches save money by having tax exceptions. But any money they do make is going right back into the community. These organizations are responsible for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and after-school programs for poor families. Religious leaders do not get to pocket the money for themselves. Religious organizations are among some of the top non profit organizations in the US ( YMCA, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Charities USA, etc. ). Think about the consequences of taxing these organizations. All that money that would be going to the needy, would instead, be going to the IRS.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7566360831260681}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: If I were President, I would tax churches only .5%. Think about it. If a church makes $100, we (the government) are only taking fifty cents of that. If five churches make $100, the government will only get $2.50. \"What does the government get out of this?\" you may ask. Well, where I live, in Ohio, there's at least ten churches in about 10 square miles. And they make (most likely) more than $100 dollars. Churches can go on their missions that don't really help, and the government gets more money to pay off China. Everybody wins.", "qid": 18, "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7548993229866028}, {"content": "Title: End tax breaks for religious organizations Content: I would not be debating with you if every priest was driving a Ferrari 458. But obviously that just not true. Do you really think we would not be paying the same amount of taxes, if we made churches pay taxes? Organizations like the Red Cross would cease to exist. Making the Government responsible to fill in. Where do you think the Government is going to get that money from? That's right, you and me. Organizations like the Red Cross and YMCA are able to do what they do,because they don't have to worry about taxes. By Taxing Churches you are actually hurting people not helping, not only that, risking the chance of our taxes going up to continue the programs these organizations already do.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7547793388366699}, {"content": "Title: End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations Content: P1: It is made clear in the American Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, churches and other religious establishments should not have benefit over its people nor should Congress discriminate when it comes to tax breaks. P2: By allowing churches and other religious establishments to not pay their taxes, the burden is then shifted to us as regular citizens to have to pay those taxes for them. That means an extra percentage taken out of our hard earned paychecks to cover the loss of taxes not paid by these religious establishments. The money has to come from somewhere and if its not equally being attributed then someone else has to pay for. C: Tax breaks should end for religious organizations. 1) taxthechurches.org 2)taxthechurches,org", "qid": 18, "docid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7530786991119385}, {"content": "Title: There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. Content: I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay", "qid": 18, "docid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7528014183044434}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: I am OK if we make the 3rd round the final round. Proposition: My challenge is what Con referred to later, which is my statement that joining society necessitates being taxed (essentially). I will rebut their attack to that here. One thing Con notes is that my philosophy treats money as the government's. In a literal sense, yes it is. All currency is government property, and the government is the only thing giving the dollar, pound, yen, etc. any value. However, that's probably not what Con referred to (I make that argument in case it was). The government needs money to run. No dispute there by Con. That money must come in the form of taxes. Taxing certain arbitrary groups more or less than others is unnatural. Ergo, taxing churches removes the arbitrary distinction (I will show the arbitrary distinction later when I defend my point that churches are businesses, thus validating my point here). Corporate Tax To quote Con, \"a corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit.\" Well, most churches do this. The church leaders are paid a salary. This salary is generally proportional to the income of a church, just as with a business. In fact, the church leaders are the only group always benefited by a church. Con says a church seeks to benefit everyone else through charitable means. Nothing about being a church NECESSITATES this. None of the ones I went to growing up did such a thing. Let's remind ourselves that the purpose of a church is to be a place for worship or other religious activities, and that religion is not necessarily charitable. I had assumed that it was common knowledge that some churches require a tithe. This well off church [1] (I assume they're well off if they have a website) requires tithing. The social pressures go beyond merely standing outside of Walmart, but it often goes further in places like Utah. These ex-Mormons tell of how much one has to lose by leaving the church (and thus it loses financial support) [2]. 1-http://www.tfh.org... 2-http://exmormon.org... Counter-cases Con claims an economic stimulus constitutes an endorsement of religion. True, it creates an excessive entanglement, which is why it only should be given if the government can ensure it is solely used for secular purposes, and why I said it \"could\" be used. My preferred solution is simply allowing them to take advantage of small business tax credits. It shouldn't be any worse if a church goes under than if a bakery goes under. The so-called appeal to authority in this case is justified. Why? Because the argument the SCOTUS makes is justified by my earlier argument about taxation being the natural state. On the education system being underfunded, I meant that it is not evenly funded. It is often funded through property taxes (common knowledge), meaning that schools in poor areas are worse. Con claims the social security system is broken. Con doesn't show how, and SS is certainly working fine now. Con also says that paying the debt is no better than war. This is simply wrong. The problem exists. Reducing spending stops it, and begins to slowly chip away. More money helps solve it, or slows it down until Congress can get its act together. On the DoD waste, Con's source notes that the Pentagon is already working to get rid of the waste, and the money can still be used elsewhere. Economic growth Con's own source says that tax cuts harm the economy-essentially, a really low tax rate also harms the economy. This means there's a sweet spot-probably between 25 and 40 percent, which is where it's been for the Obama and Clinton administrations, which have had sustainable economic growth [common knowledge]. Thus, the current business tax rate is a lot closer to the sweet spot of economic growth than 0%. Conclusion Vote Pro to protect the separation of church and state, to give the government more money it can use, to call churches what they are (businesses), and because it will stimulate the economy, contrary to the Con's arguments.", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.751220703125}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: To me, the separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation. In such a diverse country, secularity is crucial. Should the government decide to tax churches, or any other spiritual or religious organization as I assume you do not mean particularly Christianity and its denominations, the separation of church and state would be violated. One of the fundamental doctrines of the state. While an economically intriguing idea, this is not a good idea. I apologize for taking so long on my response.", "qid": 18, "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.750399112701416}, {"content": "Title: Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify Content: Many people trust the tax-exempt status of their religion to mean that it has gone through the discipline of financial accountability to earn the government's approval. Removing that status would leave many people clueless about who to trust as official and wise religious leaders. The official and wise religious leaders deserve to have tax exempt status, goes this thinking, because they worked hard to earn it. They must continue to maintain it by adhering to the government's criteria for financial stewardship. The riches go to the winner, and this must hold true for religion as well.", "qid": 18, "docid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00011-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.750270426273346}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Content: Okay, I'm really really sorry. I had a big English project, then I got a little sick. and I lost the charging cable for my laptop...... let's just say that it has been an interesting week. If my opponent would like to continue after we run out of rounds, maybe in the comments section, or in a new debate, then I would be willing to do so. I would just like to restate that this is only over property taxes and tax deductions. These are the only major tax differences between churches in non-profit clubs that is worth discussing. \"The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications.\" I think we have to examine what counts as charitable. As a charitable organization or a government agency/public service (like a library or county courthouse or a soup kitchen) money given to them is tax deductible. Similarly, a religious organization is also on this list of tax deductible organizations. Also on this list is 2 types of private organizations. Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies. However, restrictions are placed on even these. For the fraternal society, the entire amount you are claiming as a donation must be used for a charitable action, and for the cemetery company it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 Now, I agree that a church may engage in charitable actions. This is clear to anyone. I was part of a synagogue for most of my life, and I remember every once in a while them passing around a collection plate or asking for canned food. I also remember them using that money to build a new Synagogue, because they didn't have one (they had services in other locations that they rented out or borrowed). Most religious organizations do not use enough money towards charitable actions to be considered a charity. The purpose of declaring something a charity, and refraining from taxing it at all, and then giving deductions for donations is thus. 1. To convince people to use their own money to fund relief and support programs that the community as a whole supports more. 2. To not have to provide services being rendered by that organization. Does a church do either of these? While the community as a whole might more support the church, is it really providing a relief to the community? Is giving my ten dollars to that church really going to do more, or even a comparable amount then if I had given it to a real charity? Should I get the same tax deduction from donating to a soup kitchen that I get from donating to a church? Now I would like to separate religious organizations into 3 categories, to which I will argue separately. The first will be charities that may affiliate with a religion, but function as charities. I have volunteered with the Jewish Relief Agency, which unless you live in the greater Philadelphia area and are Jewish, probably don't know about. It's a warehouse that packages boxes filled with square meals for the week and delivers it to mostly, but not exclusively, needy Jewish people (mostly recent Russian immigrants). They give the majority of their funds to the charity itself, and give a negligible amount (less then 10%) to religious practices. This is a charity and should be treated as such. There are other examples of things that are clearly more charities then religious organizations, though they may affiliate with some religious organizations. Now there are standard churches that participate in large, or exemplary charitable actions. (as in, 30-70% of their income). These are not charities. Though they may partake in many charitable actions, they should be taxed. However, they can receive large deductions from their charitable actions, and may end up paying no taxes at all, or very little. This is great. They should be able to do this, and I, and most people, should applaud them for doing so. But, they are still a religious organization. My donation will do less then donating to a real charity. It should not be tax deducted equally, or at all like it would if I donated it to a charity. The last is a standard church that participates in little to no charity (0 - 20% of income). They may receive a small amount of deduction, or perhaps none at all. Ultimately though, these are religious organizations. They cannot be considered charities. Their money only goes to benefit those who give the money, and do not give any benefit to the outside community (for religious people; remember point number 4 in round 1). I personally would argue that it gives no benefit to those inside the religion, but whatever. It is a social club that prays. That is all that a non-donating religious organization is. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status. 1. http://www.irs.gov...", "qid": 18, "docid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7472903728485107}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: Pro posited that the status quo be changed, and that religious entities should be, in essence, removed from the list of not-for-profits (NFPs) recognized by the Charity Law. To do so, Pro would have to either prove that religious entities fail to provide public benefits or prove that they operate in the manner similar to a for-profit institution. It is Con's contention that Pro failed to provide cited arguments proving such. Pro began with the Church of England's suffering attendance levels. Con previously noted such to demonstrate that England is largely a secular society and that Pro's assertion that the Church gets by on fear mongering was an unrealistic one (indeed, when Durham Cathedral asked its visitors for \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd5 donations to cover the building's \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd60,000 weekly maintenance bill, patrons responded with an average donative of 32p[1], which mathematically works out to a one way ticket to hell for 94% of the visitors). Pro did not attempt to counter this, but instead pointed to the declining attendance as an indicator of the Church's declining relevance and that greying of remaining worshipers only serves to show that this trend will continue. Con counters that firstly, such an argument in no way demonstrates that a public benefit is not being derived by those who still attend church every week. Secondly, those deriving spiritual sustenance is not limited to those who fill the pews every week. While only 4% of Anglicans attend on a weekly basis, nearly twice as many visit at least once per month and on the holidays the benches do fill, with Easter and Christmas seeing 1.2 million and 2.3 million respectively[2]. Pro then states that more people fulfill their spiritual needs via mystics and fortune tellers than by the Church. A dubious claim which Con would contest should it make a difference, but Con only seeks to amend it by remarking that in our creature comfort society, capitalist services such as soothsayers, reality television and shoe shopping (i.e. Mrs. Frappe) provide more spiritual sustenance than the representatives of Yahweh, Shiva, Athena and Woden combined. The rub is that such are provided by for-profits entities and the recipients of these incomes can freely use profits for personal gain (and therefore taxed). If Pro wishes to lump the church into that little tangle, then Pro must prove that the Church operates like a for-profit entity, if not in letter, at least in spirit. Unfortunately Pro does not expand on this any further than to mention vicars riding around in nice cars, bishops living high on the hog and Kevin Copeland flying about in planes. With the exception of the latter, no hard data is cited. Mr. Copeland belongs more on Jersey Shore than he does anywhere near a non-profit. He is an example of excess and no one disagrees that excesses occur. And Copeland is not alone. Charity Navigator's 2010 CEO compensation study (Copeland is American, so forgive the American data) noted that the Educational Media Foundation won the \"most generously compensated CEO of a religious non-profit in America\" award, by giving their CEO $648,537 worth of benefits in 2008. That pales, however, next to the New York Philharmonic, which doled out $2,649,540 to its CEO, even though both organizations had similar levels of total expenses [3]. And in weeding out the outliers, median CEO pay paints a more striking picture. Out of the nine types of charitable institutions, CEOs of religious institutions averaged $90,000 per year, trailing far behind charities of Public Benefit ($168,490), Arts, Cultures & Humanities ($190,550) and Education ($272,645) [4]. With the Archbishop of Canterbury's salary at \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd55,660 (plus benefits) [5] a case for religious institutions being any more profligate than other non-profits with its compensation seems untenable. Pro then notes the muscular income the Church makes off its investments. The church makes a pretty penny from its investments, no doubt spurred on by its tax free status. To be sure, a wonderfully pregnant trove for a modern King Henry to do a little church sacking to fill the coffers, but it is relatively immaterial to this debate, for this debate concerns itself with the tax exempt status of religious institutions, not the nuancing of England's Charity Law regarding NFP investment incomes. All NFP's take advantage of this, so what is so egregious about a religious entity doing the same? Pro then notes that it is a moral obligation for the Church to maintain historic buildings, a moral obligation that in no doubt is a public service (though some of that lavish living money is going to have to make up the \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd4.68 per visitor shortfall Durham Cathedral has got going on). Pro then insinuates that the church is derelict in this duty because it has decommissioned some churches into condos and pubs. Does Pro suggest that such parishes be kept open, when it is obvious to even the Church that the declining attendance levels no longer warrant the maintenance of the buildings or staff? Any NFP has the right to focus its resources in a manner which best allows it to provide services. Pro's last argument maintains that \"Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes\" and then implies that the church does not do so. Again, unfortunately, Pro does not cite any data about how non-religious charities conform to this or how religious charities fail to do so. Many charities which do fit the bill Pro has suggested derive income by hiring outside for-profit consultants to fundraise. The Cancer Survivor Fund received $1,107,250 in contributions in 2010, but had $1,005,072 in fund raising expenses [6]. That's a lot of lawyers, accountants and executives getting well on donations. Even Andre Agassi's Foundation for Education (with celebrity do-whop Sir Elton John) paid for-profit fundraisers $2,014,469 to raise $7,536,463 in contributions [7]. Lucky for the Rocketman the foundation also made about $13 million in tax free investments. Perhaps, more interesting are the NFP's that don't fit Pro's vision of a typical charity [8]. Con concludes by begging the same question that Pro did. \"What's so special about the church?\" What evidence has Pro provided that demonstrates that the Church does not operate like an NFP, or that it fails to provide a public benefit? As Con has shown, Pro has made no systemic argument to support such. Con would also like to point out that most of the discussion has centered the Church of England and has ignored the smaller religious institutions of England. Are they to be taxed as well? Con is sympathetic to Pro's argument of declining relevance, but that points better to Disestablishment than it does to declaring religious institutions for-profit entities. Thank you. Despite Con's arguments, Con still hopes that Pro is successful with his centers. [1] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net... [2] http://www.churchofengland.org... [3] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [7] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [8]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...", "qid": 18, "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.744123101234436}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws Content: Just to clarify, my stance is that churches should NOT be exempt from any form of legislation which, in this case, involves legislation regarding homosexual rights.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f1173c1a-2019-04-18T17:52:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7399556636810303}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: I. Religion is a social goodThe conclusion to this point is short and sweet. Vote Con if you think there is even a slight chance of taxation harming religious life. Throughout the entire debate there has never been any attempt to refute the actual impacts that I brought up in this contention. Religious experience betters a persons quality and quantity of life as well as increasing the positive influence they have on their community. Don't let these impacts get lost in all of the numbers thrown around in this debate. It is not remotely conceivable that taxing religious institutions would do anything but harm them. On the margins, extra expense burdens *always* harm the bottom line. This is simply a fact of business, and Hayd pretending like a $26,000 cost spread out over 50 \"customers\" (congregants) is nothing or that massive organizations like the Catholic Church wouldn't spend a ton of money on tax lawyers doesn't make his case any more credible. It comes off more as grasping at straws--he would've been better off to concede some impact and try to outweigh it, because it's incredibly clear that extra expense harms institutions ON THE MARGINS. Small churches that are already struggling will close. Services that are attended by fewer congregants will stop. Struggling branches of large religions, especially in under populated areas, will shut down. And with them community and social capital that has been built up over years, often generations, will vanish overnight. And all of this for nothing. He mocks my argument about a changing business model as vague, but when you're dealing with thousands of diverse institutions making any concrete assumptions is dicey. The point is that churches don't currently account for the extra expense that taxation would impose upon them. The apparatus used for financial decision-making would be totally upended, throwing the system into a state of flux. Hayd doesn't take this point seriously, but all serious businesses take precaution to avoid unnecessary instability. We don't know for sure what taxing religions would look like, but we can ascertain that they would be harmed ON THE MARGINS. I encourage everyone to go back to my opening case and reread my impacts, which are quite substantial. Nothing Hayd has to offer comes even close to outweighing what I bring to the table. II. Economic Benefits The progression of this argument tells you all you really need to know about the resolution. Hayds $71 billion has slowly been whittled down to 10% of what it once was. This is a case study in how all of the supposed benefits of taxing religions fall apart when subjected to close scrutiny. The only impact Hayd has left is the $7 billion or so that he says he'll get from property taxes. Except he won't because like I already said, many institutions will close down rather than manage such a large tax burden. Hayd argues that this money will be used for charity. First, you're still getting less money for charity overall because when you remove the non-profit status of churches you cannot stop them from keeping their incomes rather than donating them. I'm sure that many would continue to donate, but there are enough unscrupulous people out there (and far more money contributed to charity from the \"income\" pool) to more than make up for any gains that Hayd gets. But the most important thing to realize about his argument about using this money for charity is that it will not be used for that purpose. He has offered literally no reason to believe that the government would earmark the money for this purpose, and considering how property taxes are collected by municipalities I'm not sure how it would even be possible for the government to do this. He says that he's allowed to make a \"plan\" to affirm the resolution, but that's absurd if the plan isn't feasible. His plan could just as easily claim that the government would invest the money into a portfolio that would return 100x the money invested. Such investments exist. Would it be fair to claim that the government would be able to do something like this? No. And similarly, you can't assume that the money goes to charity. In reality, the money would go to municipalities where it would be a small drop in their buckets. Refer back to the impacts stated in my original case. While the benefits of Hayd's plan are distributed over tens of thousands of municipalities and thus diminished, the negatives are all centralized. The Catholic Church is the second largest employer in the United States. Subjecting them to billions of dollars in taxes means that many of those jobs are going to vanish. III. Church and StateThis point alone wins me the debate. Under Hayds framework, there would only have to be one instance where a politician was unduly influenced by a religious donor or endorser for the public good to be harmed and for me to gain an impact. We cannot forget that an endorsement from the Catholic Church would swing literally any presidential election. The results for 2016 are in, and once again Catholics were a pretty closely divided group. Trump won 52% of them, and Hillary won 45%[1]. Catholics represented nearly a quarter of all voters in an election where the popular vote was virtually tied. Say an endorsement from the Catholic Church would flip 20% of these voters either way. That would be the equivalent of a 5 point swing, enough to change the result of all but one of the past five elections[2]. In reality, the impact would probably be far larger. This is the power that Hayd will give to the Catholic Church. Not to mention the numerous legislative seats that could be flipped even more easily. All it takes is ONE TIME for the political opinion of the Catholic Church (or whichever religious institution won the race for a politician) to conflict with the common good for their to be an impact. Except this will happen all the time. If you want a Christian dominionism vote Pro, otherwise preserve the integrity of the state by keeping it separate from the church. All hail President Trump. Vote Con.1. . http://www.nationalreview.com...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7378666400909424}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: Thanks, Hayd.I'm just going to respond to Hayd's attacks since I directly refuted his case in my own. There will be a lot of fresh attacks against his case wrapped up in my defenses.I. Religion is a social goodHayd concedes this point entirely, noting only that public events could be held at schools, crowding out after-school activities.You can vote Con. It is not remotely plausible that forcing Churches to hire armies of tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties (many of which are priceless architectural marvels) will help religion in this country. Remember, active involvement in a religious community extends life, makes that life happier and more fulfilled, and increases that individuals positive impact on society. Does Hayd want to compare that record with the government? His only real response is that my claims that religion will be damaged if it's taxed is unwarranted. I didn't hit this very much because I assumed it was completely obvious, but I'll note that Hayd totally dropped my argument regarding the business model of churches assuming that they don't pay taxes. Adding a massive tax burden throws that model into flux and adds instability for no reason. I'm not sure what else I can be expected to do here. As the complete take down of the Council of Secular Humanism article shows, making accurate estimates about this kind of thing is incredibly difficult and often leaves you with your foot in your mouth. Instead you have to go with the logic that, yes, having to hire armies of tax lawyers, pay property and income taxes, and totally change your business model from the bottom to the top is going to cause damage on the margins. Corporations fight taxes tooth and nail for a reason, the extra expense harms the bottom line. Since Hayd has totally conceded that the bottom line of religion is a massive boon for society, it's difficult to see how Pro can win the debate. But the absurdity of this line of attack really comes through when you get into the specifics behind Hayd's case. Hayd later claims that the government will make tons of money because the average property tax burden on the 300,000 churches would be over $26,000. Doesn't sound so bad if you're thinking about Billy Graham sized crowds. Except the majority of congregations in this country consist of less than 100 people. $26,000 distributed over, say, 50 congregants is an incredible burden that would shut down almost any church. And that's just the property taxes.I'm also going to rebut Hayd's entire case by calling for him to morally justify taxation. The general argument for taxing corporations is that since society provides for them via the roads their goods travel on, the police force protecting them from robbery, and so on they owe something in return. If churches are as great as I claim they are, and Hayd has conceded to every single one of my claims, they are already fulfilling their debt to society. The moral justification for taxing churches is bunk. II. Economic effects Hayd writes: \"[Thett] assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church\u2019s.\" This is ***COMPLETELY*** false and not at all how corporate taxes work. If expenses weren't tax deductible, literally every business in the United States would go under. Corporations are taxed on their *income* which is the number you get after subtracting revenue (all of the money the organization takes in that year) from expenses (everything it spends). So for example in 2015 Ford earned some $149 million in revenue[1], but operating costs ate at that number until the taxable income was a mere $10 million. Legitimate operating expenses like building upkeep and employee payment are ALWAYS tax-deductible because they whittle away the corporations taxable income.Hayd says he is not allowing churches to deduct these legitimate expenses. He loses his previous argument that churches won't be hit very hard by his new taxes as he is subjecting religions to a completely unfair and unique tax burden by not allowing them to write off operating costs. If he chooses not to advocate for this exaggerated and unfair tax burden, I hereby turn his entire case: Hayd's impact relies upon more money going to charity if you tax churches. But the reality is that *LESS* money will be going to go to charity. Right now in order to maintain their non-profit status, churches are legally prohibited from having an income. As we've already discussed, on average 71% of their income goes to expenses and only 29% would be considered \"income.\" Hayd gets the government some of that 29%. But the Church keeps the rest. And now that they're no longer obligated to maintain their non-profit status, with many strapped for cash due to the massive financial burden Hayd throws on them, can they really be expected to donate all of their remaining profits to charity? By legally turning churches into a business, Hayd is actually reducing the money that goes to charity and opening the door for unscrupulous religious leaders to enrich themselves from church revenue. Further, if you don't buy that turn for some reason, you still vote Con because Hayd can't just assume that all the money is going to be donated to charity. The resolution does not say \"Churches ought to be taxed and the proceeds will go to charity\"--we have NO REASON to assume that the government will give this money to charitable causes and Hayd has not articulated any.You can vote Con because Hayd literally has no impacts. His plan requires you to assume that no churches are hurt by a sudden tax burden, the church does not retaliate against the government in a negative way, that no churches keep rather than donate their profits now that they have the option, and that the government will donate the proceeds to charity. Give him all of these EXTREMELY GENEROUS assumptions and it is STILL a wash. Even if you don't buy any of my own points Hayd still loses because he adds instability to the status quo without producing any tangible improvement.III. Church and State Hayd fundamentally misunderstands why the sacred and the secular should be separate spheres. He says the argument that churches would retaliate to this violation of their sovereignty is unwarranted, but he is actively undermining their interests by imposing a massive financial burden. Hayd says he doesn't see a problem with the church influencing secular politics, but the vast majority of Americans do. When His Holiness the Pope himself criticized Trump he was roundly condemned and THE POPE apologized. I find it extremely doubtful that Hayd can't see the obvious problem with every election in the United States literally being decided by who the major religions endorse. All it takes is one instance of the church's political position contradicting the public good for there to be an impact when you're working with a government that is completely reliant on the church for its legitimacy. This is the road to dominionism. Remember that since Hayd has no impacts, even the tiniest risk of an undue religious influence on the government harming the public good is enough to win me the debate. Hayd bizarrely responds to my religious discrimination argument by claiming that lawsuits wouldn't cost the government anything because the law is the law, despite making an extremely similar point in his first round. Which is it? Hayd causes a lot of instability without anything to show for it. The resolution is completely negated. Sources:1. http://www.nasdaq.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7358695268630981}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on \"Why Jesus Loves Me.\" The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org...", "qid": 18, "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7356774806976318}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: I would like to express my sincere thanks to frappe for accepting this challenge and for responding in such a eloquent and informed manner. I would also politely request the voters to acknowledge that my opponent extended me the courtesy of \"home ground\" in basing his rebuttals on the British, rather than the American, model of society: I certainly didn't anticipate this but I am very grateful. With regard to the role of churches in society, and the alleged benefits my opponent contends they provide, I would like to respond as follows: Con acknowledges that church attendance in Britain has decreased to a point whereby only a tiny fraction of citizens regularly attend church services, and those that do are mainly elderly which means that attendances is in terminal decline. Indeed, far more people obtain their spiritual sustenance from psychics, astrologers and fortune-tellers. These mystics and soothsayers provide spiritual comfort to their impressionable clients in exchange for money -they earn a living by giving their customers emotional support in exchange for cash, a bit like churches do, but unlike churches they pay tax on their income: when a punter crosses Rosie Lee's palm with silver, the crystal ball-gazing gypsy will dutifully record this financial transaction and scrupulously declare her full earnings when she diligently files her tax returns (gypsies are notoriously honest people) - and these taxes are used to benefit wider societies by paying for teachers, nurses, police officers and so on. Despite the lack of spiritual adherents though, the churches are making money hand over fist, mainly through their property investment portfolios: the Church of England alone netted a cool 19.1% on their \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd4.3 billion / $6.9 billion investments last year (1) - tax free, of course - but these windfalls do not benefit wider society at all because they either reinvest the money or spend it on providing themselves with munificent stipends and lavish, grace-in-favour accommodation. With reference to preserving historic buildings, the churches certainly have a moral responsibility to do this, but it is a responsibility they continually fail to discharge. The Church of England is one of the largest land-owners in Britain but if a parish church becomes uneconomic due to falling attendances, they will ruthlessly sell it off to the highest bidder. In rural areas, churches tend to be converted into luxury apartments (2) for affluent commuters while churches in urban areas are often converted into pubs: my old local pub in Muswell Hill, North London and also my old local pub when I lived in Aberdeen, Scotland were both formerly churches (3,4) - whereas in times gone by the vicar would have dispensed blessings the bartenders now dispense beers, wines and spirits from the same spot. Some parishioners may feel this is sacrilege, but the churches don't care about that: for them religion is all about one thing and one thing alone; cold, hard cash The poor and needy? Their welfare is the responsibility of the state and charities, not the churches, at least not as fare as they are concerned. Which brings me neatly to the issue of their charitable status. Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes: and these employees certainly do not live in grand houses and drive flash cars like so many vicars and priests do. Indeed, in America where televangelism is a $2-3 billion, unregulated, untaxed industry, pastors are even more extravagant. For example, preacher Kenneth Copeland \"lives in an 18,000 square foot home outside Ft. Worth, Texas worth $6 million. It has beautiful water views that comes complete with a boat house. But that's not all. Copeland is an avid pilot, and his pride and joy is a $20 million Cessna Citation jet. It's the fastest private jet money can buy. He said he needed it to better serve the Lord, and proudly did a fly by for his followers after the church bought it.\" (5) If it was revealed that donations to a charity were being used to fund lavish lifestyles of charity workers rather than being spent on good causes, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and the organisation would, in all probability, loose it's charitable status. So what's so special about the church? Why are they allowed to use their income to feather their nests tax-free? The answer is undue reverence for an ancient institution that no longer has any relevance to the vast majority of people in 21st Century Britain. To conclude, I am not arguing that there is no place in society for religious organisations, merely that they should pay their way like any other for-profit organisation and that the should be subject to tax. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://www.locationworks.com... (3) http://www.oneills.co.uk... (4) http://www.pbdevco.com... (5) http://www.insideedition.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7273343205451965}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: What troubles me right away is that you are saying that only \"assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church\" should be taxed, Yet why only the Catholic Church? This you are singling one group at, yet letting it be fine for any other religious group to so and not be taxed. Now when you say that \"these institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population\" are you saying that monks, nuns, and the priests provide no benefit for the surrounding population, yet they are the ones that run the churches that \"provide a place of solace\" that i'm guessing you were meaning as something that did provide to the surrounding population. Also are these not the people supporting every community they can, whether they are in the streets of Calcutta to the wealthier countries such as America, Britain, Norway,Canada,etc. Now when you tax them you are taking money away from a charity, and THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Now you may say that they keep a lot of the money and spend on themselves, but i believe those times are changing! With Pope Francis taking the city bus to get around instead of the popemoblie, and many other actions against the luxury of the pope, and his subjects.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7262698411941528}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: This is my response for Round 4, the final round of the debate. I\u2019d like to thank Thett for coming out of retirement to debate this with me. Since this is my final response for the debate, I will not be introducing any new arguments to the debate. I will be mostly responding to what Thett says in R3. Religion is a social good The first point of contention that Thett brings up here is in claiming that churches will have to hire armies of lawyers to pay their taxes. This isn\u2019t true, as the only reasons for hiring a tax attorney is for if you are in debt with taxes, issues with tax returns, facing criminal investigation, or are going to US tax court [1]. None of these would likely happen under my plan, thus this argument doesn\u2019t work. Next Thett argues for his notion that churches will have to \u201cchange their business model\u201d and thus the bottom line of churches will have to shut down. That churches have operated under the model that they don\u2019t have to pay taxes and thus altering the model to having to pay taxes will make churches shut down. I find this notion unwarranted because it assumes that churches or church leaders are extremely irresponsible with money. It assumes that church leaders will literally forget that their is a church tax, then spend the entirety of their budget, and then not be able to pay the taxes. The possibility of this happening, realistically, is extremely low. The amount of churches that will actually be affected by this mismanagement of money is so low that I find it silly to see this as a feasible impact for Con\u2019s side. Regardless, dividing $26,000 among 50 congregants is $520 per congregant, or around 0.01% of the average income [2]. Given the average giving to church per congregant is $1,038 [3], paying all of the taxes will be no problem. The only impact left on Thett\u2019s side for this is the implication of mismanagement of money, which is a slim impact at best.What does \u201cchanging their business model\u201d even mean? And what makes having to change it bad? I don\u2019t see any negative impact in changing a \u201cmodel\u201d that would cause churches to close. The link between taxing churches and churches closing doesn\u2019t work, since it is unwarranted and proven to be sustainable by congregation members. The only way a church can close is if they cannot pay off expenses (since it isn\u2019t for-profit, it's for-religion, profit of a location is irrelevant) and I have shown that congregations will be able to fairly easily. Lastly, Thett calls for me to justify church taxation. This seems strange to call out this late in the debate, but I justify taxing churches through my framework and every argument I have made. By my uncontested framework, if taxing churches is a greater societal good than a harm then taxing churches is justified. That is why taxing churches is justified. Even regardless of that, Thett\u2019s quick argument about the government providing roads and police protection ignores the fact that churches also take advantage of police protection and road transportation. Thus, by Thett\u2019s own argument churches ought to pay taxes. Economic Benefits Alright, here I messed up big. Thett is right, legitimate operating expenses are tax deductible, did not know that until now. This essentially destroys most of my case, since by my own argument, 71% of income goes to operating expenses while the rest, 29% goes to charity. It isn\u2019t exactly realistic that a church would only spend money on two things, and the third thing they spend it on would be taxable. But I said what I said, and since this is the last round I cannot take that back. That means that based on an income tax, the government would be getting a portion of the 0% of taxable profits, or 0$. This means that my income tax part of my case is negated, making the amount of money the government gets through my plan is $7.9 billion through property taxes. The next point of relevance comes when Thett argues that I can\u2019t just assume that the money collected in taxes from churches would be donated to charity. Thett argues that it is not realistic to believe that the government would spend the money on charity. Since I am the affirming side I am allowed to put forth a plan in which to affirm the resolution, as long as it affirms the resolution I am allowed to use that plan. My plan, as I stated earlier, is to donate the collected money to charity. This is allowed and will happen under my plan. Church and State Thett responds to my argument by saying that the majority of Americans believe that religion should not play a role in politics because the Pope had to apologize after criticizing Trump. This argument doesn\u2019t work, it's an appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people believe that religion should not play a role in politics doesn\u2019t mean that religion shouldn\u2019t play a role in politics. Thett further argues that all it takes is one religious endorsement contrary to public good to sway the election and produce a negative result, and thus negative impact. This doesn\u2019t work since endorsements are a neutral value. A religious organization could just as easily endorse a candidate for the public good than a candidate against the public good, and thus there is no impact either way here. It is a neutral value. The notion that a government relies on the church for legitimacy makes no sense and is unwarranted. The only way that Thett has proposed that religious organizations retaliate against the government is through getting involved through politics through endorsements, which as I just showed has no case. Thett\u2019s entire argument based on separation of church and state relied on the church getting involved in politics through endorsements, which I proved is neutral. Thus Thett\u2019s argument here is negated. Conclusion Through my plan $7.9 billion is raised in taxes. Given that $28 billion is used to save 6 million lives, $7.9 billion will be used to save 1.7 million lives. Even if we accept Thett\u2019s unwarranted link between churches closing and taxes, and then accept that the link is logically sound, the argument still doesn\u2019t work because reduction in people attending church leading to an increase in stress and depression is outweighed by the 1.7 million lives that are saved. In order for Thett\u2019s impacts to outweigh mine, about 6 people would have to die per congregation as a result of taxing churches (1.7m/300k.) This is not realistic given Thett\u2019s argument, thus I win this debate. Peace and Love [1] https://www.supermoney.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://amiccs.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7244634032249451}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: I accept the challenge. I will pursue the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.724091649055481}, {"content": "Title: Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Content: Why churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government. I. The Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....\" and Article VI specifies that \"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. First and foremost, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The implications of such a law to protect the interests of a country that is known for mixing cultures, traditions, and beliefs are more important than ever. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. How is this related to taxation? A local pastor in the Western Appalachian Mountains builds a one-room log cabin near his small mountain community made up of local miners and traders. He is a man of God and desires to share his faith with his small community, a congregation of roughly 15-20 people. Knowing he doesn\u2019t collect much from those who can barely afford to pay he opens his mail to find that the State and Federal government are now taxing him for his one-room church. The price is simply too high to afford and thus he is forced to close the doors or suffer the wrath of the IRS. In this instance, not only did the government shut-down his freedom to express his religion, but it crushed the possibility of giving this small community a safe place where they might hear words of inspiration. Without the Constitution, where would we be as a Nation? Would we truly have come to take these freedoms we have now for granted? Let us not forget that we fought against the Monarchy to set ourselves free from oppression from governmental entities who abused their power. We have fought for the right to build our temples for worship, we fought for the right to stand on our church stages and preach our beliefs to the masses without the government standing over our shoulder telling us what or what-not to say. If we truly relinquish the power back to the governments by allowing taxation, what more does that accomplish other than handing over one of the last safe-zones we truly have in this Nation of ours? Freedom from Governmental control and impressions. II. Safe-Zones As an American who is now living in a society engulfed in Post-9/11 paranoia, I\u2019ve always taken comfort in one thing: The fact that if another great world war consumed our planet, that there will always be one building left standing- The Church. It is now a well-known fact that no matter how great the tensions or however great the animosity was between warring nations, the unspoken agreement to avoid churches during bombing raids was carried out and practiced. No matter how differing these nations were in terms of cultural traditions and beliefs, we were able to find a common ground upon which everyone could agree that in the game of war, churches were not to be touched. But why weren\u2019t the churches bombed? For some reason, the most untouched buildings in every country throughout the time of WW2 was that of religious organizations. Firstly, unlike political ideologies or cultural traditions, churches and religions transcend beyond the scope of political influence. Secondly, I believe the morality in soldiers during a time when churches meant more to them than the enemy should not be ruled out \u2013 even soldiers feel empathy or a personal respect garnered within them since childhood if they themselves grew up with the tradition of attending church. III. Most churches are used as places of worship for religions that predate modern government. Respect your elders. While one can argue that most churches were built after the American government was formed, the fact remains that the church buildings built represent something far older than any form of our federal government. If we look at all the main religions practiced in America today we have: Christianity \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 2,000 years. Judaism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 5,700 years. Buddhism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 2,500 years. Islam \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 1,400 years. Hinduism \u2013 A tradition continually practiced for about 7,000 years. American Federal Government \u2013 227 years old\u2026 The fact remains that a majority of church buildings we see today are built upon the foundation created by these age-old religions. In medieval Europe we see the destruction brought about by letting the church gain so much influence that it, in theory, was able to control the direction of the society at that time. With that being said, the balance that has seemed to work in our own modern society is one of equality and separation. By remaining free from governmental influence, the majority of world religions have been able to spread to provide a safety net for those fearful of the unknown. To provide individuals with the freedom to continue on their journeys throughout life knowing that they have a safe place to return if the pressure of life ever overwhelms them. This goes both ways, by remaining separate \u2013 the government has been able to remain in power over the influence of the people in terms of shaping the direction we head as a Nation. History has proven that in order for a balance of harmony to be achieved between the church and state, in terms of dominating society\u2019s direction of progress, a separation is necessary. The issue we face now is being able to learn from the mistakes we made as a collective throughout history. We have broken the cycle of war for influence between the two and in doing so, we have been able to achieve more technologically, scientifically, and emotionally than ever before in history. To repeat the mistakes would make us no better than those who have come before us, in the name of progress we have finally found a synthesis between the two that actually works, and I will forever stand by my position that we should continue on this path of separation if we are to continue on our path of forward progress. IV. Desperate times call for desperate measures? I like to call it how I see it: The American Government spends more funding on War-time efforts than the next 10 most powerful nations combined. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... With that said, what good does handing more money over to the government really achieve? Do you honestly believe that money will be used for rebuilding our infrastructure? Do you really believe that money will be used by the government to feed the homeless or help the poor? On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld came out to a press conference and made a startling, if not, horrifying revelation: The Pentagon had lost 2.3 Trillion dollars. That\u2019s right, not billion \u2013 but TRILLION. This isn\u2019t \u201clost\u201d as in, profits lost, but rather \u201clost\u201d as in *poof* it disappeared with no apparent traces to follow. I will provide the link so you might hear it from the horse\u2019s mouth directly: (Please see Youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... It is not uncommon for a church to host community events \u2013 for instance, as a young child growing up in a Baptist church one of my fondest memories was heading to the local housing projects with my fellow church members and giving the families there free Thanksgiving turkeys so that they would be able to enjoy a meal for the holiday. The money used for such a charity event came from nowhere but the weekly contributions we made to the church. We cannot deny the fact that a majority of churches use their profits for good rather than selfish reasons. A majority of the time, these profits are spent on either people of the congregation in need or the church itself if repairs to the building or renovations are necessary. We musn't forget that churches are business\u2019s as well, if they can\u2019t receive funding from the government, why on earth should they be left with nearly nothing after the proposed taxes? I do not believe the corruption of the majority of churches outweigh the corruption of the federal government. The profits the federal government would make with the taxes would be better spent by the churches who would truly be able to help their local communities with the additional funds. Ultimately, It will be up to the audience to determine whether our nation has stooped so low in its economic woes that we must now tax the only organizations left in our world that truly supersede that of our own government in terms of personal guidance and safe haven. By opening the door to government oversight, we are allowing our houses to be raided by a foreign entity. The moment our churches are taxed, we forfeit our right to use them as neutral zones if there was ever another great war to break out. We forfeit our right to speak our minds and practice our faith in the security of closed doors. We cannot allow our only common ground with the nations of the world to be raped of its dignity by allowing government influence to enter its realm of authority. Remember, it is our freedoms that we fought for that allows us to develop thoughts freely without governmental control. We won our right to remain separated from government influence- at the cost of countless human lives, all of whom we are descendants from. To allow the taxation of church would mean that all their lives lost would have been in vain. Taxation is nothing more than a quick fix to a problem that requires a much greater, long-term solution. We must stop being enablers with these quickfix tax solutions and fix the issue at the root cause - responsible spending.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7230768203735352}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: The resolution of this debate can only be fulfilled by the government passing legislation. This is because taxation is inherently governmental. Governments, societies, individuals, and all other forms of entities, act (or ought to act) on a utilitarian basis: things that have more benefits than harms ought to be retained, whilst those that have more harms than benefits ought to be abolished. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every entity or being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.) Things that overall prevent suffering while promoting pleasure are thus good for that being. Because we know that other sentient beings undergo this as well, we can *empathize* with them and thus seek to extend the same principle (preventing suffering and promoting pleasure) to them. Without empathy morality cannot exist, it is contingent. Given that morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether entities should or should not do something, morality can be used to determine whether a government should or should not make churches pay taxes. I find that the benefits of taxing churches outweigh the costs associated with it, and thus I affirm the resolution. The first way in which church tax exemption brings a societal cost is through the US government being forced to defend itself in lawsuits over tax exemption status to certain institutions (such as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other controversial faiths.) Lawsuits against government entities require that the government spend money in order to defend themselves against the lawsuit. The amount of money required to do this is enormous. For example, Texas has spent $3.5 million defending themselves against voter ID lawsuits [1]. This same issue happens over interpretation of tax exemption laws for churches. This can be seen in the Church of Scientology\u2019s numerous and year long lawsuits against the government wherein they can harness millions of dollars in funds; which the government then has to match. In the end, tax exemption law results in millions of dollars in lost money for the US government. My second argument is thus: churches are not like other (secular) not-for-profit charitable organizations. Churches\u2019 primary goal is in the practice and spread of their religion, rather than charity like other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations. Research has found that around 29% of the average church\u2019s income is for charitable purposes, the rest is used for internal costs such as wages [2]. Other, secular charities though are able to do *more* good with their funds. For example, the Red Cross uses 92.1% of its income for helping people. A property tax on churches would raise around $71 billion dollars per year [3], while the commercial income tax would raise around $6.75 billion. (This is because the median congregation income is $60,000 [6], and thus the income tax bracket becomes $7,500 + 25% [8], meaning $22,500 payed in taxes per congregation. Given there are 300,000 congregations in America, that ends up being 6,750,000,000.) Reallocating money from churches, where only 29% of it would go to help people to secular charities where 92% of it will be used to help people, would be a massive impact on the effectiveness of charity. Significantly more people will be helped through charity. It is important to note the amount of money that $71 billion dollars is, as it is easy to just put it away as another number. $71 billion dollars is more than the top two wealthiest charities in the world combined [4]. Using all of this money for charity work rather than a fraction of it, as would happen without taxes, is a huge impact. Taxes on churches will also give more funds to local governments, and given that local governance is the most important government, the impact of this on people is substantial. Plus, George Washington said that, \u201cI agree with...Ha...yd\u2019s...argument that...churches\u2026should pay taxes.\u201d (1782) [10] Peace and Love [1] https://www.texastribune.org... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://bigthink.com...\\ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [6] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu... [7] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [10] https://www.amazon.com...;*Version*=1&*entries*=0&linkCode=sl1&tag=worst-products-ever-20&linkId=d6148e5e63820f864ff4057c05fc18e1", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7177757620811462}, {"content": "Title: debate on church cooperation Content: My opponent is concerned - most concerned, I think - with what he terms \"autonomy\". Well, I can solve that for him: (A) would it be perfectly scriptural if contributing churches simply make out their checks to Judge Alan Highers - the Tennessee judge/preacher - who edits the Spiritual Sword, then he could use it as he pleases to write/edit/publish the periodical? That way, you'll have the churches sending monies directly to an evangelist so that he can evangelize. Will that work for you? Remember, you correctly said, \"Or, several churches may independently and directly support a preacher working in another place (2 Corinthians 11:8-9).\" I submit the my opponent can find no flaw at all in that \"pattern\" - and that little point illustrates the silliness of his position: if the check is to the \"Getwell church of Christ\", a grave error is committed; if the check is to \"Judge Alan Highers\", all is perfectly fine. Blah. That gets rid of his misnomered \"sponsoring church\" arrangement, doesn't it? Same work, same periodical, same \"evangelism\", same mailing list, same articles, same equipment ... just change who or what is on the line after \"Pay to the order of.\" Of course, we'll by-pass the divine 'checks and balances system' of a plurality of elders examining and overseeing the work, but that's a small price to pay, I guess. (B) Can you further clarify your position, and point out the error in this logic? *** \"First, my opponent writes about \"one-cupperism\". Yet I have never made an argument about that. I never defended \"one cupperism\" and this debate is not about it.\" No, you didn't defend it. Nor did you defend the anti-Sunday school folks. But you can't logically oppose either one, either. For the life of you, you couldn't defend separating folks into classrooms for teaching purposes without invoking the same arguments of \"expediency\" that I do in this discussion. *** \"yet my opponent contradicts herself by setting a parallel between the Bible and the Spiritual Sword. First, the Spiritual Sword is not as infallible as the Bible.\" Nope, although neither is fallible or infallible, nor can they be. I said the same \"logic\" that forbids sending money to another congregation to purchase/publish the Spiritual Sword will necessarily prevent the same congregation from (1) sending monies for the purchase of Bibles or (2) Bibles, period to another congregation. (C) True or not? You didn't dispute it, either. The accuracy of the material is not the issue. Loss of autonomy, in your view, is. The two (the Bible and Spiritual Sword are not parallel, except in the sense that you teach that one congregation cannot send money to another congregation to publish/distribute EITHER ONE. *** \"Furthermore, my opponent argues that I had a false parallel between a saved and unsaved person. Well, I don't see any problem with it.\" No, I said that you did not even start with the same group of people under consideration in your two parallels. In the point under consideration, we are both beginning with the same organization (the church), then proceeding onward. In your \"parallel\", you commence from the get-go with a saved person, then try to complete the parallel by .. what? flipping to a different starting point: an unsaved person. And I might point out that the results aren't really the same, either. *** \"and to think that we can send Jehovah's Witnesses literature to congregations.\" Why, certainly you can, if used properly. \"Jehovah's Witnesses literature\" is technically in the latest Spiritual Sword under the article commencing on page 34, \"Why I Am Not a Jehovah's Witness.\" What of it? So, as per my opponent, not only can we not send money to (1) fund Bible purchases, but also we can't send it to (2) oppose error. (D) True or not? What a plan! *** \"The point of my argument is to see that no autonomy is violated.\" Will my opponent affirm that it is indeed in harmony with the Bible to simply change the \"Pay to the Order of\" on the check to Judge Alan Highers and LET HIM DO IT? Will you say that? I doubt it. Yet you'd have one congregation simply sending money to an \"evangelist\" who in turn uses the money \"to evangelize\". How about that? (E) Further, could Judge Highers simply contribute his \"support\" to the Getwell church so that they can publish the Spiritual Sword? I want to know what \"autonomy\" is violated by such a scheme. *** \"The reason for this is not true in benevolence since the sending churches simply help the receiving church do its own work.\" Notice my opponent's false distinction: Congregation A ---> $$$ (physical aid) ---> Congregation B ---> Congregation B simply \"doing its own work\" - no autonomy violated --> no Benevolent Society implied Congregation A ---> $$$ (spiritual aid) ---> Congregation B ---> Congregation B simply \"doing its own work\" - autonomy grossly violated and Missionary Society implied Now if anyone can figure out why such a bipolar difference based solely upon gross assertions which would differentiate \"physical aid\" from \"spiritual aid\", then I confess I have met my superior in logic. Of course, the truth of the matter is this: if the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to purchase/publish/distribute the Spiritual Sword, then BOTH are involved in evangelism through that work. Same with benevolence. If the Highland church sends monies to the Getwell church to supply the needs of the destitute, then BOTH are involved in that work. *** \"Concerning the Antioch church, the main thrust of the passage there was each church contributed to a needy church in time of need or calamity directly not to some sponsoring church.\" Well, if you follow the example - if that is the exclusive divine pattern - then 1. (F) One congregation may supply physical needs only in cases of famine only, right? That's your example. (G) What happens in cases of a flood - and I call for a passage, by your logic, that calls for one congregation supplying funds to another congregation in cases of flood or hurricane? 2. (H) What happens if one anti- church desires to send food to relieve another little anti- congregation during a famine, and the recipient congregation has no elders? What do you do? \"Which they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.\" (17: 30). 3. Would not it be most scriptural to utilizer two \"messengers\" to send this relief? You see, if you apply your own rules - your idea of an exclusive pattern - you don't follow it, either! And no wonder! I wouldn't either! I simply happen to get off of that bus one step earlier than you do. Now, the questions: \"(1)Where is the direct command for one church to send money to another church for evangelism?\" There is none. It is an expedient under the Great Commission. \"(2)Where is the example of one church sending money to another church for evangelism?\" There is none. There are multiple examples of church cooperation - so much so that there is no specific pattern. It is an expedient. \"(3)Where is the necessary (essential) inference (implication) that one church sent money to another church for evangelism?\" There is no such necessary inference. Maybe an assumed (unnecessary one), but not a necessary one. Again, it is an expedient governed by common sense and good judgement. I'll flip the questions, exactly - and I'd love to see your defense: (I)Where is the direct command for the separation of persons by age or sex for teaching purposes. (J)Where is the example of such? (K)Where is the necessary (essential) inference that such occurred? And, to top it off, (L)By what authority do you do it? Now you have the questions, identified A thru L. I'll will pause, and await my opponent's reply and answers to the questions. It should be interesting.", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a840a37-2019-04-18T18:13:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.716200053691864}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care in the US Content: \"It is nessesary for the government to fund some programs, but taxes are already high for people and UHC would make taxes more expensive to taxpayers.\" So instead we make churches pay for this? Let me tell you why the bulk of your argument: donations, fails. This point is about how churches will get donations from patrons, but it isn't as straight forward as you make it seem. According to Meet the Need.com--> http://meettheneed.org... (a reliable source, and a non-profit, check the \"about us\" page if you don't believe me):Why Do Churches Turn Away Families At the Door? \"Fewer people in need approach churches for help today because they don;t think churches are willing to help. However, studies show that people generally believe churches should be among the first to help. That dichotomy creates the prevailing poor perception of churches and Christians by society. Every family in need that churches turn away at the door drives home the idea that they're more about judgment than compassion then deeper and deeper into the American psyche. Every time a pastor speaks out on cultural, social, or moral issue when that church hasn't demonstrated a commensurate degree of mercy to the needy - the ditch widens.\" Simplified: Fewer people go to churches for help because they are afraid that churches will turn them away. Timothy Delaney February 24, 2016 at 12:28 pm (review of their church in South Carolina): My family and I moved to South Carolina a couple of years ago, began attending a mega church that is located in the city, and even began paying tithes and offerings. Things have been not so great lately, I have been out of work for sometime and we are on the verge of being evicted. We gave a sacrificial offering and attached a note explaining some of the things that were going on, and expressed how we have no one here. That was over a month ago and not one person from that church has reached out to us. Thousands of members, hundreds of staff, ministry on television weekly and not one phone call. This proves that above anything, it is unfeasible because it people won't go for help, and people are already unsatisfied with their church. What makes you think that they will go to a POW for help? The great thing about UHC is that it allows all people to have support, even if they don't have the ability to get it from a church. Because you will probably come with some response about how people will come for UHC from POW, I'm gonna give some more examples. Soapboxie: https://soapboxie.com... --> (This article is written from a former homeless/poor person)--> People won't get help for themselves because, \"By the time a person is on the street, his or her life is usually already careening out of control.\" In short: lots of poor people that can't afford health care, don't want to get it for themselves because if they do, they feel like a religious POW will be supporting them when they may not support that religion. It becomes lack of control to have churches pay for the UHC b/c people will be losing control. Now we need to move onto this disastrous money situation because it makes very little sense. You did some math about churches as a whole, but I'm going to focus on each church individually. (https://www.cheatsheet.com...) How much does each person from a church donate per year? Christians: $817 Muslims: $1,300 Jews: $1,440 \"Jesus said help the poor.\" That is what they're doing, but it certainly isn't enough to pay for this huge amount of money. As you can see if you have working eyes and a brain that exceeds 5th grade math, this would total more than $914,000(again, this is from YOUR estimate). So ultimately, it is impossible for these churches to pay for it because your entire case revolves around donations, and yet they aren't enough to pay for the $1M price tag PER YEAR, PER CHURCH. And then I am ultimately really confused about why the US GDP is coming into the picture. You are overcomplicating this debate. So lets simplify this to just one church. Cut out everything else. So lets say that this church has 75 members. They are a christian church, so they all donate $817 to their church. This totals: $61,275. How does this cover the cost of the price tag? Answer: it doesn't. And then you brought up a tithe. And I don't know what definition you are using. Do you mean like a tax like what they did in the past, where 10% of your paycheck would go to the church or clergy(if that is your definition, they you are contradicting yourself because you said that involuntary tax was bad and which was also your reasoning for the governments, \"immoral taxing.\") If this isn't what you mean, and you mean to pay the church upfront, and it isn't required, in which case people wouldn't donate that much and we would be back where we started. Nothing you have said makes sense and thus there is no reason that you should win this debate. I await your response! (I'm not going to be rude like you because I am at least respectful when debating) It will be fun to see the outcome of this debate! Bye", "qid": 18, "docid": "4c315ac7-2019-04-18T11:25:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7154394388198853}, {"content": "Title: Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Content: In this round, I will be providing rebuttal to Thett\u2019s offensive arguments and defending my own arguments against Thett\u2019s rebuttals. Framework Thett begins by expressing surprise at a purely utilitarian framework rather than higher principles such as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not a higher principle. Maybe the purpose of establishing a utilitarian framework was unclear: my framework establishes a system in which impacts are weighed; not a common \u2018theme\u2019 of arguments. My framework argued (and was never contested) that impacts ought to be weighed based on the goodness to badness ratio; goodness being the creation of more positive mental states than negative ones. Because Thett never contested my framework, separation of church and state only becomes a \u2018higher\u2019 principle in that its impact weighed in positive to negative mental states outweighs any other impacts; or, in the sense of a \u2018principal\u2019, categories of impact (such as economic growth, unemployment, crime, and such.) Thett\u2019s claim at the end of this section that if religion is proved as an overall benefit and taxes would harm the prevalence of religion, he would automatically win, is simply untrue. By my established framework, as long as a higher impact is created by taxing churches (a higher impact than harm done to prevalence of religion), I win the debate. Religion is a social good I do not contest the health benefits of being religious. Thus, I concede all of what Thett says here; with the exception community gatherings since that can easily be done at public schools rather than churches. This entire contention only gains impact if Thett can show that taxing churches would result in less religious attendance through the inability of people attending church (because the local church closes down.) I find that this link is unwarranted, and extremely weak at best. If you go back and read through the debate, the only times Thett addresses churches shutting down is through unwarranted claims. There is the exception of bringing up 26,000 Catholic properties in America, of which I address and negate in my second to last paragraph of the next contention. Thus, the link between taxing churches and decrease in health is nonexistent as it is thrown away on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy. Regardless, even if a link did exist and this argument had any impact, the amount of good that could be done with $14.6 billion (see next contention) far outweighs the amount of good that attending church does. $14.6 billion could save millions of lives through preventing starvation and crime. These impacts outweigh decreased stress and lengthened lifetimes. This entire contention is negated on two layers. Economic effects The beginning of this contention is spent attacking my source for the statistic of $71 billion raised from taxing churches. The source can be seen here [1]. I will start at the beginning of the calculation and go step by step until I reach the conclusion. The average church property value is estimated at $1.7 million. This is reached from averaging the property values of 47 different churches in Tampa, Florida. I think this is a reasonable estimate given that the median household property value in the US is $189,400 [2]. The median household property value in Tampa is $165,200 [3]. Because churches are zoned for commercial properties and are only able to be built on residential properties after obtaining a variance, most churches lie on commercial property [4]. And since residential and commercial property values are proven to exhibit strong correlation [5], and commercial property values tend to be significantly higher in value than residential properties [6], the estimation would follow a national trend. As my source [6] explains, it is standard to have a residential property sell for $100,000 and a commercial property of the exact same size across the street sells for $1,000,000. As logic shows, the $1.7 million statistic is reliable. The average property tax on households is 1.29% [7] and commercial property taxes are 20% higher [8], which puts the tax at 1.55%. Thus the average church would thus pay $26,350 in taxes. Given there are 300,000 churches, that ends up being $7,905,000,000. That\u2019s $7.9 billion. Since under the resolution I am only arguing for commercial income tax and property tax, I drop the prior $71 billion to $7.9 billion. Thus my overall money raised from church taxes is $14.6 billion. Thett\u2019s next point is that a tax would shut down thousands of churches and thus lose many jobs. First of all the entire assertion that churches would close down or jobs would be lost is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. But regardless, even if jobs are lost, since the money is reallocated to secular organizations, the same number of new employees are hired at the organization than were lost at the church. This compensates for any lost jobs. Thett makes a sidepoint in the second paragraph noting that 71% of church expenses are on operation costs, which he argues would be tax deductible because internal operations are essential to spending on charity. Thus, the government would only get a portion of that already donated to charity. And since my plan would use the taxed money to donate to charity, my plan would seem pointless since I am taxing charity donations to spend on charity. This argument does not work for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church\u2019s. These internal operation expenses are for religious practice, such as worship, rather than operations relating to charity. Thus, these internal operations would not be tax deductible. The only exception for this is when the church files to be classed as a non profit, or a 501(c)(3) organization. When this happens no income can be used for \u201cprivate purposes\u201d [9]. This eliminates the ability of a church to function as a church, and thus no longer becomes a church since it provides no worship services, guidance, or whatever. All profit is donated to charity except for money spent to maintain the donation of money (operating expenses.) My plan would not tax these non profit organizations, only churches. And churches are inherently for profit, as my logic just showed. Thus, my tax would take away X amount of money, of which 29% would ordinarily be used for charity, and I would donate it to charity making 92% of it used for charity. Based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out here. The other option is that the church\u2019s donations to charities are written off on their taxes, and thus I am only taxing the remaining taxable income: 71% of their income. The tax on that income would then further be spent on charity due to my plan, and again, based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out. Thett goes on to cite the Catholic church in spending 93% of their $170 billion budget on charity. This is all true, and it is of course good. But the claim that church taxes would \u201ctax them out of existence\u201d is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. What will happen is a portion of their budget will be deducted in taxes, which then, according to my plan, will be reallocated to secular nonprofits, of which are just as or more utilitarian in spending their money. It's important to note that using the example of the Catholic Church is cherry-picking, and a more topical example would be the national average, which is 29% of the money going to charity. Taxing and reallocating it would make 92% go to charity. More lives are saved, diseases cured, and homes built through my plan. But even regardless of this, as I said earlier, any money that the Catholic church uses for charity is tax deductible. This means that only funds used for non charity related uses, such as worship, guidance, or whatever is actually taxed. Saying that hospitals would close, or any other negative affect to charity is simply untrue, a tax would only harm the worship part of church. Separation of Church and State Thett\u2019s argument here is that the church and the state have a truce of mutually assured destruction. The problem with this is that is makes the unwarranted assumption that churches would retaliate, or that their retaliation is bad. Neither of these are true. First of all, the head of the largest religious institution in the world endorses church taxes for noncharitable churches [11]. Secondly, taxes won\u2019t significantly harm religious organizations, and Thett has given no argument that it would, so significant retaliation is unlikely. Regardless, the only retaliation that Thett brings up is in endorsing candidates. I don\u2019t see this as a bad thing, as religious institutions have every right to exercise their free speech and endorse candidates. There is no negative here, or at least no negative that Thett has argued for. So the idea that taxing churches is bad because it will result in churches retaliating by endorsing candidates has no impact for Thett since he failed to show why churches endorsing candidates is a bad thing. There is no arguable difference between the Catholic Church, Bernie Sanders, or the NAACP endorsing someone for president. None of these are bad things, this argument has no impact. Also, the claim that the tax exemption status would just be returned is outside the scope of the resolution since it is a should proposition, not a *would*. Suing the government because your taxes went up due to a newly passed law has no ground. The government does not have to spend any money defending that kind of lawsuit since there is nothing to sue over. There is room for debate in what's defined as a church though, and these are funded by wealthy organizations making the cost of these courses more expensive. Sources in comments", "qid": 18, "docid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7119009494781494}, {"content": "Title: Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Content: Preface: Pro has agreed to make this the final round. Thus, no further Cases or Counter-Cases will be made (except in regard to new information he releases), instead currently standing Cases and Counter-Cases will be defended. In turn, both Debaters will merely Sign further Rounds, not Post Cases/Counter-Cases. Proposition: Nature of Taxation Pro admits straight out that he perceives all our money to be Government property. This is against the very nature of US governance philosophy. The Government does not own us or our property, we own the government. No, our property is our own, not leased to us by government. This includes our money. My hard work doesn\u2019t give me revenue leased to me. It gives wealth which belongs to me, and me alone {1}. He suggests a defense is government minting. No, this is a service of government, owed to us, as we own the government. The government is not a this-for-that organization. It is here purely to protect, and provide certain things. We pay taxes out of necessity, not because the government is entitled to our wealth. Beyond this, no other substantiation is given to support this radical change is economic philosophy. It is for the Voter to decide from here if they buy my opponents view, and how it further affects their views. I will point out that highly Pro\u2019s cases are dependent on his views of Money of property of Government. Sources: 1} FEE: http://bit.ly... Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: Pro continues his claim that Churches are corporations, simply by saying that pay workers. Counter: Pro claims that Churches are corporations because they pay their workers. As I\u2019ve said before, all charities pay their workers too {2}. He claims churches aren\u2019t always charitable. As I\u2019ve earlier said, Churches can lose their tax exemption, such as Scientology. I will further comment that these church workers do pay income tax. Pro sources that Tithes are sometimes required, however nowhere in his sources is this shown to be required. In fact, his Source 2 deals entirely with \u201cExit Costs\u201d, and admits there are no financial exit costs. There are \u201csocial costs\u201d as Mormonism is a sub-culture, and leaving the sub-culture means losing a lot of the friends and family in that culture. This tends to be the same in all cultures/sub-cultures. Pro\u2019s sources don\u2019t show that the actual religion forces any tithing. The Source makes this clear. Voters should go through those sources to confirm. Sources: 2} http://bit.ly... Counter-Case II: \u201cCounter-Case\u201d / \u201cCases\u201d Summarization: Pro has made several claims, which I shall debunk here. Counter: Pro admits that economic stimulus is endorsement, and therefore is unconstitutional. He further moves to claim that SBTCs could be used. Is that not also endorsement, since they are being given advantage? To say a charity going under is as bad as a business going under in the name of increased revenue is a flawed notion. I will allow Voters to decide how their view these statements. Pro continues claiming that Scotus is right because they said so. Again, Appeal to Authority, as them merely saying something is so doesn\u2019t make it so. If they say our money is government property and taxation is natural, but my statements show the flaws in their views, then that means SCOTUS is wrong, until proven correct subsequently by Pro. Pro failed to show them to be correct, because merely sighting their \u201cauthority\u201d. Ergo, he is using an Appeal to Authority.Pro actually claims SS is working fine. By this reasoning, there is no need to further fund them. He says Education is unevenly funded. So instead of evening the funding, he will prefer to increase the budget unnecessarily. This is the very same inefficiency creating the fiscal issue of government. Pro ends his counter-case by saying that the DODs waste could be spent elsewhere. This is largely the point of my statements. Streamline, Restructure, and Show respect for the money the government takes from us. Don\u2019t increase taxes.No, increasing taxation to pay for the debt, rather than simply decreasing expense, is a flawed and philosophically bankrupt notion. Additionally, the debt is not serviced in the way Pro seems to think. We pay interest for a set amount of time until a bond is repaid. Effectively, we need not increase the money going to this interest (in fact, doing so would hurt our credit rating, as people buy debt in order to make a profit. Paying too fast lowers the profit by lowering yearly interests, hurting incentive to purchase bonds). Yes, my source mentions that the deficit increase can hurt the economy. Not the Tax Cut. The Increased deficit. We need merely reduce the expenditure, as I\u2019ve said several times, through increased efficiency and smaller government. Done right, this will lead to decreased or only slightly altered deficits. Thus the cause of economic slowdown will not be present, and lowered taxation will be able to increase GDP growth. As the economy grows, our revenue will ultimately grow, even with lowered taxation. Increased long-term revenue, with decreased expenditure, will eventually diminish the deficit to such as a point that the debt will shrink, perhaps not in absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP (the current measurement for judging debt). Best Case Scenario, the deficit eventually vanishes as tax revenue increases (from economic growth, not tax rate increase) and expenditure decreases. Obama\u2019s economy, according to Pro, was a success. In reality, his unsourced statement is wrong. Economic growth was less than exciting. Their GDP growth was 2.1% average, much less than the 2.8% average from the preceding 28 years. This is highlighted by the fact that the average for the 28 years included 2 major recessions, and some smaller recessions {3}. Additionally, workforce participation (better than simple \u201cunemployment\u201d charts, which include people who have stopped looking {4}) has decreased under Obama. {5 / 6} Relatively poor economic growth is a sign of issues with Obama\u2019s economic policy. As Pro has failed to list charts or sources, I have nothing further to debunk on this count.As for Clinton, a lot of his success came from reduced expenditure growth, leading to a lower expenditure/gdp ratio {7}. Many point out that he also increased taxes, however as Forbes and Heritage points out, the economic growth actually increased after turning around and cutting taxes a few years in {8 / 9}. It was the growth after this point which was substantial enough to give Clinton his above-average growth. So while Pro says we saw economic growth under Clinton, the reality is that this growth came from decreased relative spending, and in the end, decreased taxes. As Pro failed to present either charts or sources, there is nothing further to say. Basically, as I\u2019ve been saying, the answer is increased efficiency and smaller government, combined with lower taxes, not larger. His comment in the conclusion basically says we should designate Churches as something other than what they are for the Tax Revenue, actually saying it protects Separation of Church and State, when it actually compromises it by giving Government power over Church money, and creating \u201cexcessive entanglements\u201d (to quote Pro). He says these entanglements can be avoided by requiring \u201csecular\u201d use of the money. The government created Secularization of Churches is a sign of compromising Separation of Church and State. No, Separation of Church and State is created by not taxing at all. He says it will give the Government more money to use, I say it gives them more money to waste. And eventually they will decide they need even more money to waste. What Charity will they reclassify next? Sources: 3} Realclear Markets: http://bit.ly... 4} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 5} BLS: http://bit.ly... 6} Politifact: http://bit.ly... 7} Tax Foundation: http://bit.ly... 8} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 9} Heritage: http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro has failed to substantiate that Churches are corporations, or to defy my Cases that Churches are Charities. In fact, the subject of the Church makes up only a small part of his Round. Nothing else he mentions matters unless he can prove that Churches can be taxed. He hasn\u2019t. He has failed to show that Churches could lose 501C3 status, or that there is any grounds to remove Religious Tax Exemption. In light of this failure, nothing further about the use of the money matters, and actually suggests a desire to compromise Separation of Church and State and a gross breach of government/taxpayer faith by fraudulently miscategorizing Organizations, for nothing other than increased revenue.The fact is, Pro\u2019s views are founded in his Extreme Authoritarian notion that our Financial Property belong to the Government, which ultimately means our very lives are Government Property (without money, we have nothing). This is flawed and dangerous. It is against the very nature of a free nation, and is not compatible with any Western World. This is made worse if we support his idea that we can give false categorization to increase taxes, which gives further power to government to own us, as they need not even follow their own rules. If his views of our money are not adopted, his arguments entirely fall through. His cases rely on this Economic/Political Philosophy, and cannot survive without it (and barely survives with it).I remind Pro at this point that, per our agreement, he must not post any further arguments from here on. He can only sign the next two Rounds, as this is the final debate round. I have refrained from posting new Cases, and merely defended my already stated Cases/Counters, adding new Counters only in regard to his new statements. Any Cases/Counters/Defenses Pro attempts to post will be disregarded, per this agreement. Taxation is Theft. Vote Con. ==Unitomic==", "qid": 18, "docid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7114061117172241}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: Rules: Round 1: Proposition of Argument Round 2: Elaborate Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Revisions Round 4: Conclusion I would like to state the opinion that the real estate assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church, those which are not houses of worship directly open to the public, should be taxed as that they serve no real purpose and take up valuable real estate from the Nation. There are two reasons for this: The Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a foreign State: The Vatican. https://en.wikipedia.org... These institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population. Whereas a church may provide a place of solace, the monasteries and convents merely take up space and act as production factories for the Catholic Church's Money Machine (i.e. they produce wine, craft rosaries, and other such things). Look forward to debate.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7108637690544128}, {"content": "Title: There is no scriptural basis for requiring Christians to tithe Content: Good thoughts. Let's zoom in a little for this next round. I feel like the conversation is deviating. But, I will answer your points. This depate is about whether or not the Bible commands Christians to tithe, not about whether it is GOOD to tithe, or necessary to support the church. I think you might be minimizing how much this teaching is taught based on your lack of exposure to a variety of churches. I agree, there are some churches that do not make tithing a big deal. But, from having interacted with as many churches and ministries as I have, I can tell you that it is the prominent teaching when it comes to a Christian's fiscal obligation to their churches. On to the debate... DEFINITION OF THE TITHE Agreed to the English definition of the word TITHE. But, the Biblical concept of the tithe is a different issue. It is a compulsory offering. This debate is to establish the basis for extending that OT law to the NT Church REQUIRED AMOUNT You have stated: \"God really doesn't care how many and how you give Him your offering or tithe.\" Therefore you agree that the Bible does not support the mandate for Christians. THE CURSE I did not say that Jesus' sacrifice was a curse, but, \"they are told that they are under the CURSE - one that Jesus freed us from on the cross.\" Jesus FREED us from the CURSE of the law. That was my statement. THE ROLE OF THE APOSTLES Paul, was indeed a key player in the establishment of the Gentile church. He was \"Paul, the apostle to the gentiles.\" But, there is no indication that he was ever supported by the church. Paul established fellowships in different cities, staying with them for only a while, then writing letters to provide further guidance. He was very much a \"big brother\" to the churches. But, he had no say in their governance. Each church had elders, older men of integrity and reputation, to help guide the community of faith, much like a natural village (that is a term borrowed from a good friend of mine). ARE ALL CHRISTIANS PRESSURED TO GIVE? The debate was not about that issue at all. I agree that not all Christians give BECAUSE of the law. But, churches that DEMAND it for that reason have no basis for doing so. THE CHURCH I actually do not worship \"at a church\". I AM the Church, and worship together with other believers who ARE the Church. We don't have a building, nor pastoral salaries, nor costs to preach the Gospel. We just try to reach people through relationship, and we explore faith together. That's the Biblical model for being the Church. I don't actually see one for \"going to church.\" But, let's keep to the issue. Does the Bible COMMAND Christians to TITHE to their church?", "qid": 18, "docid": "fafbf287-2019-04-18T19:20:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7107622623443604}, {"content": "Title: The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Content: I am very willing to concede that other religious institutions, whether Christian or otherwise, should pay taxes on their real estate holding as well (for example, a Muslim \"youth center\" will still have to pay a property tax just like a Catholic monastery). However, I singled out the Catholic Church as that it is an institution completely within the grasp of a foreign sovereign power. The Pope is very much considered a head of state, although the boundaries of his rule are quite small and limited only to Vatican City. This is a problem as that he often uses his position of religious influence to attempt and influence the political affairs of other sovereign and secular nations. Yes, churches provide those places of solace I mentioned, but monasteries do not. Many Protestant churches sustain themselves solely through the tithes and efforts of its respective congregation, they need no monasteries or convents or schools or support them: However, the Catholic institutions such as monasteries, convents, schools, as well as all other real estate holdings of theirs (not to mention the income of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops) depend very much upon the tithes generated by parishioners. This means that hoped for improvements to a church (anything from basic repairs to a new organ) are put on the back burner so that the church's parochial school can be supported....even though many parents in that church may not be able to send their children to said school! This is a small issue, but when one considers that those real estate holdings are taking up a great deal of tithes collected. Money given for repairs at a local church instead are distributed and thinly spread across various schools, convents, and monasteries. This means that the people are essentially being scammed. This, of course, should be applied to all religious sects in a nation. However, as I stated in the first paragraph, the Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a sovereign state. These monasteries and convents, and especially these schools, should be considered institutions where a foreign head of state tries to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation-state. Indeed, the Catholic Church is the largest health care system in the world. However, in the largeness comes the threat of corruption. One need only look at the splendor of Vatican City and St. Peter's Basilica to see that much of the income of the Catholic church is spent on the comfort and luxurious lifestyles of the Church's higher echelons of leadership (a scam that has been running since Sixtus V). However, there those missionaries, are there not, who are truly givers, like the recently canonized Mother Theresa? Indeed, but the brilliant journalist Christopher Hitchens investigated into her quite a bit. http://www.nybooks.com... The popularity of her and the recent canonization are merely propaganda efforts by the Catholic Church to further push its political agenda into the secular republics which overthrew its Papal Authority in the various revolutions of the 18th and 19th Centuries. So, if the real estate holdings of the Catholic Church (and of course of all religions), which are not houses of worship open to the public, this scam is weakened and so is the political power machine of the Catholic Church itself.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5df4b40e-2019-04-18T12:51:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7098601460456848}, {"content": "Title: Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. Content: Round two argumentsOutlineI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.II. Religion tends to be partisanIII. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.IV. SourcesI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.If your a Christian, you probably disagree with Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and at least one branch of Christianity, Mormon, Catholic, and/or Protestant. The reverse is also true, if your a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew you probably don't want Christians to get a tax break. \"the Internal Revenue Service granted tax exemptions to Scientology organizations again in 1993.\" [0]We can't just give tax exempt status to the religion we see as the best religion. We must give the exemption to all or none. II. Religion tends to be partisanI will tell a brief personal testimony about going to church. I found the church to have overt conservative partisan bias. Misogynist remarks were made by the leader. \"God loves woman, but he loves men more.\" source church leaderThe same goes with a strong stance against abortion and socialism. I've found that I am hardly alone. \"Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal liberty's relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights.\" [1] A major part of Donald Trump victory in November 2016 was due to Christianity. More and more the conservative party has aligned itself with Christianity and Christianity with the conservative party. Note, other religions tend to sway towards conservative values by preaching traditional gender roles.\"They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America.They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture \u2014 not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments \u2014 that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous.\" [2]Churches are effectively breeding grounds for conservative values. Since it is common knowledge that most of the USA is Christian it is time for liberals to take a stand. Time to demand an even playing field by removing religious institutions' tax exempt status. III. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.The basic theory of economics is that resources are finite. Religious institutions literally often take prime real estate. Prime real estate without paying the full price. This means the poor and middle class have to take up the slack. \"The property taxes they aren\u2019t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens \u2014 in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches.\" [3]IV. Sources0. http://www.snopes.com...1. https://www.adn.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://time.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "439c18e2-2019-04-18T12:33:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7088994979858398}, {"content": "Title: The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG Content: Thank you for your argument! I. Christian church funding I have to argue that I think it is just that the Christian church gets their grants because they will divide it among the community again. Whether or not it is equal, it is fundamentally beneficial. I should have provided examples before. There are more than 10 countries (Christian) that have agreements with the Church for either political or financial backing and their relationship with the governments are stable (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In some of these countries, there is even heavy financial backings to the Christian community! I should say now that whether or not it is unequal again, the benefits do condone the special treatment for the greater well being of the country. II. States funding religion I think that con is still only making assertions that a federal level would not be condoned by the supreme court as the case you brought up doesn't directly state a problem with the federal government unable to involve themselves in financial religious affairs. This means this argument can only be an assumption on your part. I have adequately refuted your constitutional claims do to lack of direct SCOTUS statements. Even if you are right, the purpose of this argument shows that it would be beneficial for the government to finance the church, not whether it is allowed. III. Majority Rules I think it is unfair to compare religious minorities with ethnic minorities. Black people were treated with horrible lower class remarks while whites were treated without special benefits, just benefits in general. Religion is different as the U.S. isn't banishing or forcing religious minorities into the lower class. I also think that because the church becomes the new welfare gateway for those helping the community does not mean that the church will invade the USFG and change all laws. It is better for federal welfare to be replaced. I conclude by saying that my arguments have been provided and I look forward to the debates of my opponent!", "qid": 18, "docid": "99886d2e-2019-04-18T12:58:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7088664174079895}, {"content": "Title: Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... Content: first off id just like to say thankyou to my opponent for this debate, and good luck :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ prequel args: Q- \"The question is: since the Law already recognizes tax-exempt organizations as being legal entities, and human beings are also legal entities, why can't human beings receive tax exemption?\" well, looking purely from a legal stand-point, organizations can only receive tax exemptions if they are productive enough and meet the requirements, and I am certain that no homeless person meets the same criteria. Bible reference: the bible, however, does not advocate your stance on how to use the govt in any way shape or form. don't you remember? Jesus said \"give unto Caesar what's Caesar's...\" (Luke 20:20-26) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ so rather than what my opponent says, I propose we deny them tax exemptions, because: we need to allow suffering because without suffering we are excluded from meaning. the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole. ~~~~~~points~~~~~ I~ In \"softening the world for them are we really helping them?\" without suffering, they have nothing to compare life as a whole to. thus, even if there life has positive experiences, they would not know so because you would have robbed them of the antonym of witch they could compare there meaning of existence. II~ 1st, homeless people wouldn't have taxes..... 2nd, the poor are poor generally because they rest too much, if they however, had un cushioned suffering, they would have comparison, and thus drive to do better, an causing them to find there \"meaning is suffering\" as Nietzsche would argue. III~ although \"excessive\" taxes are bad, the Govt does need money to run off of, and this would create a double bind: 1. tax exemptions would spread beond the poor, thus alleviating the suffering of a larger group and acting as a larger entity of evil -or- 2. people would be lazy, as is there nature, and would largely ignore the programs witch thus flattens your claim here IV~ this would be no better than the universal health care. here I advocate the status quo as it was prior to universal health care. lets \"NOT\" go the way that Canadian health care system, shall we? V~umm.... lets not go the way of Rome either... they fell majorly as a result of the fact that 51% of there population was on a Govt check, witch means that 49% of the population was providing for 100% of the population. VI~as long as the Govt exists, it will always be power hungry and even if your plan accesses this advantage, the nature of Govt will, inevitably, in time, over-write it. VII~how would it do this? also, extend my suffering argument. by alleviating suffering, we would be, consequentially, majorly harming the entirety of the U.S. population. VIII~They are poor for a reason.... do you really think they would wisely invest? also, extend my argument here about the volunteering/donations section. IX~so we bankrupt our Govt? I would ask \"if the Govt barely has enough money as it is, and really doesn't have any at all, and we lessen the income of the Govt, how will it pay for these?\" also, what % of the GDP would this take away? -------------------------------------- ....umm, homeless people don't pay taxes.... sooooo this would not affect half of the group you claim to help. ------------------------------------- now, I do believe that my opponent has good intentions, however, you know full well it is said that \"the way to hell is paved with good intentions\". He fails to Critically analyze the situation, witch is what I have successfully done. I argue that \" we should do what immanuel kant called 'public use of reason' as opposed to 'private use of reason'. for kant, private use of reason is purely expert knowledge: some authority tells you, 'we have this problem'; you propose solutions. public use of reason is something more radical, where you don't just solve problems, but think about a larger scope of, first, is the problem itself formulated in the right way? is this the true problem? why do we have this problem? you know, you don't just accept...\" (Zizek) -------------------------------------------------- ***Impact calc*** ============ 1. in his proposed world- we exempt people from taxes, but cause the govt to collapse by bankruptcy, and our health care system to go down the drain. also we rob a large portion (with the possibility of robbing almost the entirety of the population) of meaning. thus destroying the U.S. as it were. 2. my proposed world- we protect the necessity of the circle of life allowing individuals to discover there \"meaning in suffering\". also, we advocate for better health care, and we cause the Govt to flourish. and we arn't based off of false premises, we correctly analyze the situation. a critical framework of analization is necessary. Questions ----------- 1. how much of our GDP would this take out? 2. how do homeless people (and largely, poor people) pay taxes in any way shape or form similar to corporations? 3. would your points esentualy be the bill proposed? 4. how does the bible support your stance? 5. how would giving people free things heighten there morality? 5.5. what are your historical examples on the morality argument? 6. personally, what inspired you to to take interest in this matter?", "qid": 18, "docid": "f21a3676-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7077726125717163}, {"content": "Title: End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations Content: If my last debate was considered strawman then consider yours strawman as well. Your first premise supports a conclusion to whether there is a separate of church and state in certain countries. The United States has been at war for this \"idea\" of terrorism. Terrorism is an \"idea\" as religion is also an \"idea\", therefore religion does have influence on the cause of these wars and for their involvement they should be taxed in order to pay for their involvement. When these religious organizations use their right to \"peaceably assemble\" they create cults. Cults like politics that soon spread ideas of terrorism and other nonsense that do not give people of this county or any country a say otherwise. Politics too have religious beliefs.. PLENTY of politics quote from the bible... especially southern ones. Most political campaigns are based off persuading one religion to vote for them on grounds that the whole group will vote for them and this tactic is seen the most among hasidic communities because if you have one vote you have them all. My previous debate makes every bit of sense to the issue of whether or not the government should end tax breaks for religious organizations. My point being that because the government is the one taxing the people and NOT religious establishments for wars caused by the religions themselves; the ones causing the wars should be the ones taxed to pay for the wars and not the ones who did not create war in the first place. We have no say in who declares war and who doesn't, that is left up to the government and these wars are the primary derivation of religious beliefs and defects. The government is using tax breaks for religion to hide the fact that religion really does play a role in the governments decisions for war and the government is trying to make it look like religion does not partake in war efforts by providing them tax breaks. This country is backwards and has been that way for a long time. The Government Should Tax Religious Organizations.", "qid": 18, "docid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7075456380844116}, {"content": "Title: End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations Content: P1: According to the the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the congress further states the protection of right to peaceably assemble, that is an individual right to come together and collectively express,promote,pursue, and defend common interests,including the freedom of expression. In which Churches are a group of people that assembles through the given rights to gather for their common belief(interest) and is also given the rights to share their expression of belief as well.For this reason,by law,churches are considered as non-profit organizations that have no direct interference with the government,therefore has the rights of tax-exemptions. P2: The congress is not discriminating by giving tax breaks to churches but rather because of tax-exemptions on religious organizations,the congress is executing the established constitution of rights to individuals fairly, allowing the freedom of assembly. C: Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Source: http://aclj.org...", "qid": 18, "docid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.707454264163971}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal Content: I will agree that churches should stop lobbying their position, I find it very hypocritical of them to be doing so considering part of having church tax exemptions is that you can't contribute to any public official; and I would like to make abundantly clear that I am NOT against gay marriage completely, just against the way that it is currently proposed. I will make this argument on the sole argument that divorce cases in a gay marriage would be a disaster. This is because in a standard divorce case there is a Husband and Wife, clearly labeled 'sides'. Typically, there are certain issues that are meant to help the wife (prenups not included): Physical Assets - House, car, etc. and Liquid Assets - Current monies, and Future monies (alimony, child support); finally there is the issue of children, if applicable. Again, typically the mother gets the children (typically, mind you). In a gay marriage these things are not clear. If a man and a man, with kids (whole 'nother issue, I know),apply for a divorce how do you decide who gets what. Now if it were law that a pre-nuptual agreement must be made before a gay marriage, then this debate is null, because these issues could be readily resolved. However, this is not the case. For the children, if neither side was willing to give up at least partial custody, then one could see the problems that would cause. Again, my sole argument is that Gay Marriages, as proposed currently, should not be allowed because of the havoc it would cause the judicial system in resolving divorce cases.", "qid": 18, "docid": "173a3f88-2019-04-18T19:56:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7061130404472351}, {"content": "Title: The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG Content: Here is my rebuttal. First of all, I accept my opponent's funding arrangement. Legitimate or not, and regardless of whether I agree with it, there is no point contesting something that does not advance Pro's position nevertheless. This is not a concession, since my opponent's proposed financial plan is not an argument for the inherent validity of the USFG funding the Christian church. R1) Pro's plan to divert funds from welfare does not take away from the fact that the funding of the Christian church constitutes inequality before the law. My opponent may dispute the share of the US population comprised of non-Christians; it is irrelevant regardless. The flaw in my opponent's response is his lack of understanding of the principle of equality under the law. Whether it is via executive order or congressional approval, the principle still applies. The method by which the policy is enacted does not affect whether or not it is unjust. Even if segregation under the Jim Crow laws was enforced by executive order, the policies themselves were still wholly unjust. I have yet to observe a group of people that feels closer to their government because their religious institution is federally supported; if my opponent would like to bring forth evidence for this assertion, I would gladly consider it. My opponent also infers that a religious group must be persecuted for it to be considered unequal before the law; this is obviously false as I have already shown in the previous round, as preferential treatment in any form is unjust at the government level. R2) States funding religious institutions meets the same fate as federal funding initiatives. Lemon v. Kurtzman established the test that I have already explained. Excessive government entangling in religious affairs can occur at the state level and at the federal level, and it is treated the same under the law. The constitutionality of a policy as defined by the Supreme Court sets a precedent that can be applied to all law interpreted from the time the original decision, as shown by many historical applications of legal precedents. [1]Regardless of whether the funding is for the \"secular purpose of welfare\", the fact that the government is directly funding a religious institution fails the Lemon test as established by the SCOTUS. I have yet to see my claim to unconstitutionality adequately refuted. ---------------------------Thus far, my arguments stand. Let's take a look at my opponent's arguments. Note that I will leave out my opponent's claim to constitutionality, as my argument already shows that the USFG funding the Christian church is already unconstitutional. R3) \"Majority rules\" does not adequately address the problem of inequality before the law. As we have observed historically, the right to equality under the law does not only extend to the majority. During the Civil Rights Era, for example, whites greatly outnumbered blacks. However, the right to equality under the law still applied to minority groups. Minority religious institutions cannot be treated differently under the law than the Christian church if we are to live in a just society. The fact that the church helps struggling people is self-evident. Religious charity organizations contribute immensely to our society. However, the preferential funding of the church inherently endorses a belief in the church's righteousness, which is debatable. Beliefs shared by some Christian denominations are directly contrary to current policy (gay marriage is a notable example). It is better, therefore, for the government to stay out of it entirely. Again, it is unjust to designate the Christian church as a means through which the community can be benefited as a whole; the only institution which, by definition, represents the entirety of the community is the government. It is the government's duty in its own right to care for and represent struggling citizens; this is not to say that the Christian church does not have a right and ability to help in their communities, but it is inherently wrong for the government to funnel relief money through the Christian church, which fails to represent the whole community. The government can perform their own duty as they should. ---------------------------I find my opponent's arguments refuted. His claim to constitutionality is misinformed. The problem of unequal treatment before the law has not been addressed. The fact that the church helps people is self-evident, but the government can better represent the community by definition, and the funneling of money through a religious institution is a form of unjustly and unconstitutionally instituted welfare. I await my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "99886d2e-2019-04-18T12:58:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7059509754180908}, {"content": "Title: Universal Health Care in the US Content: Churches should pay for this because it's in their religion, so unless they pay for it (assuming they can) then they would be hypocritical since they accept Jesus by his words and reject them by his lifestyle which is against the bible. Churches are funded consensually whereas taxes are not. Stereotypical and typical donations on their own fail. However, on a massive scale I have proven they are not failures. http://meettheneed.org...... states that the reason why churches fail to give to the poor is because they are more about judgment than compassion. However, if the government tells poor people to depend on the churches, than poor people would hear this on the news, there would be talk about it, the word would get out, and then churches, even if they are evangelical churches, would be pressured to help out the poor like when a hurricane destroyed parts of Houston, Texas whether or not they are actually religious. So if you are very religious, and especially if you donate, you can use other poor people to pressure the churches into acting Christian. \u201cWhat makes you think that they will go to a POW for help?\u201d If the government tells people to go to a church for help, even atheists would crawl out of their shell and go into a place where they don\u2019t believe in the G-d that is there. I\u2019m not Jewish, yet I\u2019ve been in synagogues. I\u2019m not Buddhist, but I\u2019ve been in Buddhist temples. If I can crawl out of my skin, so can atheists. I say this as an atheist. \"By the time a person is on the street, his or her life is usually already careening out of control.\" If they go to a church to get their health insurance bill paid for, then there life won\u2019t be \u201ccareening out of control\u201d as easily. \u201cthey feel like a religious POW will be supporting them when they may not support that religion.\u201d It\u2019s very rare first off, most poor Christians would depend on Churches, most Jews would depend on Synagogues, etc. Atheists don\u2019t care, they respect Christians (most of them) and if they need the money, they can make the church more poor. They don\u2019t like it when the Church gets richer from tithes. They would feel good if they legally make the church more poor, or they can at least have an illusion that they are bankrupting the church. \u201cIt becomes lack of control to have churches pay for the UHC b/c people will be losing control.\u201d If anything, it gives the church more power over the lives of their dependents, but it\u2019s ultimately up to the dependents on whether or not to accept this advice. \"(https://www.cheatsheet.com......) \"How much does each person from a church donate per year? Christians: $817 Muslims: $1,300 Jews: $1,440\" These are numbers. It does not correlate into how much money the entire church gets from every christian and other religious person. You aren\u2019t providing enough data in your argument. I also don\u2019t know how reliable a .com is. They only polled 1000 Religious people, not even 1000 Christians, but 1000 religious people. Assuming they broke it 3 ways, that means that they polled less than 340 Christians. The site says, \u201c\u201cWe polled 1,000 religiously affiliated Americans who indicated that they did contribute financially to their respective religions to determine the financial impact of their religious affiliations,\u201d\u201d This doesn\u2019t seem very reliable. They might have done the survey in a poor section of the US, screwing up the numbers much more than what they would have done if they surveyed from every US county. \"\"Jesus said help the poor.\" That is what they're doing, but it certainly isn't enough to pay for this huge amount of money.\" Jesus said to sell all you have and give to the poor. While he probably made exceptions for necessities, it shows that churches should be sacrificing almost all of their excess income to paying for the poor and serving their lord, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, they are false Christians, which should be okay for individuals because of freedom of religion, but not okay for Churches who claim to be a religious place yet have leaders who don\u2019t live religiously. \"As you can see if you have working eyes and a brain that exceeds 5th grade math, this would total more than $914,000 (again, this is from YOUR estimate). So ultimately, it is impossible for these churches to pay for it because your entire case revolves around donations, and yet they aren't enough to pay for the $1M price tag PER YEAR, PER CHURCH.\" Although it sounds crazy, I actually managed to prove how churches could pay for all this since many people tithe and donate in general and you have yet to disprove it, you merely only believe that is infeasible despite the evidence stating the opposite. \u201dAnd then I am ultimately really confused about why the US GDP is coming into the picture.\u201d I did this to figure out how much the average tithe would be since a tithe is 10% of a salary and the GDP per capita measures the average annual salary. This helped find out the average tithe amount. \u201cSo let's simplify this to just one church. Cut out everything else. So let's say that this church has 75 members.\u201d Most towns have multiple churches so it\u2019s not just one church paying for the health costs of the poor people of the town, but all the churches working together to achieve this goal. And most churches have more than 75 members Assuming there are 14 churches of a bigger size (150 members), then they are a christian church, so they all donate $817 to their church, then the average church under this situation would raise about $980,400, using a combination of both our numbers. I estimate the reason why this was less than the previous estimate was because the survey surveyed poor regions of the US. \u201cDo you mean like a tax like what they did in the past, where 10% of your paycheck would go to the church or clergy(if that is your definition, they you are contradicting yourself because you said that involuntary tax was bad and which was also your reasoning for the governments, \"immoral taxing.\")\u201d I mean a tithe that is consensually paid (excluding religious threats). \"Nothing you have said makes sense and thus there is no reason that you should win this debate.\" It does make sense and it's backed by many mainstream prominent people. While churches paying nearly $1 Million a year seems unreasonable at first, I confirmed that this as possible. \"(I'm not going to be rude like you because I am at least respectful when debating)\" I have a feeling that I am being about as polte to you as vice versa. I can find some times when you were arrogant and rude. An example, you said, \"These reasons shut down your church argument (basically your only argument), using your own reasoning and numbers.\". Although I have a tough skin, so I can withstand this, this is indeed rude and it could cost you conduct points. It will be fun to see the outcome of this debate!", "qid": 18, "docid": "4c315ac7-2019-04-18T11:25:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7052924036979675}, {"content": "Title: Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... Content: Prequel arguments: Q- but my point is that your comparing them to corporations using that as justification to give them tax breaks, but when we follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it falls flat. that's my point, and it wasn't rely an argument, just food for thought. Bible reference: \"While I respect my opponent's research, I must disagree on the point about the Bible's perspective on taxation and government. Firstly, the remainder of the text reads, \"Give unto God what's God's\", thereby reminding us to give what is owed to those to whom we owe it.\" --yes, and we do not owe poor people anything. \"However, in ancient Israel, the Law of Moses demanded charity from the people; both in the form of personal charity, and in a form of taxation we know today as \"tithing\". If necessary, I can provide specific references; however, there are many references throughout the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.\" --and we still do, through the church. key word \"church\". it is not the governments place to administer charity. ------------------------------------------ I never said that evil is neccisary first of all, if I remember correctly I actually said \"the Evil is not suffering, but the attempts to rob one of his or her suffering, thus making life incomplete and robbing him/her of meaning as a whole.\" evil is evil, but maby I should explain. suffering is not evil, it completes life and allows us to know meaning and through meaning is produced the value of life. but when you remove suffering, they you create a sort of sped up nihilism which, through consequence, causes the value of life to devalue. ------------------------------------------- I believe the confusion here is I may have been a bit vague in how this work, so I will explain it here: lets start at the beginning. most everyone has some sort of drive. drives are driven by the self and what we deem \"important\". now we must ask the question \"what drives us to want to help others?\". the answer is simple, because of the way it makes us feel, it makes you feel good. this point is made by zizek and explained clearly, its only a few minutes long, blease, I ask you to watch this: http://www.youtube.com... and also, talking from a biblical point, on the contrary, god uses hardship and suffering to bring us closer to him (thereby giving us meaning and creating value to our life). take jobe for instance. he had everything, money, a loving family, power, and he loved god. Satan asked god if he could tempt jobe, and god allowed Satan to basically ruin jobes life, yet as jobe reaccounts, in the end, it brought him closer to god. --------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~points~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~first, I just want to point out how ironic and contradicting it is that my opponent, who uses the Christian bible to support his points, quotes Buddha and Lao tzu.... second , this answer is only proof of what I say. he said \" it is this competition that causes unease and unrest. Suffering causes us to feel impending doom. While useful, it is useful as far as the compulsion to alleviate suffering. One may wonder if it's suffering that is necessary, or effort.\" -it is this fear of an impending doom that drives us as people to do better and to denounce our apathetic and sinful nature. thus without cause, there is no drive, and they would completely lose sight of meaning. II~ 1. but your only proposing tax breaks.... your ideas specifically would not affect the homeless, no where in your points did u mention of any sort of housing programs. 2. even the bible supports this. the bible states that human beings have an inherently sinful nature, and apathy is not of god, therefore is apart of our nature. also, were is your evidence? examples? III~ and we are at war right now, and there was taxes before ww2, just allot more pressure put on paying them in ww2. 1. but why would you monitor it? Didn't you say that you believe suffering is bad? You've just contradicted your whole thesis here. also, our govt is so big that every aspect of it is subject to abuse, what makes this an exception? 2. the only reason people go into survive mode is because of the impending doom they see when in times of suffering. this is not the rule of human nature, merely an exception. IV~ if its purely from the private sector, how can you grantee that they will receive it? how can this even be affected by your bill?... its to vague of a point... V~ but that has nothing to do with tax exemptions... also, how exactly are tax exemptions for the poor going to make richer people become more charitable? sounds like your making quite the assumption here... VI~ not exactly.... look at our govt at the beginning of the U.S. and compare it to now. it have gained an exponential amount of power over us. this is proof of my claim. history proves. go read some ayn rand, she explains this. VII~ the bible does, \"do unto others as you would have done unto you\". but (as supported by the example of jobe), suffering is a neccisary part of life, if you can I would ask you to read the first chapter of the will to power by Nietzsche. it explains this very clearly. VIII~ you obviously don't know what poor is... go visit any 3rd world country, come back, then give me your definition of poor. IX~ so we lessen the income of the govt before we take care of this? that would only result in the multiplication of our deficit.... ------------------------------- but how do tax breaks affect homeless people? ------------------------------- reffer back to the example of jobe for my answer on this. also, im not advocating util.... im only advocating the logical framework of thought utilized by Kant.... nothing more. ------------------------------- 1. you only propose a tax exemptions... how do you solve for frivolous spending? seems like your reaching a bit here... 2. I agree that \"Government isn't the solution... government is the problem\" as quoted by my opponent. But he seems to think that buy the govt handing out tradable tax credits and giving tax exemptions /reductions, that we can solve poverty..... first, that is using the govt, second, solving poverty is impossible. Jesus himself said \"the poor will always be with us\". Questions ------------------ 1. How much of the govt anual income from taxes would be reduced? 2. but how do tax breaks get homeless people to not be homeless any more? 3. got all i need on this one. 4. ok, got all i need here. 5.can you be a bit less vague in your explenation? 5.5. there was also slavery... and sexism on a larger scale... but america has changed for the better has it not? 6.for the reccord, me 2 man, I know where your coming from.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f21a3676-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7030609846115112}, {"content": "Title: The Church is or isn\"t good Content: Could we say the Church is really beneficial for people? What I mean is that, what does the Church really do? They help the poor but, do we really need the Church to help the poor? If people want to help the poor they don\"t have to do it by the Church, in name of God. They can do it by other non-religious ONG\"s. The Church also educates, have schools but they aren\"t the only ones. We don\"t need any religious school or ONG but I don\"t care if there are. What I really care about are those news which talk about children who had been abuse by their priests or those other news which say that the Church does not pay taxes. After saying this, what do you really think about the Church? Does it really matters?", "qid": 18, "docid": "d6297ccc-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7027169466018677}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: Fiirstly, please be advised that I am an equal opportunities debater and this challenge may be accepted by any member regardless of their age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender although contributions from young Asian bi-curious women are particularly welcome as they are under-represented on this site. Now, here is my opening argument: Churches make money by cynically exploiting the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their congregations: but there's nothing illegal about that; that's capitalism. However, unlike most other organisations, churches do not pay tax on their profits. If they did, though, the income raised could, and should, be ring-fenced by the government and used to fund women-only, lesbian-friendly drop-in centres that could provide free or subsidised: * Feminist-orientated assertiveness training courses * On-site caf\u00ef\u00bf\u00bds serving vegan wholefood dishes, Free Trade herbal teas and sustainably-sourced organic wines * Multi-ethnic women's rights awareness meetings * In-house spas providing holistic therapy treatments using only cruelty-free, carbon-neutral cosmetic products * Lesbian and bi-sexual bonding sessions * Clinics providing free contraception and abortions-on-demand for victims of male sexual oppression These drop-in centres would give women much-needed non-judgemental, eco-friendly, multicultural, ethically-aware refuges where they could find sanctuary from the conservative and regressive social doctrines that dominate mainstream society and perpetuate the exploitation of women by men. Furthermore, this scheme would be wholly in keeping with the Christian ethos of giving alms to strangers and would, therefore, command the full support of the preachers, pastors, vicars and priests who represent the various churches and who, in the true spirit of Christianity, would be delighted to forgo such worldly decadences as luxury cars and houses in order to support women in need. That's why the government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres. Thank you.", "qid": 18, "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7020253539085388}, {"content": "Title: Taxes Are Justifiable Content: My opponent could not defeat any of my arguments. Therefore, taxes are justifiable. All my points stand, and my opponent has failed to refute any of them. If my opponent even argues a new case in round 5 - he loses, because he cannot argue in round 5, as I said in R1 that would be banned.", "qid": 18, "docid": "e77f620f-2019-04-18T18:27:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7008106112480164}, {"content": "Title: The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG Content: Thank you for your arguments.I. FinancingA small portion of the U.S. income should be 25% of the current welfare expenditure, which amounts to about $250,000,000 (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). I would argue for using welfare budgets because welfare does not have a correlation to poverty and crime and has been considered ineffective by many studies (http://www.heritage.org...). II. Funding ecclesiastical institutionsNon-Christians in the U.S. only make up 13% of the American population (http://abcnews.go.com...) which is more like 1/9th rather than a quarter, 1/4th. You argue that funding Christians would make religious minorities treated unequally but it wouldn't be under the law that the Christian churches receive their grants, it would be executive orders and federal expenditures; a new form of welfare. So I do agree a just society upholds the principle of equality and law, but Christian institutions would only be given federal grants.It is not the same as calling the funding equivalent to funding a particular industry or market. Christianity makes up more than 80% of the American public, who would feel much greater bonds to the U.S. government and their treatment to Christian Americans who make up an influential amount of people. The U.S. government would benefit for financial ties with the Christian church. As for the religious minorities, they wouldn't be persecuted, they would simply not recieve grants. III. Funding a religious institution is constitutional I'd like to point out that the results of the case came to the conclusion that the \"states cannot fund religious institutions\" and not the state of the government. The fact that a nation is funding the institution for the secular purpose of welfare and community bonding does not make it unconstitutional. Therefore, government funding does not violate the constitution. I look forward to rebuttals!", "qid": 18, "docid": "99886d2e-2019-04-18T12:58:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6991324424743652}, {"content": "Title: The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Content: Originally Con's retort was a dense, tightly worded rebuttal to Pro's contention that the centers he proposes be women only, but after obliterating the 8,000 character limit, a different tack was required. Despite the obvious levity of the debate, a meaty issue exists, one which becomes heartier as one travels eastward over the Atlantic. While Con is a lot more familiar with the issue of the church and taxation in America, the question was poised in merry England, and home field advantage is acceded to Pro. The debate shall be limited to the taxing of religious institutions in England, as England's maintenance of an established church, her lack of a separation between church and state, and the differing legal and tax systems between England and America would make any attempt to discuss both devolve into two debates. However perfectly luscious Pro's suggestion of the destination of the earmarked funds may be, to what purpose the ring fenced funds are destined is relatively immaterial to the primary issue and will not be directly addressed by Con. Religious entities are one of the thirteen classes of charitable bodies recognized in the Charity Law which are exempt from most taxes in England[1]. Such entities are considered to provide a public benefit. The failure of Pro to mention taxing not-for-profit institutions other than religious ones allows us to deduce that Pro does not advocate the doing away with the Charity Law , or amending it in a manner other than removing religious entities from the Charity Law's recognized list. To do so, it is incumbent on Pro to prove that religious institutions do not provide public benefits in a manner which is inconsistent with the public benefits provided by other, non-religious not for profits. Pro will be hampered in proving this. Pro must not only discard the tangible social services which religious institutions dispense, the maintenance of historical buildings and the providing of a center for a community, but also contend with the spiritual services they provide. Psychologists generally regard spiritual wants as a human need[2]. A certain percentage of the population fulfills this need religiously. Even if one can personally write off religion as needless hocus pocus as easily as Mr. Bradlaugh could and instead fulfills his or her spiritual needs via a lager and the bi-curiosity of an assertive vegan Asian girl, one cannot be so contemptuous as to think that they know the best manner in which others ought satiate their spiritual needs. Just as some citizens of AR 72046 [3] find benefits from the not-for-profit services of The American Legion Post 168, The England Youth Athletic Association or the Sunny Day School Inc. (Childcare), some also find benefits from the one of the seven not-for-profit religious entities there. Con can state, from at least personal experience, the benefits provided by an American Legion Post are as much spiritual as they are anything else. Pro maintains that religion uses fear mongering tactics to cull money from their congregations. Fear mongering, naturally, cannot be construed as a public benefit. It is granted that the church makes itself feel needed, but hardly is such unique to the world of charity. Making one feel needed is not the same as fear mongering. Breast Cancer awareness has scared so many athletic teams so quickly into wearing so much pink that only Palermo's Rosanero can be assured of being ahead of the curve. But making one feel needed is different than fear mongering and with semantics aside, are religious institutions particularly more proficient in this area when it comes to squeezing pennies out of pensioners? Certainly a plausible case could be made for a good deal of its history. From its apogee of fear when Pope Innocent mildly humiliated poor King John (perhaps thereafter being humiliated in quick succession by the French and then his own drinking buddies was the harsher medicine), the Church has admittedly made good use of scaring the hell out of (or into) its flock and its less than enthusiastic followers. This fear, however, has been on the wane for quite sometime. Earthly fears started replacing heavenly fears as Henry, Mary, Elizabeth and Cromwell ran amok. The Age of Reason laid out the framework for removing these fears from aristocrats and the industrial revolution democratized them, enough so by the 1880's, even the Conservatives had to finally concede Charles Bradlaugh his duly elected seat in Parliament[4]. People questioned religion through science. In the generation between Lyell and Lord Kelvin the earth aged ten-fold. Darwin made folks question the literal handiwork of the creator and from that people questioned the bible. Science unfolded the mysteries of the universe. Church attendance went into a long decline as it fought a rearguard action against secularism. By 2010, only about a million souls still shuffled into the Church of England houses of worship on a weekly basis, representing just 2% of England and 4% of Anglicans[5]. These people, well worn end-notes of a 1,500 year old rolling saga, will weather no opprobrium should they not attend nor tithe. Failing to do either so earns no serious threats of eternal damnation from the pastor nor social stigma from society as a whole. In fact, in some urban areas, the stigma may go in the opposite direction. They attend because they genuinely want to and give donations because it serves their interests, and gives them greater benefits, than other alternatives (it is granted, however, that a good many pew occupants may be henpecked husbands intent on avoiding the wraith of their better halves, but that's hardly the church's fault, unless of course the church married them in the first place, which incidentally, is also becoming a rarer and rarer thing [6]). If the Church is reduced to making a few fence sitters pony up some spare bucks on Pascal's Wager, then so be it, but that's far from fear mongering. And even should an unlikely case be made that the church scares its followers into donating by fear mongering, the collection plate isn't the church's primary source of income. About 20% of its income is made this way, with a similar block made by Gift Aid[7]. The remainder comes from investments, rents and fee based services. In England, the Church and other non-profits are not taxed on these sorts incomes, while in America they are in certain degrees[8]. Even Italy is considering it[9]. Taxing such is a potential source of income for Pro's ideas, but that's a different discussion, as well as Disestablishment. I will be looking forward to an intelligent and entertaining continuation of this matter in round 2. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk... [2] http://www.max-neef.cl..., pg. 32 [3] http://www.taxexemptworld.com... [4] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... [5] http://www.churchofengland.org... [6] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [7] http://www.churchofengland.org... [8] http://www.irs.gov... [9] http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6986177563667297}, {"content": "Title: The first amendment Forbids \"in god we trust\", for good reason Content: I don't mind belated responses. Many of us have busy lives...I'm sure I'll have many belated responses on this site from time to time. Yes, sadly I know exactly what you are talking about when you're sure you know something so you don't look it up. I don't think churches getting tax breaks violates the constitution. They aren't getting it because the government is supporting religion. They are getting tax breaks for being non-profit organizations. The reason behind the tax breaks does not violate the constitution. If the government had the mentality of, \"we love religion...here's a tax break to support you.\" Then yes, it would be a direct violation. I agree with your \"poor old Peter\" argument (that is what this argument will now be known as to all who support state/religion separation). It is fascinating that there are 525 members of the House of Representatives and only one has been openly atheist (I'll assume that is the correct statistic as it does not really affect the argument, especially since we both agree). As I like to say, it's hard to run for office in this country without being religious. President Obama even stated, \"Jesus is Lord\" during one of his speeches. Many times it's a gimmick for swaying votes. It's almost like society is pushing politicians to keep religion mixed with state and they're like, \"Well, if that's what the people want.\" It's kind of strange. I do agree on most parts about what you mentioned. Though the thing I still do not agree with is the phrase \"In God We Trust\" being a violation to the Constitution. The Constitution never states the the government can do nothing like put a general phrase on a coin. It's putting preventive measures so that the government does not become something that they had finally gotten away from. The phrase in no way prevents or forces one to hold to a certain, or any, religion. Acknowledging a god is not religion. Religion is a structured way to live/worship. Saying \"In God We Trust\" is in no way more religious than saying, \"We Don't Believe In God\". The phrase could be summed up as an ideology not religion. I think it's fine if people want to say they don't like it and want it removed, but I believe saying it violates the constitution is a twisting of meaning.", "qid": 18, "docid": "f0abfa2e-2019-04-18T17:38:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6984347105026245}, {"content": "Title: Catholic churches Content: First off, let me welcome my opponent to Debate.org (DDO). I wish him a long and productive period here, and feel like a right jerk for Round 1.I assume that that by churches, my opponent also means Cathedrals and Basilicas and stuff like that.My Case:Contention One: Catholics already have plenty of charitable organizationsCatholic charities are numerous, and consistently rated highly for their efforts to improve living conditions of many. CharityWatch rates Catholic Relief Services with an A+, and Catholic Charities USA is the second highest provider of social services in the United States (after the Federal government) and was ranked second largest nonprofit organization in the US [1][2][3]. It is generally agreed that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Plenty of effort is already being used for charitable reasons, and as I will detail further churches are too important to cut.Contention Two: Catholic churches are by necessity gloriousWhat Catholics are called to do is to put God first and themselves second. Therefore, it makes sense that the buildings we build for the praise of God be beautiful and of high quality. Ideally, churches should be better furnished than homes. When you have a some little shed as your church, that says something about what you think of God. For instance, look at the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and the Temple. Many valuable materials were used to construct those things, because they were for God. It is the same with Catholic churches today.Contention Three: Public enjoymentAnyone can enjoy the splendor of Catholic churches. Even if you have no money, you can still enter beautiful places like Westminster Cathedral. The elegance of the Catholic churches can even be enjoyed by non-Catholics, and you need no money to do so. How often does a poor person find themselves able to afford a visit to such spectacular sights? Catholic churches are free.Contention Four: What else do we do with them?As my opponent is proposing a change in the status quo, I believe it is up to him to show what could otherwise be done. A lot of the money spent on churches is upkeep; but these churches are often of great cultural and historical value and cannot be allowed to fail. We have to keep the churches operational, as they are in use. We cannot keep them operational without spending money on them. They already exist and are consecrated, so we can't just sell them off or anything. We must keep them.I thank my opponent for making this debate and wish him luck.Sources:1. http://www.charitywatch.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...;", "qid": 18, "docid": "145407a3-2019-04-18T18:17:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6981614232063293}, {"content": "Title: This house believes churches should not involve themselves in political campaigns. Content: First, extend out observation one. By the definition of negate, it's only my job to refute Pro. Thus, the BoP's on him. He didn't contest this at all, hold him to this. All I technically have to do to win is refute his case or outweigh my case against his. He has to be sufficiently defending his case while sufficiently refuting mine to be able to win, and he's doing neither. Then, extend out observation two. Because the resolution isn't specific about what kind of involvement is being talked about, I'm allowed to specify any kind of involvement that I'm willing to defend. The involvement I'm specifying is that members of a church ought to be allowed to vote in political elections. Anything outside of this is not within the scope of my advocacy, and thus isn't responsive to the NC and has no link. Moreover, saying that churches have to act in x way is nonsensical because there's no resolutional warrant for this. This has a number of implications:First, it means that his attempt to restrict churches to only acting through religious means and through a religious lense lacks resolutional warrant to it, meaning there's no reason that in terms of the debate at hand why his argument is actually solid. His entire argument resides on the assumption that \"this is just what it means to be a church\" but because there's no resolutional warrant for this, it's unfair to constrict me to having to defend this. Second, it means you're preferring my case to his in terms of strength of link to the actual resolution at hand. Because the resolution isn't specific to any kind of involvement, I'm allowed to specify what kind of involvement I'd like to defend. This means that my case appeals directly to the text of the resolution, thus giving me the stronger link. This is even more critical because my opponent doesn't place a single response against this argument at all. It goes entirely dropped from his last round. And given that the next round is the final round and we've agreed to not make any new arguments in the final round, this means he physically cannot respond to this. Hold him to this drop. Then, extend out the first part of my case, giving religious members of churches the right to vote allows for the protection of their autonomy, which is a vital human right for preserving the value of human worth. He responds by saying that's not the point of his case and his case doesn't deny people the right to vote, but by saying that they should not participate in politics, that restricts their ability to vote (i. e. participate) if they're a member of the church. By affirming the resolution, he bites into the harm of violating autonomy. He also responds by saying that if his case is true then autonomy via belief in faith cannot lead to benefits, but first he's not actually winning on his case so this doesn't matter, but secondly, this misrepresents why we actually value autonomy. Autonomy isn't a means to a better end, rather it's an end in and of itself. Autonomy is the benefit, which is coming from the first part of the paragraph I cited. And thirdly, even if autonomy is just a means to a better end, he's not showing how removing our autonomy doesn't actually lead to a reduction of human worth. His argument is that having it doesn't lead to any benefits, but even if that's true he's not showing you any reason why removing it isn't harmful. Insofar as he isn't, and since I'm arguing that it does lead to a reduction of human worth, if there's clear negatives to removing it, we have no reason to remove it. My impacts still stand. Then, extend out the second part of my case. Preventing religious members from voting kills the Republican party as a political institution, effectively creating a de facto single-party system, which is the seeding point of totalitarianism. With no one to oppose the Democratic party, they'd be free to effect any kind of changes they wanted without any kind of opposition, any kind of discussion or debate of ideas and policy. We would be making the US a tyrrany. The harms of totalitarianism are more than sufficient reasons to reject the resolution. His response to this is that he only defends his case as a theoretical ideal, but that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. My argument is that if you affirm, then this will happen. Whether you defend it or advocate for it is irrelevant to whether or not it will happen in the affirmative world. He also says that I'm asking him to choose between theocracy and tyrrany, which is blatantly wrong. The entirety of my advocacy in the negative case (All members of a religious church will have the right to vote in elections for political office. ) is literally the status quo. There's nothing theocratic about having the right to vote. He also says that this isn't necessarily bad, but a) It is as my case argues because the death of the Republican party would lead to totalitarianism, and b) even if he wanted to contest this, he doesn't actually give us any kind of reason as to why this would be bad. Both halves of my case outweighs the entirety of his case because his case literally doesn't have any kind of impact. Theoretical ideas, as he concedes his case is, are only valuable insofar as they have real-world implications and reasons to prefer the ideals. I'm literally the only person applying the resolution to the real world, meaning I'm the only one with any kind of impact in the debate. So even if he wins his case, my case still outweighs and you negate anyway. But let's look at his case. Extend the three responses I make to the 2.1 section of his case. Not everything a church does has to be enacted through a religious lense and with religious motives. That doesn't mean that they \"cast aside religious\" and start shouting \"f*ck God\" up and down main street. It simply means that not everything they do has to have some kind of ulterior evangelical motive to it. His response to this is that that's what it means to be a church, but a) this is definitionally untrue as I already showed in my second point, and b) he's not doing anywhere near enough work to say why this is actually true: his refutations are elaborate, verbose ways of saying \"this is how it is\". Not only that, but even if you're buying his responses, his responses are a classic example of the is/ought fallacy. Even if he's winning that this is how churches are, that doesn't mean they have to be this way. We can change the way we perceive churches. Extend the second reason in particular, that by definition churches are defined as such based on their beliefs, not their actions, so the actions they take are irrelevant to their defining as a church. He gives an example of two groups of Christians and atheists and says that they both can't be definitionally churches. Turn this example against him: this is showing that if we take action out of the equation and just look at belief, that this is what defines what a church is, and not the actions they take. This is a game-over mistake for my opponent because he gives the perfect example and warrant for why churches can act outside of a religious lense and still be considered a church. He also argues that there's a distinction between belief and action, but this is absurd. I may believe that murder is okay and justifiable, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go shoot up a shopping mall for the funzies. He makes the argument that belief affects our future decision making, but never provides any kind of warrant for this. Until he provides a warrant for why every action a member of a church takes in every circumstance and every situation has to be made through religious motivations, he can't sufficiently warrant this point, and thus can't win the debate. Since the next round is the last round, he can't actually provide new warrants, meaning he can't actually win this debate. Extend my refutation of 2.2 as well. He's not warranting why if God is infinite he can't be comprehended. We do it all the time when we discuss God. He responds by saying that you need to be able to know everything about it in order to comprehend it, but that literally begs the same lack of warrant as my last question. He also says that the theologists and philosophers who discuss god are wrong if his argument is true, but that literally just takes the conclusion as true to defend the conclusion. He assumes his argument is true and uses that truth to defend his argument. He's not doing enough work here to defend this part of his case. And extend my refutations of 2.3 as well. He's not doing a sufficient enough job of warranting why faith and reason cannot co-exist. He responds that definitionally faith and reason cannot co-exist, but I've already outlined several scenarios where faith and reason co-exist and even cooperate together so that we can make rational decisions. He doesn't make any kind of response to them. It doesn't matter if his definitions say that they can't co-exist, my arguments are refuting his definitions. If there are multiple everyday scenarios that we do where faith and reason cooperate rather than fight, then his definitions cannot be valid. Summary:My case stands solidly in all aspects. It outweighs my opponent's case in terms of impacts, meaning that it's the first place you can negate. Moreover, I've refuted my opponent's case in three separate places, meaning there's three additional reasons he cannot fulfill his BoP, meaning you can negate on any one of the refutations.", "qid": 18, "docid": "4761cc64-2019-04-18T14:27:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6961575746536255}, {"content": "Title: Religious Schools Should Not Receive Government Funding Content: Religious schools are not the issue, but the use of taxpayer dollars going to them. As long as a church or religious organization wishes to run a school and meet the regulatory requirements, I have no issue with it. I would not try to deprive anyone of the right to educate as they see fit. My point is that there is no justification for either Federal or State tax money to finance such independent education systems in any way. Thank you for your prompt and courteous replies.", "qid": 18, "docid": "5423017d-2019-04-18T15:31:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6956666707992554}, {"content": "Title: Tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for the poor and homeless... Content: Most people don't understand the point of tax-exempt/tax-deductible status for poor and homeless people. Having been on that side of the fence, and having a modicum of experience with the 501(c)(3) criteria, I intend to provide arguments to support my idea of tax-exempt, or tax-deductible, status for poor and homeless people. Legally, corporations - especially tax-exempt non-profits, - are considered legal entities... not unlike human beings. They're \"born\" when they're incorporated; they're fed by the donations and profits they receive; they dress in buildings, and use tools to work; they learn, by keeping records; they keep themselves healthy and functional, with the help of their volunteers and employees; their brains are their boards of directors; their immune systems are the screening processes for volunteers and employees, and legal counsel; they make statements, and follow rules; they grow old; they can develop viruses and cancers, in the form of corrupt employees, volunteers and board members; they can perform first-aide on themselves with limited liability, and get surgery done on themselves by firing or getting rid of the cause of their problems; they can be insulted by other organizations, and injured legally; they can bleed out resources, and starve without resources or profits; they must make up a will to leave their assets to another corporation, in many cases; and, they can even die. The question is: since the Law already recognizes tax-exempt organizations as being legal entities, and human beings are also legal entities, why can't human beings receive tax exemption? If homeless and poor individuals could solicit donations and volunteership from others, without repercussions, and not have to pay taxes on the charity they receive, the government would be able to shut down all kinds of programs that are not only operating in the red, but are also a burden to the average taxpayer. People would be more inclined to act charitably which, if history and psychology are any indicators, would inspire them to a higher standard of morality; nearly-simultaneously reducing illegal and immoral activity on an exponential level, and eventually inspiring them to selfless acts of kindness. In my humble opinion, win-freakin'-win, baby! Other reasons are as follows: I know a lot of people dislike the I.R.S., and want to get rid of them. Their mantra is, \"No Taxation, Without Representation!\". But, from my perspective, the Bible advocates using corrupted systems for whatever good they can provide. It also advocates joining with your enemies, to work toward a common cause... Here's why I believe that tax exemption would be good for individuals: I~ They could get the help they need, when they need it. II~ People could rest easy; knowing that their donations and volunteership are going to people who need it, in the way that they need it, and knowing as well that these people are subject to the same laws that govern other tax-exempt non-profits. III~ In return for donations and volunteership, tax-exempt individuals could give tax write-offs to people who want something in return... which would be almost as good as cash. With fewer taxes being collected, and more people getting what they need to get out of their bad situations into more stable ones, the economy will naturally revive more rapidly than any \"stimulus\" plan could ever accomplish the goal. IV~ They could get whatever they need, from the right sources, ensuring they get the best they can get... including medical help when, and in the way, they need it... hence, ensuring the uselessness of the new \"universal health-care\" laws. V~ People with this tax exemption would be able to file for it for no cost, ensuring that nobody would have to do without. VI~ Keeping proper records, these same people would be relatively free from government oppression and the \"nanny-state\". VII~ It would seriously hurt only the corrupt organizations, which would ensure a change in their policies that would be necessary for them to actually do what they say they're designed to do. VIII~ They could invest in future needs, without actually wasting the donations or volunteering they receive. IX~ At the final fulfillment of their needs, they could re-incorporate for a for-profit business; relinquish their tax exemption; or incorporate with other tax-exempt individuals into a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, with which other individuals could affiliate... ensuring unity of all the interested and involved people, and organizations, under one common cause: the betterment of their fellow \"man\". Of course, some would argue that homeless and impoverished people usually don't have to pay taxes... after all, you can't get blood from a stone, right? That's yet another part of the point: they're already half-way there!", "qid": 18, "docid": "f21a3676-2019-04-18T18:55:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6955482363700867}, {"content": "Title: The Separation of Church and State. Content: Let me start off by saying that I agree with you in most respects of your argument. I do not see why the Church, whatever that may be to people, should have a stronghold in government. But I see the current of separating anything related to Church as a form of retaliation. The Church is surely not as strong nor prevalent as it once was and I think certain groups are beginning to see this weakness and exploit, kick a bully while its down if you will. The separation of Church and State should not be a free pass to get in any free punches at the Church as many people seem to be doing. Should the Church control aspects of government, not really. The Church is its own form of government over its own patrons. Whether or not its control over members rubs off into those individuals' politics well that cannot be controlled. If the Church establishes itself as a lobby group, as it historically has, then that is wrong. But we cannot use the \"Separation of Church and State\" to govern whose votes count depending on their faith. That is what I argue against. The discrimination of Christian voters due to the \"Separation of Church and State.\" If this country continues to allow the removal of all things Christian, then I believe the banning of Christianity will soon follow. This law applies to the rights of Christians to have a say in government just as much as it limits their control. As for largely debated and controversial topics such as abortion and gay marriage. We can blame the Christian groups for not allowing gay marriage but so far, the majority of people have ruled against allowing it. That is how democracy works, if the majority feels a certain way then that is what must be done. Gay couples have continually argued that they do not see how the government has the right to make gay marriage illegal. Well, here's how that works. The \"marriage\" they seek is the one recognized by the government and guess what, if the government's policy is to not recognize it the, gay marriage is still not allowable, no matter what dirt, money-grubbing lobby group like the Christians are behind it. I see the Christians as a form of scape goat for any minority that doesn't get what they want. If you can't get something then blame the Christians and their values for not allowing it. Gay marriage is not allowed right now because it would create a real mess of problem in divorce courts, as well as requiring insurance companies and other institutions to reformat how their definition of marriage. Gay couples have repeatedly stated that they could care less whether or not the government allows their marriage, they just want the benefits that heterosexual couples have. The principal of marriage as being between a man and a woman was created by Church based principals. If gay people want to \"marry\" one another they should create their own form of communion and not borrow Church based principals in order to do so, oh wait, they have, its called a civil union. All the benefits economically but none of the complications of marriage. The government recognizes this but still doesn't allow these unions because they understand how complicated it will make things for all parties (insurance companies, divorce courts, adoptions agencies, etc.) and thus they still don't allow it to be recognized in most states. I point all this out for one reason. There is a reason for the government making policies that might offend people but its usually (I use this lightly) for a good reason. The government does not allow gay marriage not because it hates gays, they would outlaw gay relations (like the Nazis) if they hated gays, but because it sees the problems that could ensue if it allowed it. Naturally gay rights advocates rush to find fault in this policy and the Christians are the first to come to mind If the power-hungry Christians in government really wanted to eliminate gay relations they would do so. So lets not assume the fault is on Christians just because they don't believe in marriage of homosexuals, there are other more important reasons behind it that are overshadowed by gay hate towards the oppressive Christians who are out to destroy gay people. Second, my words were misunderstood and a little rushed when I said that we should not look to where laws are created and by whom. What I meant ties a little into my recent argument about gay laws and their origins. Maybe we should look to where laws are based and we'd see that while a Christian politician may have sponsored a law it was not only his faith that led him to do so. Politicians are elected to make laws for us. Some people think they should think only about the public interest and work accordingly without a thought into their own beliefs while other people think that a politician should vote in their own interest for the better meant of society. I am not saying which one is correct but that is how government works. Should there come a time to reform how it works then by all means we should, I do not advocate leaving the government alone to do what it wants without our consent. I do not support an all-powerful government and I believe that is what we have right now. But lets look at what is really the problem instead of trying to get back at the Christians by eliminating them from all offices and removing anything that might be considered Christian from government (historical artifacts at courts or official buildings). The general public is like a perverted doctor who has set out to decipher what ails our country and what we can do to make it better. Unfortunately, this doctor's mom was killed by cancer(Christianity) and he now believes that all sicknesses in patients are cancer and he cannot see other symptoms that may imply other diseases not even related to cancer. The Separation of Church and State was written intentionally to be vague so that it could be interpreted by future people. I see tremendous benefit in our dialogues about this and a propose we continue to do so. If the people of a country stop thinking and revolutionizing its laws then that country will die. That is why I continue to debate others as a proponent for Christianity. I see Christianity as any other group that could be wronged by hard-headed politicians and groups determined to see its demise. Keep this in mind as you watch the political landscape change in the coming years and how the public begins to react to Christian rights in schools (praying, reading a bible by ones self) and how those rights seem to get trampled in order to protect the \"rights\" of others.", "qid": 18, "docid": "bb80570e-2019-04-18T20:01:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.695527195930481}, {"content": "Title: Churches should be taxed! Content: Religious organizations within our nation should be taxed just as any other businesses and individuals are taxed. The Us Constitution of the United States of America clearly was written to eliminate the granting and to eradicate any possibility of religious powerhouses, and any theocratic influences to be held over the interest and over the values of America and its people. The constitution was written as one nation, under god; so that the government would not grant religions extra privileges.", "qid": 18, "docid": "541c0fdb-2019-04-18T14:17:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6953001618385315}, {"content": "Title: Churches Should be Taxed Content: I understand your outrage at the violation of church and state that has occurred in schools across our nation. I agree that it is indeed a severe problem, especially as it pertains to the punishment of young and innocent children, still developing their ideas about the world and finding their spiritual and religious truth. However, I fail to see the relevance of these instances to our topic. Yes it is a violation of church and state but so is the taxation of churches. The severity of one does not negate the other, nor does it lessen the impact on our society. Let me give you an analogy to clarify my point. Let us say you are a kid at school and there is a bully in your class. His favorite color is red, and he picks on all the kids who don't wear red shirts. Sometimes he makes kids in class wear a red shirt even if they don't want to. You see this and know it is wrong. You should take action. But say you decide to take some of his lunch money every day. You are physically able to take this kid's money. But should you? No. Just because what he does is bad, doesn't make your bad actions good. It is against the rules. It is not right. Similarly, it is \"against the rules\" for the government to tax churches. They may have violated the separation of church and state themselves, but you would also be violating it. You wrote that \"It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some.\" This is not justification either. You cannot take someone's money because they are not using it well. Even if it somehow was justification, which it is not, if you were to only tax those that do misuse money it would be discrimination. But to enact a widespread tax on all churches regardless of their abuse or not because some churches, which may not even be in the same city or state have misused money? If you are trying to reach fairness, this is not it. Another point, it seems as though you are focusing this primarily on Christian establishments, not synagogues or mosques or temples as well, but singling out Christian churches. If you tax only religious organizations of a certain religion, that is discrimination. May I remind you of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;\" Throughout many decades and conflicts, this has been clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black said \"The \"establishment of religion\" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.\" Your proposition violates most of this. Should your proposition only affect Christian institutions, that would be classified as aiding or preferring one religion over another. He clearly states that \"No tax in any amount...can be levied,\". Your idea is a violation of church and state. Against the law. Any violation of the law, no matter how small or what other violations have occurred elsewhere, is in violation of the law.", "qid": 18, "docid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6951317191123962}, {"content": "Title: The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG Content: I do clarify, however, that my opponent has not yet given us a sufficient outline of how \"a small portion of the United States income should be sent towards the religion\" and what that process may entail. That is a question worth asking whilst considering the validity of my opponent's claims. Essentially, my case rests on the assertion that funding the Christian church constitutes a violation of equality under the law, especially when considering the religious affiliations of non-Christians, which are a growing demographic, currently representing over a quarter of the US population. I will explain further. Here are my opening arguments.1) Funding ecclesiastical institutions constitutes a violation of equality under the law. Non-Christians represent a growing American demographic, one that now comprises of just over a quarter of the population of the United States. [1] By giving money to the Christian Church, the USFG legitimizes a preferential treatment of what I concede to be the \"majority religion\". Be aware that the resolution specifically sets aside the Christian church for funding; it can be inferred that other religious institutions are not given the same funds. Even if Christians represent the majority of the US population, American religious minorities are therefore treated unequally before the law. I'm sure my opponent would agree that a just society upholds the principle of equality under the law. A society in which minority religious institutions are not \"given their due\" is one that is wholly unjust and unfair. [2] It is the same as saying to a particular supermarket or a specific labor union that they can receive federal funds; even if they provide a service, and even if a majority of Americans may shop there or belong to their organization, the act preferential treatment, in this sense, constitutes an unjust society.2) The act of funding a religious institution is unconstitutional. My opponent very curtly dismisses the claim that this funding would be unconstitutional. On the contrary, the funding of any religious institution, regardless of their size, is a violation of the Constitution. The 1971 Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman established that the funding of non-state, non-secular institutions violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. [3] The plaintiff established and the court reinforced a process known as the Lemon Test, for determining the constitutionality of legislation dealing with the funding of these institutions. Several criteria were set forth to define the legality of funding involving religious groups and institutions, including that the statute being considered must have a \"secular purpose\" and must not result in \"excessive government entanglement in religious affairs\". Lemon's test also defined several factors to determine what constitutes this \"excessive government entanglement\", including the nature of the aid provided and the resulting relationship between the government and religious institutions. [4]Clearly, federal funding of the Christian church, for whatever reason, is not secular in nature. The funding establishes a direct link between the USFG and the Christian church, resulting in this \"entanglement\" Lemon describes. It follows that federal funding of the Christian church is obviously unconstitutional; SCOTUS ruled in this manner to specifically avoid this type of legislation from being permitted under the Constitution. --------------------------------It is clear that federal funding, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of equality under the law, and is clearly unconstitutional. As a fair, just society, we cannot allow the USFG to fund religious institutions. I await my opponent's rebuttal. [1] . http://www.pewforum.org...[2] . https://www.scu.edu...[3] . https://www.oyez.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.adherents.com...", "qid": 18, "docid": "99886d2e-2019-04-18T12:58:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6938720345497131}, {"content": "Title: If religious practice are to be separated from the public, relative federal benefits should as well Content: If religious displays and practice are to be separated or secularized from the government, then the federal benefits of the same should be removed as well Apply for acceptance of debate will be done in comments. As this is my first debate, I am testing the waters. As Pro, I will be debating for the logic of removal of benefits of government enacted activities associated with separation of like religious practices, and supplementary absence of logic in non removal As Con, you will be debating for the logic of non removal of said benefits, as well as supplementary absence of logic in removal, or that federal benefits are nonexistent in relation to religious activities I appreciate any criticism that will aid me in future establishment of debates The first round will be definitions and acceptance. No new arguments in the final round No trolling Acceptance of the debate implies; That both Pro and Con agree that Separation of Church and State is recognized and enacted. That both Pro and Con agree to all definitions and rules expressed in Round 1 Clarification may be required, and annotated in comments to facilitate understanding or variation to stated definitions, if agreed upon by instigating party. That both parties may not assume favorable argument from the other, in that the views expressed may not be of the opinion of the debater, merely the argument, and any argument based in assumption or deduction of opposing parties' personal beliefs is invalid Any definitions stated outside of round 1 are open for debate Religious and non-religious are mutually exclusive Benefits referring to positive gain from a party are not negated by deficit or negativity towards the opposing party, wherein a viewpoint determines the classification of an item in question as benefit (i.e. worker vs employer. If it benefits one party involved, it is classified as a benefit) That both parties understand Boolean and logical arguments such as AND, OR, etc. Citations may be immersed in text, or listed following. Definitions;Christmas noun the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus: celebrated on December 25 and now generally observed as a legal holiday and an occasion for exchanging gifts. From <http://dictionary.reference.com...; Benefit noun : a good or helpful result or effect : money that is paid by a company (such as an insurance company) or by agovernment when someone dies, becomes sick, stops working, etc. : something extra (such as vacation time or health insurance) that is given by anemployer to workers in addition to their regular pay From <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Thank you for your acceptance", "qid": 18, "docid": "9016a55d-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6936888694763184}, {"content": "Title: The Christian Church Should be Funded by the USFG Content: Thank you Con, for taking me as an opponent after my other debate ended being bombed.As the rules say, I'll use this round for Acceptance and arguments.Opening Arguments of ProBefore I start, the Christian Church applies to all churches legally approved by the government and represent official branches of Christianity. By funding, I should say that a small portion of the United States income should be sent towards the religion.I. Christianity Outnumbers Other Religions In The U.S.It is not a surprise that Christianity is the most sizable religion inside the United States (http://www.gallup.com...) . Such an important religion is bound to have influence within the United States and in order not to upset the country's greatest audience, the U.S. should be expected to start funding their cause. If the American government decides to start funding Christianity in the US, they should expect a greater rise in faith and well-being, as the ideals of the religion represent peace and harmony. A common idea that no one can refuse. This country is also founded upon the ideals of democracy and liberty, where the power stays among the people, and studies have shown that Christians are open about their faith in their jobs. They are also open to their faith and loyal to their own believers in politics, as Christians mostly refuse to vote for any other persons other than their own faith (https://www.usa.church...). Heretofore, it is not an exact merge between Church & State, but a worthy investment for the country to secure a true bond with her people. II. The Church Helps OthersThe Church does more than satisfy their own needs, they also receive many donations which from the U.S. government, should be expected to redistribute their income among the needy within their communities (http://www.mustministries.org...). The US taxation system which favors welfare, should be marginally redirected towards funding the Churches of Christianity as people are more open to donations of faith rather than the poor. Religion is also a great bond for people, and if more resources are allocated in favor of religion, people should find their communities blessed with their regional church to blame for such a positive environment. III. Does Not Violate 1st AmendmentMost people believe that such a program diverted to funding a faith would shatter freedom of religion in the US which is not true. I am not advocating for State Religion, I am advocating for a gateway of funding that helps in more ways than one, including bonds between the government and people for respect of the majority faith, bonds between each other under the principles of faith. and a reborn community blessed with the resources the nation had granted. The American constitution does not stop state funded churches (https://en.wikipedia.org...) nor does any other amendment stop such funding. Those are my points for the state to fund Christianity, I hope my opponent goes easy on me! Good luck, friend.", "qid": 18, "docid": "99886d2e-2019-04-18T12:58:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.692197322845459}]}
{"query": "Should gay marriage be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I challenge ViceRegent to this debate on whether gay (same-sex) marriage should be legal. This is not about States' Rights or whether the Supreme Court was in the wrong or whatnot. This is about whether gay marriage should be legal. May the best debater win!", "qid": 19, "docid": "c1c5ca56-2019-04-18T13:28:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9111323356628418}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Legalization Content: This is a debate over whether or not Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. My position is that Gay Marriage should be legal. I will let my opponent start the debate with their arguments.", "qid": 19, "docid": "1b1fbdc-2019-04-18T17:19:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.9052940607070923}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Everything is okay in this debate as long as it is on track to our topic. The question is, is should gay marriage be legal? I say yes. I await for my opponent.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6335cb65-2019-04-18T12:40:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.892227292060852}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: This debate will focus on whether gay marriage should be legal. Round 1 will be acceptance. Round 2-3 are for arguments/making your case, as well as rebuttals against your opponent. Round 4 will have no new arguments made, and will mainly rebut your opponent's arguments. Please cite all your sources.", "qid": 19, "docid": "9bfef27e-2019-04-18T12:41:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8857342004776001}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legal.I will be arguing that Gay marriage should be legal, whilst my opponent will be arguing the opposite, that Gay marriage should be illegal. The burden of proof will be shared.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2/3/4 - Arguments and RebuttalsRound 5 - Rebuttals DefinitionsGay Marriage - The Marriage of two homosexual people of the same sex.Rules1. No arguments are to be made in the first round.2. No new arguments are to be made in the fifth round, with the exception of them being logically necessary to refute previously made arguments.3. No insults.4. No semantics or trolling.5. The burden of proof is shared.6. Failure to obide by the rules shall result in a 7-point loss.", "qid": 19, "docid": "63347646-2019-04-18T17:41:45Z-00009-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8845549821853638}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: gay marriage should be legal", "qid": 19, "docid": "48d10dab-2019-04-18T17:25:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8788374066352844}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Legalization in the U.S. Content: I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legal in the US. First round is for acceptance only. Thanks! P.S. I am a straight male.", "qid": 19, "docid": "8c147dd1-2019-04-18T15:53:15Z-00007-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8726197481155396}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay Marriage should be legal because the govt should get out of peoples life. Gays dont do harm and the govt should let them do as they want. I will post longer debates after this round.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d01db0ce-2019-04-18T18:38:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8701527714729309}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized Content: This debate will be about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I believe they should not because I do not think marriage, be it gay straight or otherwise is a \"right\" As the opening argument state your position", "qid": 19, "docid": "5d03ca92-2019-04-18T18:09:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8680381774902344}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6335cba3-2019-04-18T12:35:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8666841387748718}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6335cb84-2019-04-18T12:35:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8666841387748718}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: I will be debating in favor of why gay marriage should be legal. My opponent, should they choose to take it, will argue against this. Goood luck...", "qid": 19, "docid": "339536e6-2019-04-18T18:26:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8660742044448853}, {"content": "Title: should gay marriage be legal Content: Gay marriage should be legal. why shouldn't it? love is love it doesn't matter if its the same sex. Your taking away their constitutional rights! PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once. YES I believe that gay marriage should be legal through out the U.S.", "qid": 19, "docid": "933d85b9-2019-04-18T16:11:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8560816049575806}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of gay marriage Content: I taking the pro argument believe that gay marriage should be legal. I believe that is a civil right and a necessity. Con will take the side and show why gay marriage should not be legalized. We will argue this from a federal(each and every state level), do not take the stand of legalization on state levels. If you are against it take the time to show why gay marriage is wrong, and should not be legalized.", "qid": 19, "docid": "b33122ae-2019-04-18T17:22:26Z-00009-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8542399406433105}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should be Illegal (JOKE DEBATE) Content: Yes gay marriage should be legal because if we did what God wanted us to do most gays still wouldent be around to get married in the first place", "qid": 19, "docid": "7141563a-2019-04-18T18:43:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8533101081848145}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marrige Content: I believe gay marrige should be legal. I believe this because there are no reasons why it shouldn't be legal. With the exception of religion. But you can't make a law based on religion. Therefore it should be legal.", "qid": 19, "docid": "429c4751-2019-04-18T15:12:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8515792489051819}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US Content: Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US for homosexuals and/or bisexuals. Homosexuals should be able to legally marry whomever they choose, no matter if the individual is of the same sex. http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 19, "docid": "7f2875fd-2019-04-18T13:13:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8514955043792725}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legal, because there should be no kind of legally recognized marriage, because government should not be involved in marriage. Good luck.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6334eb40-2019-04-18T16:07:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8513391613960266}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: This debate is about the subject of gay marriage and if it should be legalized. My viewpoint is that gay marriage should be legalized, and I will be arguing pro for this debate. The first round is just for acceptance, as well as any information that my opponent might wish for me to know. Good luck to both of us.", "qid": 19, "docid": "633484ce-2019-04-18T17:00:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8499848246574402}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal Content: This debate is going to about whether gay marriage should be illegal or legal. Con takes the side of defending gay marriage and pro defends their own case about why it should be illegal. I, the con, will be fighting for gay marriage and the right gay couples have to marry, here is a lay out of the debate: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Statement _________________________________________________________________________________________ Rules 1) No insulting. 2) Credible sources only, please. 3) Try to be as good with spelling and grammar as you can be, please.", "qid": 19, "docid": "5c1ef61f-2019-04-18T15:24:41Z-00007-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8462734222412109}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. If all men are created equal then they should have the right to marry who they want even if it is the same sex.", "qid": 19, "docid": "48d1e765-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8462439179420471}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I'll keep this one simple.This debate is (quite obviously) on the subject of whether or not gay marriages should be legal.Round 1 will be for acceptance, with no arguments posted.Round 2 will be for arguments, no rebuttals of Pro's arguments by Con yet.Round 3 will be for rebuttals of round 2 arguments and for adding new arguments.Round 4 will be for rebuttals of round 3 arguments and for adding new arguments.Round 5 will be for final rebuttals with no new arguments.Now, since this seems to be the ongoing trend in my debates as of late, let me get this one thing clear:If you're going to forfeit every round, don't accept the debate.I apologize for having to be a jackass in getting this across, but in over half of the debates I am currently in, my opponent has forfeited almost every round. It's a necessary precaution to say that I at least tried.Now, for the specifics of the debate. The only thing that I will not accept from my opponent is the use of any religious texts as a source. This is a secular case for gay marriage. I support this rule with the establishment clause:\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .\"This would mean that if religion were the only reason to prohibit gay marriage, it would be unconstitutional, as it would be a law respecting an establishment of religion.That being said, burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal.\"Legal\" will be defined, in this case, as being fully recognized by federal and state governments. If you would like to further discuss the rules of this debate or ask me to add definitions or change some rules, please discuss this in the comments section before accepting the debate. Thank you.", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9a61-2019-04-18T17:43:10Z-00009-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8459848165512085}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d9e8f6e2-2019-04-18T19:03:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8446333408355713}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I, UUDDLRLRBA, accept this debate, but I will state that I feel gay marriage should be legal regardless what I say. But I, UUDDLRLRBA, will debate in the side that says gay marriage should be illegal in the following debate.", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8433774709701538}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marraige Content: Do you think gay people should be allowed to get married?", "qid": 19, "docid": "9f08d1d3-2019-04-18T18:50:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8433212041854858}, {"content": "Title: Same-sex marriage should be legal Content: I believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Rules : 1. Round 1 is acceptance 2.No new arguments in round 3 3.No forfeits", "qid": 19, "docid": "92aeb788-2019-04-18T12:09:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8420349955558777}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I believe Gay marriage should be legal all over the world. It isn't a sin and it isn't wrong.", "qid": 19, "docid": "9bfef25f-2019-04-18T13:27:14Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8401414155960083}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.", "qid": 19, "docid": "5b95326a-2019-04-18T16:00:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8397117853164673}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: I accept. As a note, I am pro gay marriage, my opponent will be arguing for its prohibition. He seems to have switched the sides. Again, I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legal, and will focus on the US.", "qid": 19, "docid": "48d0fe88-2019-04-18T18:13:11Z-00008-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8394858241081238}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be Legalized Content: I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legalized. I am giving us each 72 hours since I will have limited time for research and rounds. First round is acceptance. Any sources can be used, as long as they can be linked and viewed on the Internet or can be quoted, like the Bible or a study. Please no trolling. If so, I will end the debate. Gay Marriage is defined as The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage\"", "qid": 19, "docid": "8ca2fe33-2019-04-18T16:27:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8364853858947754}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.", "qid": 19, "docid": "48d1ebc1-2019-04-18T14:43:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8354620337486267}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be Legal Content: I will be going for the position that gay marriage should be legal, I am willing to have a fun and knowledgeable debate to anyone who is willing to debate me :) First round will be acceptance of the debate Looking forward to debate :)", "qid": 19, "docid": "477fd640-2019-04-18T14:44:27Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8350698351860046}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Hi, I'm Kyle, and I believe that gay marriage should not be legalized. Gay marriage should not be legal because gay couples are not able to reproduce. According to a study conducted by Robert Miller in 2012, 80% of heterosexual couples were married for the main purpose of reproduction. In the next rounds I would like this to become a deeper debate.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8344311714172363}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: Gay marriage should be legalized because this is a step forward to more equality. Gay people should have the right to formally be able to call the love of their lives their spouses. The Bible might state that gay people shouldn't be married or even together but the Bible and a few Christians have a few twists with this statement (I'm a Christian myself so don't take this to heart ). There will be elaboration on these statements but I'm interested in my opponent's response.", "qid": 19, "docid": "630bc9f5-2019-04-18T16:38:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8336796164512634}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal in the United States Content: (FYI, I already posted a debate like this, but someone accepted as Pro when they had actually misread the resolution. So, I'm posting the debate again, but if you see another debate around that is exactly like this, ignore it, it's dead and waiting to be deleted by a mod.) As Pro, I will affirm the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. As Con, you will argue against the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should not be legal in the United States. Definitions: Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage): a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. [1] Legal: Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal. [2] Rules: Round One shall be for acceptance, not beginning one's argument. Sources: [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage [2] dictionary.reference.com/browse/legal", "qid": 19, "docid": "c015ffd5-2019-04-18T18:13:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8325083255767822}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Salutations, I will be arguing for the pro side of gay marriage. Gay Marriage should be legal. In the Declaration of Independence, it states \"all men are created equal.\" Notice how there is no foot notes or any writing between the lines.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6334812c-2019-04-18T17:07:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8317828178405762}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Salutations, I will be arguing for the pro side of gay marriage. Gay Marriage should be legal. In the Declaration of Independence, it states \"all men are created equal.\" Notice how there is no foot notes or any writing between the lines.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6334814b-2019-04-18T17:07:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8317828178405762}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized! Content: Hello. I would like to debate a serious matter- should gay marriage be legalized? In my opinion, yes it should. Disagree? Join the con side and debate me!", "qid": 19, "docid": "5d03cecf-2019-04-18T15:32:17Z-00009-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8309445381164551}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay Marriage should be legal for two main reasons. 1) There are no negatives to gay people getting married. The most successful countries in the world support gay marriage; Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all places that have legalized gay marriage years ago and have seen no problems in their respective countries from it. 2) Equality. If a man loves another man or a women loves another women there no difference in a man and women loving each other. As a society and a planet we must move forward and strive for Equality, so that every person is given an equal opportunity to love who they want as well as their lives. Please respond I am curious to hear your argument. I am open to being proved wrong and I hope you are to May the best man win", "qid": 19, "docid": "63355ec6-2019-04-18T14:37:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8299422264099121}, {"content": "Title: Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal Content: Gay marriage should be legal, since when does anyone get off by being able to tell someone else how to live there life. If we claim we have equal rights then we should practice what we preach and allow same sex marriage. How would allowing two people weather they be the same sex or not get married affect the whole world? In reality it should only affect that couple, and everyone else should mind there own business.", "qid": 19, "docid": "aa9f4e48-2019-04-18T19:54:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8296862244606018}, {"content": "Title: Rather Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: Gay Marriage SHOULD be Legal, gays are just like us.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d90ecf0b-2019-04-18T17:50:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8290663957595825}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: First of all, my greetings and thanks to my opponent; hope this will be a good debate! :) PROPOSITION: Gay Marriage should be legal. DEFINITION: Gay Marriage: A legally recognized socio-economic union, treated as a single entity for tax and liability purposes, with or without religious sanction, between two humans of the same gender. Not arguing about the constitutionality or current legal status of same in America or any other country; just whether it SHOULD be legal. We are assuming that all humans have the same inherent rights, and that implementation is not an issue. I am approaching this debate from a centrist, authoritarian viewpoint, and will argue the CONVERSE. My opponent is welcome to argue any position he wants that AFFIRMS the proposition as stated. This is a philosophy debate; I don't have the time to dig out the most scholarly sources on this topic, and will not hold my opponent to a higher standard of research than myself. Wikipedia and a few online dictionaries/encyclopedias will have to suffice. Arguments begin R.2. Thanks again!", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9624-2019-04-18T19:16:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8289581537246704}, {"content": "Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Should Gay Marriage be allowed", "qid": 19, "docid": "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8286441564559937}, {"content": "Title: There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige. Content: Ok, my opponent has not provided any good reason why gay marriage should be legal. I'll go through my oppoents points as presented in her opening argument. 1) Marriage Allows safer sex practices cause there is a written commitment. Response A: This is a generalization and not backed up by any facts. Response B: Marriage doesn't make safer sex practices. Response C: Civil Unions can provide the same protection. 2) There should be no laws in the basis of religion. Response A: The US was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Response B: Heterosexual marriage is more CULTURAL then religious. 3) It's a choice for a gay to be married. Response A: I could choose to be violent, but that doesn't make it right. Response B: They also have the right to choose to marry a member of the opposite gender. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to adequately attack my contentions, thus they stand: Contention I: Gay Marriage undermines the very nature of family. The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). \"Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc.\" Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a \"family\" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary. Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope. The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will \"have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society\"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family \"may not be necessarily the best model.\" Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of \"rights.\" Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to \"civil rights\" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Thank you, I urge a negation", "qid": 19, "docid": "c46cb91b-2019-04-18T19:41:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.8280104398727417}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal! Content: I accept. The following is the resolution at hand. \"Gay marriage should be illegal! \"Since I am con, I will be arguing in favor of legalizing homosexuality. Since my opponent gave a brief explanation of his opinion, I will do the same. Then, I will argue freestyle in the last four rounds. According to some of the principles in the US, the right for homosexuals to marry should be available. In addition, since my opponent has taken a religious stance, I will point out that religious freedom is also a principle of the US (making religious arguments irrelevant).", "qid": 19, "docid": "61f8dce6-2019-04-18T16:30:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8278414011001587}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal in all states Content: I believe that Gay Marriage should be legal in all states for many reasons, the first of which is because the constitution says that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This isn't my main argument for saying Gay Marriage should be legal, but it is for the way I worded the question. A few rules before we begin: 1. No Religious texts can be quoted 2. Religion cannot be used to justify an argument (adding on to rule 1) 3. I am tired of the \"because marriage is between a man and a woman\" argument, so don't use that one I believe that's all for now", "qid": 19, "docid": "4d91b1df-2019-04-18T15:29:29Z-00009-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8269267082214355}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: The argument remains. Should Gay people be allowed to get married? Why or why not?", "qid": 19, "docid": "63355364-2019-04-18T15:05:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8256763219833374}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized Content: Title says it all, the question here is on Gay Marriage and should it be legalized or not!Standard DDO Conduct Rules Apply Uhrah!", "qid": 19, "docid": "bd4afe82-2019-04-18T17:25:26Z-00007-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8251340389251709}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage I Content: Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.I have decided that I'm just going to keep debating this and reformulating my arguments until I start winning, or my point starts coming across more clearly.First round for acceptance.Second round is the only round to post arguments.All subsequent rounds will be for rebuttals.", "qid": 19, "docid": "63231d0a-2019-04-18T18:16:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.8245320320129395}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: Gay marriage should be legalized because marriage doesn't have to have a couple of the same gender. Marriage is about true love.", "qid": 19, "docid": "630bca14-2019-04-18T16:30:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8236306309700012}, {"content": "Title: Same-Sex Marriage Content: I believe that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere. The opponent believes that it shouldn't. During this round please state that you would like to debate me. I respect everyone's opinion, and I am not trying to bash them.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6566627-2019-04-18T13:11:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.823204755783081}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Content: I've been trying to challenge some few individuals on this topic, but none of them seem to accept for whatever reasons. So I guess I'll just make another open debate. I intend to argue that any LGBT marriage should be legalized, and thus when I say \"gay\", I am referring to LGBT. My sole argument is that gay people have the same rights to marry as do heterosexual people. The word \"marriage\" does not need to be a definite prerequisite - the only thing that should happen is for gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Civil unions can be an appropriate alternative, but only until it has the exact same rights as marriage (of which it currently does not). I will allow my opponent to go first and I will refute his/her arguments accordingly.", "qid": 19, "docid": "14339acf-2019-04-18T19:31:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8215706944465637}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal in all states. Love is love no matter what shape size or gender.", "qid": 19, "docid": "3395556a-2019-04-18T17:00:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.8211299180984497}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. Content: Hello, and welcome to the debate! I will be arguing as a pro that gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. You will be arguing that it shouldn't. 1ST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY. If you want to ask any questions please put them in them in the comments. I will never extend the debate. Good luck to you! Have a wonderful day!", "qid": 19, "docid": "37683889-2019-04-18T14:46:57Z-00007-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.8190074563026428}, {"content": "Title: should gay marriage be legalized Content: I believe that gay marriage should be legalized because people have the right to love eachother. It's not like its doing anything to society if a man is to marry another man or a woman is to marry another woman infact in someways its better for society. Also there would be an increase in the rate of adoption since men cannot have children with eachother and neither can women. Also it would cause more people to marry someone they truly love so there would be a decrease in divorce.", "qid": 19, "docid": "1d3a62-2019-04-18T18:47:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.8179751038551331}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Wow thanks for that excellent response. Well I guess I will just do a conclusion any way. Gay marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental right to be able be happy and marry whomever you want. Also as I previously stated that every man is created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians because it is not a choice and you are created that way. Next in round three I stated that, yes the catholic bible outlaws gat marriage but sense when have we been a country based on the bible because of our separation of church and state. Well thats it for me so vote for me in this debate", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.817902684211731}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of gay marriage Content: I will be arguing Con, that gay marriage should be illegal. It is not a civil right that can be had in the context of the United States' history or founding principles, and would undermine the basis for our other civil rights.", "qid": 19, "docid": "b33122ae-2019-04-18T17:22:26Z-00008-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.81767737865448}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized. Content: We are going to be debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized worldwide. Pro has burden of proof. This is not an on balance type of debate, they must prove that all of the world should legalize gay marriage. I will present my case next round", "qid": 19, "docid": "fe5e045a-2019-04-18T15:15:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.8174842596054077}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: You are changing the argument; the argument was very clear. Gay marriage SHOULD be legal. That doesn't mean that marriage is in the constitution, nor does it mean that the supreme court should have the right to decide whether or not it is legal. It means exactly what it says: gay marriage SHOULD be legal. What you are doing is creating a strawman and then arguing against that, rather than arguing against the argument. The argument stated very clearly that I believed that gay marriage should be legal. It did NOT say that I believed that the supreme court has the right to decide this.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6335cb84-2019-04-18T12:35:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.8172877430915833}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized Content: Hello Ladies and Gentleman and welcome to this debate on the legalization of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalized! I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Marriage is a civil right - Everyone should have the same right if they pay the same taxes ect 2. Marriage is no longer a lone religious experience. All marriages by law are civil marriages they are then later referred to religious marriage. 3. Gay Marriage supports the family - You can not turn someone straight so why keep that person from creating a loving family that can enrich our society. 4. Religion and state should be separated - Regardless of what your religion says you should not enforce it on people who do not share your views or religion. 5. I believe it unfair that you can demand a right and deny another the same right. 6. Civil Unions are NOT the same. 7. Gay Marriage does not ruin marriage- Divorce and cheaters do. How can a man who cheats on his wife be allowed to marry and then remarry after breaking the contract of marriage without being punished were a gay couple who have been in love for years who are perfect for each other be refused? It does not make any sense!", "qid": 19, "docid": "5d03cab1-2019-04-18T18:06:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.8171395063400269}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: I'm arguing gay marriage should *not* be illegal. You're supposed to argue that it *should* be illegal because you're Pro.", "qid": 19, "docid": "dd22a600-2019-04-18T16:15:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.8167739510536194}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legalized.", "qid": 19, "docid": "33954e07-2019-04-18T17:15:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.8162140250205994}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal because people should have the right to marry whomever they want, same gender or not. Even if your against it i dont think you should be the reason to denie people marriage benefits and rights. Even if god or religion tells you its wrong that also shouldn't keep people from marrying who they love. Yes, people say marriage is between a man and woman but its the 21st century. Things have changed. Women can vote, segregation has practically ended, we have made many technological advancements, ect. Back then women voting seemed wrong but now its normal. Gay marriage can be the same. .", "qid": 19, "docid": "96274e4d-2019-04-18T17:24:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.8157399296760559}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Content: This debate is dedicated to 16kadams. He r pretty c00l gai who debates gay marriage nd duznt fraid of anything. As Con, I am affirming that gay marriage should not be legalized. Pro will be affirming that gay marriage should be legalized. Burden of Proof is shared. No semantics.", "qid": 19, "docid": "14341653-2019-04-18T18:15:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.8155014514923096}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d9e8fdaa-2019-04-18T18:54:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.8144583702087402}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d9e8fd8b-2019-04-18T18:54:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.8144583702087402}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: I do not know why gay marriage isn't already legal everywhere, but never mind that. Everyone should have the right to marry who ever they want, wherever they want, excluding things like incest.", "qid": 19, "docid": "63356dab-2019-04-18T13:40:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.8142268657684326}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage be legal in the U.S. with no government restriction. Content: I personally believe that Gay Marriage should be legal throughout the U.S. with no government restriction whatsoever. I am open to any and all opposition, and this first round will be dedicated to anyone who wishes to challenge my point. Good luck to whoever wishes to oppose my point.", "qid": 19, "docid": "26750601-2019-04-18T16:40:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.8139660358428955}, {"content": "Title: Should Gay Marriage be Legalized Content: Gay marriage should be legalized because people should have the right to love who they want to love and love them however they want. Boys with boys and girls with girls this will not ruin or society or how or what people from other nations think about us legalize it because if you find true love go for it and there should NOT be government, politics or the president to stop that from happening because they gay people should have all the rights in the world they want to.", "qid": 19, "docid": "fb3c024a-2019-04-18T14:45:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.8135661482810974}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 sates. There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other that are the same gender. These people deserve their chance at love and the government should not hold them back.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.8132697343826294}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: However, I do believe gay marriage should be legal, the majority DOES rule. Currently, the majority of the US population (assuming this is terms to gay marriage on US soil) is against gay marriage. Thus, I am going con to support the majority of the Americans. I await your contentions for round two.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d9e8fdaa-2019-04-18T18:54:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.8132216930389404}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I think gay marriage should be legal because every body deserves to marry who they love.", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.8132175803184509}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalised. Content: I accept the challenge on the side that gay marriage should not be legalized. I will provide support on the basis: consequences of gay marriage, children that may be eventually adopted and more. Thanks for the debate.", "qid": 19, "docid": "f0bfabab-2019-04-18T16:07:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.8124592304229736}, {"content": "Title: \"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states\" Content: I gladly accept my opponent's challenge. In the resolution I'm assuming the focus is on whether or not gay marriage should be legal or not. For clarity, I would have titled the resolution \"Gay marriage ought to be legal in the United States.\" This is probably what you meant though, so perhaps I'm just being nit-picky. I just have one question for my opponent regarding the structure. What exactly do you mean when you say the third round is for questioning? Is it like cross-examination? With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent.", "qid": 19, "docid": "e7874aab-2019-04-18T18:26:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.8124053478240967}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage. Content: Gay marriage should be illegal.", "qid": 19, "docid": "d01d1b03-2019-04-18T15:06:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.8122381567955017}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be allowed", "qid": 19, "docid": "339545ea-2019-04-18T17:43:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.8122373819351196}, {"content": "Title: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US Content: As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US. ClarificationsThe debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marriage should be legal in the US, that means that he's also arguing that places in the US which doesn't make gay-marriage legal, should start making it legal. Basically, this debate is not about if gay-marriage is legal or not, but only about if it should be legal or not.DefinitionsGay-marriage: 'The practice of marriage between two males.' [1]Legal: 'Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.' [Ibid]The US: 'United States or United States of America Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA. A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.' [2]RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments shall be given in the last round. No semantics.By accepting this debate, you also accept all the rules and definitions of this debate. Violating one of them will lose you all 7 points.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 19, "docid": "3fdbc7fb-2019-04-18T18:13:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.8113124370574951}, {"content": "Title: Should gay marriage be legal Content: I think gay marriages should be illegal. A marriage is between a woman and a man, and that should not change.", "qid": 19, "docid": "8d358e35-2019-04-18T14:45:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.8103330135345459}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I am for the legalization of Gay marriage in our country (United States). I would like to debate with someone their reasoning on why Gay marriage should not be legalized. Please be thorough with your points and explanation. The debate will go as follows: Round 1 - Opening Point(s) Round 2 - Rebuttal Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Conclusion", "qid": 19, "docid": "630bc6cf-2019-04-18T17:48:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.8095659613609314}, {"content": "Title: Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate Content: I do want the gay marriage to be legal. I am homophobic in a way, so I will present arguments against gay marriage. I am great proponent of freedom, and I believe no arguments can outweigh it, but let's do this for fun. Since we have 5 rounds, I will use this one as acceptance only.", "qid": 19, "docid": "85b534aa-2019-04-18T16:11:18Z-00008-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.8093503713607788}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: Gay marriage should be legalized. To my future opponent: Thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to what you have to say.", "qid": 19, "docid": "630bc9f5-2019-04-18T16:38:01Z-00008-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.8089549541473389}, {"content": "Title: If We Legalize Gay Marriage, We Must Enact Protection Laws for the Rights of Churches! Content: I myself am pro gay-marriage. The way I see it, homosexuals have a right to live a homosexual lifestyle if they choose, whether I agree with it or not. Now I am not here to argue whether or not gay marriage should be legal. If my opponent does, I will refrain from posting any further arguments and I would ask the voters to vote PRO. What I am arguing is that if we legalize gay marriage, we must pass legislation protecting the rights of churches to refuse to perform such a marriage. I myself am a religous person. When I read an article about a homosexual couple who sued a church that refused to perform their marriage I was disgusted!!! The church was forced to perform the marraige on the grounds that to refuse based on sexual orientation was discrimination. Now I thought that this was a ridiculous ruling because there was a whole other aspect of this case that was ignored. There was a very clear and blatant violation of the church's freedom of religion! The church was forced to perform a marriage that was against their faith. That is a very clear violation of their religious rights. Now this disturbed me. It was one church, but if we legalize gay marriage, it will be lots of churches. It could very well be my religious leaders that will be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of a court ruling. There are many churches that will perform gay marriages and those that wont should not be governmentally forced to violate their beliefs. Many would see this as being forced to sin against god! Anyway, my point is this... If we legalize gay marriage, a church's or a religious leaders rights to refuse to perform the marriage must be entact! We must pass legislation to protect it!", "qid": 19, "docid": "fe6a066-2019-04-18T19:41:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.8085554242134094}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere Content: Greetings.I will be arguing the point that homosexual marriage should be legalized. I feel that any law, especially one in the U.S., which likes to pride itself on being the Land of the Free, that prohibits homosexual marriage is unfounded and does not deserve to take effect.I feel there is no legitimate reason for the banning of homosexual marriage. The first round is NOT for acceptance - instead, it should be where my opponent offers his/her argument for the illegalization of homosexual marriage. Before concluding, I would like to mention that I am not homosexual or bisexual, and I am not arguing for my own freedom to marry, so I am not biased in any way.", "qid": 19, "docid": "4631b4c5-2019-04-18T17:08:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.8083238005638123}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal because marrying someone its a union of love, and why if boy and girls can marry to unite their love, gays can't? Love is love, and even if marriage is not legal for them, they won't stop loving each other, so this won't do any change, you would just let them with the desire to marry. Is like taking them a right just because they are not like you. People hate on them because they are different to them, but its better to be different, you didn't came to the world to be like everybody else, and gays are a big example of this. And by marrying each other, it means they can also adopt children, but this is not bad, because they would take care of their children properly, and it could be even better than a heterosexual couple, because sometimes they mistreat their babies, and gays are really sweet and they couldn't hurt nobody, not even a fly. Well, the point is that they should marry, if we have that right, let them have it too. Love is love, and you can't do anything against it.", "qid": 19, "docid": "339558ed-2019-04-18T16:55:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.8082873821258545}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal because marrying someone its a union of love, and why if boy and girls can marry to unite their love, gays can't? Love is love, and even if marriage is not legal for them, they won't stop loving each other, so this won't do any change, you would just let them with the desire to marry. Is like taking them a right just because they are not like you. People hate on them because they are different to them, but its better to be different, you didn't came to the world to be like everybody else, and gays are a big example of this. And by marrying each other, it means they can also adopt children, but this is not bad, because they would take care of their children properly, and it could be even better than a heterosexual couple, because sometimes they mistreat their babies, and gays are really sweet and they couldn't hurt nobody, not even a fly. Well, the point is that they should marry, if we have that right, let them have it too. Love is love, and you can't do anything against it.", "qid": 19, "docid": "339558ed-2019-04-18T16:55:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.8082873821258545}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized by the federal government Content: Gay marriage should be legalized. Government and religion should not mix. Not allowing people of the LGBT community to marry is discrimination against their sexuality. Something should not be illegal just because others don't agree with it. The LGBT community deserves the same right to marry who they love and be bound legally just like everyone else can be.", "qid": 19, "docid": "ce8a18b4-2019-04-18T17:09:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.8080624341964722}, {"content": "Title: America Should Legalize Gay marriage Content: I assume that when my opponent says \"America should legalize gay marriage\" he means that it should be put on legal par as traditional marriage. Just to clarify, this is what I shall be arguing against.As requested, the first round is for acceptance.Over to my opponent!", "qid": 19, "docid": "4ce3fccf-2019-04-18T16:32:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.8080610632896423}, {"content": "Title: Same sex marriage ahould be legal. Content: Just jump right in. I believe that same sex marriage should be legal, and I will say why. 1. The antigay mindset is for the most part rooted in religion, and religion should not be part of politics. 2. People have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone. 3. It is wrong for the religious minority to force their beliefs on the majority. 4. There is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual. I am bisexual and I am not hurting anyone. I thank my opposition in advance for debating me.", "qid": 19, "docid": "4d2cde72-2019-04-18T15:37:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.8080368041992188}, {"content": "Title: There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal. Content: I \"feel\" that gay marriage should not be legal. Many arguments in favor of gay marriage are based on \"feelings\" and nothing else. One persons feelings on an issue are not more powerful than another. My feeling against gay marriage is therefore valid and sufficient. Any argument you make against my feeling against gay marrige is purely \"your opinion based on your \"feelings\" in favor of it.", "qid": 19, "docid": "916a7c2f-2019-04-18T17:34:27Z-00008-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.8079237341880798}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Thanks Pro for this debate! Debate meaning and purpose: I would also like to clarify that the title of this debate is, 'Gay marriage should be legal' which is a positive claim by my opponent with the burden of proving it true. My opponent never stipulated that the definition of marriage was not relevant in determining if marriage should or should not be legal. Let's note that my stance is in legal standing by our government and Pros isn't. It is up to the one making the claim to provide undoubted evidence to justify the claim. \"It is very important that the resolution is worded properly. The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true. Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false. Before any debating begins, the criteria for who has the burden of proof and how the winner of the debate is determined should be established beforehand.\"[1] Pro however did make a specific burden on Con in his first round acceptance. Pro said, \"burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal. My first contention would fulfill the burden placed on me by Pro which is, 'Same-sex marriage doesn't fulfill the definition of marriage.' This contention alone provides a (non-religious) reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal which is all that Con had to do. Marriage meaning & No right: I have determined that same-sex marriage has no right for marriage according to our governmental definition of marriage. My opponent can play this contention off as invalid but it implies legal and non-religious evidence to not allow same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex marriages were debated about at the establishment of the definition but were discredited. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statue but 30 prohibit it completely in their constitutions. By Washington recognizing same-sex marriage nationally would infringe on at least 30 states decision and right to not allow same-sex marriage. The point is we can not know what will be legal or illegal in the future and by current definitions and majority there is more than enough reason to keep same-sex marriage illegal. The only reason the state has ever had an interest in a relationship between two people, is because their union could create another human being as a supreme responsibility to civilization. It has also never been understood as an exclusively romantic relationship. Only in recent history has romance come to be seen as the reason for marriage. My opponent mentioned that America is about freedom, liberty and rights of the people and I agree. We see that the out spoken voice of the people in America since its inception has not been for recognizing same-sex marriages. In fact not until recently after 2000 has same-sex marriage sought change by legal means. Before this, same-sex marriage were never even thought about as being legal or a rights issue. It has never been a issue because same-sex marriages can not be equal to traditional marriages. Same-sex marriages can resort to definitions of marriage that could allow polygamy, incest and other forms of relationships. Should we risk a change that could allow these to have freedom to marry? My opponent has never addressed this problem. The status quo and Pro show that past definitions on the institution of marriage have been rightly placed. Right Infringements & Norms: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\" My opponent commits to a slippery-slope here by thinking that because homosexual discrimination is wrong that not allowing same-sex marriage is also. The 1st amendment gives the right for the religious to exercise their religion. Many states have religious people who have voted against gay-marriage in their state. These 30 states are a majority to 20 and yes it is against rights to reject that majority even if these states are religious states. It is these states free right to determine through law how they want their state to conduct its state laws. These forced laws would also detach the understanding of heterosexual importance. If this importance is lost then humanities basic survival instinct is then gone. Since the dawn of human development the role of mother and father as male and female have been essential to our society. Hetero and Same-sex relationships are not equal in many standards. Inadequate parenting: I never attempted to fight homosexuality itself because I did not see the need too, I just focused on marriage itself. My opponent said that homosexuals are born homosexuals but most studies show that children do not develop the stage of sexuality until after ages 2 thru 3.[2] Also my opponent never argued pre-birth homosexuality until the 5th round. His rebuttal here is also a fallacy of generalization by using small amount of cases and test to make a final determination for all. My opponent brought up earlier that marriages were arranged and that is interesting indeed. We have no documentation that same-sex marriages were arranged. Even then they recognized marriage as a institute and profitable for the society with children and the combining of families into civilizations. My opponent seemed to fight hard for the (AAP) but they have just as a recognizable advocate against them. The American College of Paediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of paediatricians and other health care professionals specializing in the care of infants, children and adolescents in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of paediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the (AAP), as a protest against AAP. The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities. The American College of Paediatricians argues that mainstream health organizations have taken public positions based on their own social and political views, rather than the available science.[3] As we see, (AAP) is not the sole authority. In fact (ACPeds) stands by the view that same-sex parents do produce more homosexual children. Divorce has been bad for children, second marriages have been, and adults just living together also. Though when it comes to re-defining marriage, we are now supposed to think that the gender of the parents makes no difference at all is just nonsense. Conclusion: My opponent addressed my sources more than his resolution. It could be viewed that focusing on attacking your opponents sources instead of focusing on the argument at hand as a insult. I do not think my opponent meant it this way but instead focused on them because that was his only way to leap over the definition of marriage. Pro gave us no adequate explanation why only both male and female can make children and guarantee the survival of humanity. While homosexuality decreases the survival of humanity. We never was told that current laws, definitions and majorities can not be used beforehand. The point is that homosexuality can not continue the human race and my opponent shrugs it off. My burden has been meet by numerous contentions and my opponents opening contentions were extremely weak and refuted. Same-sex marriage infringes on religious rights, state rights, it does nothing to further society, and is not the ideal situations for raising children. On top of the overwhelming fact that it does not fit the current definition of marriage. Thanks, I rest my case. Good job Pro! Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.acpeds.org...", "qid": 19, "docid": "ea2e9a61-2019-04-18T17:43:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.8076186180114746}, {"content": "Title: Straight marriage should be legal. Content: Excuse spelling please as I just broke my dominant arm, and am typing rather slowly. On to the debate. I believe straight marriage should be legal because (1) it is natural for a man and woman to be together. From the beginning of civilization they have been wanting to be mutually connected or, in today's terms, married. 2. Deducting from genitalia and genitalia functions, one can see how a man and woman should be together as well. One would one be eliminating the obvious normal connection otherwise. And if it was illegal and looked down upon by society in the future, where would children come from? A man and woman would feel shamed for having intercourse and possibly a baby. So, in conclusion, I believe straight marriage should be legal.", "qid": 19, "docid": "c9ea5769-2019-04-18T15:39:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.8073663115501404}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: While I object to gay marriage morally, this debate is more about the legality. This debate is about what is commonly referred to as \"legalizing gay marriage\". I add quotes because I don't think this most accurately describes the debate at hand. No one (at least that I have met) is proposing that we should make gay marriage illegal. In fact, at least in recent history, gay marriage has not been illegal. The question we must ask is not, \"should gay marriage be legal or allowed?\". The question should be, \"should gay marriage be federally encouraged or promoted by the government?\". The government can either prohibit, allow, or promote an activity. I firmly believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and out of our lives, so it should only allow gay marriage, not promote it. In other words, homosexuals should be able to have relationships and call themselves married, but this should not be recognized by the government. In order to show that it should be promoted, It seems two premises must be established: 1) Gay marriage ought to be promoted. 2) The government would do a good job at promoting gay marriage. Regarding traditional marriage, it certainly ought to be promoted because it is one of the greatest predictors of societal success. This helps everyone, so it should be encouraged. It also does that without immoral consequences. However, since government recognized traditional marriage, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Government cannot competently support traditional marriage, so it too should be allowed and not promoted. Just get government out of our lives in terms of marriage. Regarding gay marriage, I believe it fails both parts. It is both immoral and does not lead to a prosperous society, so it ought not be promoted. I also, believe the government would do a terrible job at doing so if given a chance. Because of this, gay marriage in particular ought not be recognized by the state. I also think there is something else that must be addressed regarding this subject. That is the concept of church and state. This statement is not actually a part of our legal system, and the term never meant separating the influence of the church on the state, but the reverse. In law, the government is not allowed to promote or establish any form of religion. Promoting, allowing, or prohibiting gay marriage would not establish or promote any particular religion. A simple proof of this is that Christianity and Islam both deny the legitimacy of gay marriage. If this were put into law, which religion exactly would the government be promoting or establishing? Neither one. It is also important to note that morality can be enforced legally. Murder is made illegal because it is immoral. Speeding is illegal because it is immoral. Generally, the rule of thumb for law is that immoral practices should be prohibited if they affect others, immoral practices that do not affect others and amoral practices should be allowed, and moral practices should be promoted. Gay marriage may have societal implications, but it does not directly affect other people, so I see no reason to ban it. On the other hand, it is immoral, so it should not be promoted. I get my morality from the Bible. I do not want to enforce my Bible into law, I want to put my morality into law. Therefore, the Bible is relevant to the question of morality, thus to the question of law. However, this is not an issue of separation of church and state, but an issue of the morality or ethics of that which we are promoting. This is my stance on the issue. If you disagree with my point of view and would like to have a reasonable discussion, that would be welcomed. I made a few claims this round that I will support next round when I begin my arguments.", "qid": 19, "docid": "6335cfc1-2019-04-18T11:44:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.8068033456802368}, {"content": "Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Gay marriage should be legal because its love it would be wrong to keep to people that love each other apart because of their genders", "qid": 19, "docid": "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.8067817091941833}, {"content": "Title: gay marriage Content: I believe that gay marriage should not be legal. It is against many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which are some of the largest religions. Also, if you are thinking in the long term, the population will decrease because less people are actually marrying. Their only choice will be to adopt a baby, as they obviously cannot make one on their own. Also, with our children being brought up thinking that this is okay, we are corrupting what god and the founding fathers of our country believed.", "qid": 19, "docid": "48d1e765-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.8064087629318237}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legalized. Content: Everyone, men and women, without any limitation due race, nationality or religion should have the right to marry and to found a family. I believe that gay marriage should be acceptable in all places around the world because it shouldn't matter how old or what gender you are, love is love and no one should tell you otherwise. Therefore, gay marriage should be legalized.", "qid": 19, "docid": "fe5e045a-2019-04-18T15:15:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.8062828779220581}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Content: The definition of marriage also includes a side note of, or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex. Therefore, it should be legal for gay marriages to occur in the U.S and everywhere else in the world.", "qid": 19, "docid": "63357264-2019-04-18T13:13:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.805112361907959}, {"content": "Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States Content: I believe gay marriage should be legal in all states because if a person truly loves a person, all religious bias set aside, how can you not allow them to be together? Also, gay people being together affects no other person personally and has no negative affects on society or the people that live in it.", "qid": 19, "docid": "659e55fe-2019-04-18T15:05:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.8051087856292725}, {"content": "Title: Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories Content: The topic of the debate: Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories. Con as the honor of posting their argument first.", "qid": 19, "docid": "16fb700f-2019-04-18T15:25:00Z-00009-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.8048636317253113}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: I think that gay marriage should be illegal,because me as an American should be walking around with my little son and see a gay couple having love. I also think that it is dangerous to the a adopted kid that is growing up in a gay household.", "qid": 19, "docid": "61f8dc89-2019-04-18T17:32:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.8047556281089783}, {"content": "Title: Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states Content: Gay marriage should definitely be legal in all 50 states. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Lets talk about kids. If same-sex marriage were legal, imagine how many children would be adopted and taken out of the foster systems. Let's say one woman has a biological child and have a partner (who's also a woman). If they live in a state where same sex marriage isn't legal, if the biological mother were to pass away, her partner wouldn't have the right to the child. That's putting ANOTHER child into the foster system. We also need to think about the fact that gay and lesbians are people who should have the right to be married to each other.", "qid": 19, "docid": "64e25863-2019-04-18T16:48:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.8046934008598328}]}
{"query": "Should teachers get tenure?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: I will be debating on the CON side of teacher tenure. PRO will use this first round as an acceptance round. Violation of the following rules will result in an automatic loss for PRO. Rules: Use this first round for acceptance Do not be rude or mean to each other Do not include personal beliefs, personal experiences are fine if backed up by evidence. Do not forfeit, for obvious reasons.", "qid": 1, "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.867707371711731}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that: Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U. S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures.", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8633610606193542}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that \u2018there should be a teacher tenure.\u2019 Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that \u2018teacher tenure\u2019 should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word \u2018tenure\u2019.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn\u2019t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that\u2019s required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers\u2019 academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo\u2019s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com...", "qid": 1, "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8608475923538208}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, \"it has nothing to do with tenures. \"C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions.2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals.3. Drops all arguments in round 44. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4.", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8200440406799316}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: \"It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality.\"(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8156219720840454}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's:Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. \"What administrators want\" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that \"\"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. \" In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals:CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that \"they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment\" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers \"unfirable\", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole:1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments.2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic.3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time.", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.814225435256958}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted.The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students.CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com...CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, \"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers.\"1)http://www.dukechronicle.com...R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment.1)http://www.joebaugher.com...R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking?1)http://blog.timesunion.com...The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students.", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8119366765022278}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools. Content: To My Future Opponent: Thank you for accepting my challenge. I started this debate to learn the pros and cons of this subject, and I chose the side that is my personal opinion (for now). Please feel free to any styles of debating. However I find it a more constructive debate if you hit each of my points as well as making your own. Hobey ho, lets go! In public high schools, tenure is considered a right for teachers who have passed their (usually) 3 year probationary term. Roughly 2.3 million public school teachers in the U.S. have tenure. (Time) Tenure is job security aimed at impeding wanton firing of \"unpopular\" teachers. Although noble in theory, tenure is simply wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 1) If a teacher deserves to be fired, it is a daunting task for the school district to do so, leading to bad teachers staying in the system. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, \"Though tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment, it does make firing teachers a difficult and costly process, one that involves the union, the school board, the principal, the judicial system and thousands of dollars in legal fees. In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismissed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and substitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives.\" As I mentioned before, a noble attempt at stopping corruption, yet it fails to recognize bad teachers in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 2) There are numerous cases of teachers that deserved to be fired, proved difficult because of tenure. Yet again, from Time, \"A Connecticut teacher received a mere 30-day suspension for helping students cheat on a standardized test; one California school board spent $8,000 to fire an instructor who preferred using R-rated movies instead of books; a Florida teacher remained in the classroom for a year despite incidents in which she threw books at her students and demanded they referred to her as \u2018Ms. God.'\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 3) Tenure can easily lead to teacher complacency. This point is simply logic. If a man or woman has a job they know they won't be fired from (within loose limits), are they really going to work extremely hard to better themselves at their job? In today's world, probably not. The same goes with teachers. Please note, I'm not saying all teachers are lazy scumbags who deserve to be fired, but this is simply a problem with tenure. I'm 100% sure that we've all had a teacher who just didn't care anymore. Mine was in a science class. She never taught a thing. All we did was handouts. Easiest \u2018A' I've gotten in my life, but that's not the point of school. Tenure allows for \u2018Blow off classes' and \u2018easy a's', but is that necessarily a good thing, especially with legislation requiring standardized tests. If students are doing poorly, school districts get less grants, making it even harder to educate new students. It's a slippery slope that many schools are finding themselves in. You may be saying that tenure isn't the only cause of this, but it is a factor. Bad teachers = bad students. Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possible Solution: Get rid of the tenure system and create a new teacher grading system in which good teachers are kept and bad teachers are fired. I've been thinking about the education system a lot recently, and the only possible alternative I could find in my mind, is a merit based system. It would keep crass politics out of the system by assuring teachers their job (if they are up to it). I propose a three part test. A) Course Knowledge Exam- The teacher ought to know what they are talking about. B) Teacher Improvement Standards- There are numerous workshops and the like that are available to teachers. They should be required to attend a certain amount of such meetings yearly to keep up with the times and teaching styles. C) In Class Examination- Although teachers are often subjected to scheduled \"watching\" periods in which an official of the school sits in on a lesson, this is not enough. They should have a set number of random sit ins to insure the teacher is actually teaching, instead of simply making a show on that one scheduled day.", "qid": 1, "docid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.799767017364502}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:1. Tenure PossibilitiesTenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include: - New people with new techniques for students- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach- People with new knowledge of a particular subjectBy barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques. 2. Economic View From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living - Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while givingolder people the majority of money -- an imbalance3. Abuse of Teaching PositionsThrough allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as: - Those with corrupted moral standards- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity- Teachers not conductive to learning environmentNote that this \"corruption\" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7939057946205139}, {"content": "Title: Should Tenures Be Taken Away Content: First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments:R1: The fallicious logic connects being \"arbitrarily fired\" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated- Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachersR2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away \"great teachers. \" He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not \"arbitrarily fired\" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following:CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. . http://tinyurl.com... [2]CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. . http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted.", "qid": 1, "docid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7915798425674438}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn\u2019t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019: \u2018a\u2019 (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that \u2018reason 1\u2019 is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 2 and 6\u2019 \u2018b\u2019\u2018c\u2019 What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn\u2019t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don\u2019t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my \u2018Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn\u2019t have been employed and wouldn\u2019t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn\u2019t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. \u2018d\u2019 Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators\u2019 fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure\u2019s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 3\u2019 A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 4\u2019 \u2018e\u2019 This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 5\u2019 \u2018f\u2019 This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 7\u2019 \u2018g\u2019 I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled \u2018Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis\u2019 [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn\u2019t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school \u2013 e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro\u2019s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for \u2018Reason 8\u2019 \u2018h\u2019 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro\u2019s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn\u2019t \u2018collective bargaining, state law and federal law\u2019 be unnecessary too because \u2018job protections granted through court rulings\u2019 can offer this protection already? Wouldn\u2019t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I\u2019ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: \u2018i\u2019 The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. \u2018It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is \u2018not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.\u2019 In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn\u2019t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her \u2013 not only is it unsupportive of her argument \u2013 it is even against it. Rebuttal for \u2018Rebuttal for \"high standard\"\u2019 I have explained in my Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 4\u2019 how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn\u2019t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (\u2018j\u2019) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for \u2018Rebuttal for \"high standard\"\u2019 Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. \u2018k\u2019 This, I have already explained why it is not true in my \u2018Rebuttal of \u2018Reason 1\u2019: Pro failed to support \u2018reason 1\u2019 with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. \u2018l\u2019 If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro\u2019s assertion \u2018m\u2019 (incidentally, she uses the wrong \u2018then\u2019) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn\u2019t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. \u2018n\u2019 [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro\u2019s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn\u2019t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro\u2019s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro\u2019s arguments heavily rely on \u2018appeal to emotion\u2019 and \u2018circular reasoning\u2019. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...", "qid": 1, "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7760577201843262}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.", "qid": 1, "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7732083201408386}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets. I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement \"someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education\" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills. Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day. You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.", "qid": 1, "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7724748849868774}, {"content": "Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: Since I assume their opening statement was made in their R1 post, I will begin mine as well. I will be arguing against the idea that tenure for college professors should be abolished. I have three main claims: [Claim 1]: Tenure is a necessity [Claim 2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) [Claim 3]: Research supports tenure [C1]: Tenure is a necessity The concept of tenure dates back over 100 years ago to the early 20 century, when working in the field of education was much different than what it is today [1]. It was female-dominated, classrooms were larger, and working conditions were poorer [2]. Before tenure, teachers could be fired for any reason. If a teacher had the audacity to get married or, even more horrific, pregnant, the schoolboard could immediately fire her. Tenure and teachers' unions were created to guarantee some amount of job protection for teachers. They wanted the peace of mind to know their job wouldn't be terminated for seemingly no reason. At the high school level, most schools require teachers work at the same school for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, and there are many factors taken into account, with the most important one being a teacher's ability to teach. At the university level, I believe you have to have taught for 6 years before tenure consideration. Once a teacher is granted tenure, however, it does not mean they are immune from being fired. \"Tenure protects academic freedom. In the absence of tenure, teachers may be fired for any reason. Teachers may be fired if the principal doesn't like them or if they are experienced and become too expensive. Teachers may be fired for being outspoken. [2]\" In other words, tenure gives teachers a safeguard to be able to be more involved with the decisions being made at their school, as opposed to being complacent and accepting any and all changes. At the college level, this is incredibly important as professors want to challenge their students and (sometimes) have them confront and critique their already-established beliefs. When I took a Sociology course my senior year of university, our professor warned us of an upcoming lecture the following week where she was going to discuss religion and look at many of the popular ones under a critical lens. I thought this was a strange warning, as anyone whose convictions are strong enough should be fine with having their beliefs challenged. To my surprise, however, many students' parents would contact her to complain. Tenure in this situation protects the professor from being fired simply because a student didn't like one of their lectures. [C2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) There are a lot of myths surrounding the idea of tenure, which is primarily the reason why I accepted this debate in the first place. Some people, for example, think that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security forever and can therefore sit back and be a less effective teacher with no criticism whatsoever. This is absolutely not true. Again, tenure grants teachers job security and the inability to be fired without due process. Ineffective (or \"bad\") teachers can still be terminated. However, I think firing someone with no intervention or professional development workshops to help them is a bit harsh. Tenure (especially at the university level) is something that needs to be earned from the hardest-working teachers after a long and arduous process. They have to have committed some amount of research outside their teaching hours, demonstrate very strong teaching abilities, among many other factors. Tenure does not \"protect\" \"burnt-out\" teachers either. \"How many students have complained about a teacher they see as too strict or \"boring\" - only to realize later in life that this teacher made a profound difference in their lives? Research shows that there is no one style that equates to effective teaching - which underscores why a fair hearing is needed before the imposition of a serious consequence such as firing a teacher who has demonstrated years of effective teaching. [3]\" [C3]: Research supports tenure Not only have we established tenure does not help bad teachers keep their job, but there is abolutely no research that suggests students perform worse on standardized tests when taught by a tenured teacher, nor is there evidence that supports perform better with non-tenured teachers [2]. Not only this, but tenured teachers and professors also feel to have a higher obligation to be involved in school-making decisions. \"Research finds that when teachers have a say in how schools are run, they are more likely to be invested in the school and to stay longer, and are more engaged with colleagues in cooperative work. [4]\" In conclusion, tenure is a necessary provision for good teachers and promotes a stronger school culture, thus increasing academic achievement, not hindering it. The myth that tenure protects ineffective teachers is simply untrue. I await Pro's response. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.peoplesworld.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nysut.org... [4] . http://www.aft.org...", "qid": 1, "docid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7629953622817993}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. \u201d Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\u201d for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\u201d) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle", "qid": 1, "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.757041335105896}, {"content": "Title: Teachers Evaluations in NYC Content: Teachers who work in Nyc should be evaluated and awarded based upon their overall class achievements. Tenure should not be given easily after two or more years but given at an adequate time or point in the teacher's career. Evaluations can give in detail the overall outcome of the curriculum the teacher is providing for the student and allow the parents to be informed about the class and the setting and the curriculum taught to their child or children. When the evaluations came out in the ny post last month it raise a couple of questions. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to give out an incentive to those teachers who have excelled or achieved the goal within each grade level. He wanted to offer the teachers a 20,000 dollar award and begin to open up 50 more schools including charter schools to have more teachers apply for these positions and scope the children of tommorrow. Teachers need to be recognized not only by their scholarly academics and their potential to have progression within a classroom setting.", "qid": 1, "docid": "4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7534685134887695}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7530165314674377}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teachers should be paid more; based on merit", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7449588775634766}, {"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: Here are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. [2] [4] Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality. [21] Tenure laws maintain the \"last-hired, first-fired\" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as \"low-income students and persons of color.\" [22] On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. [23] Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. [3] With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal. [24] For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. [25] Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. [27] New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\") where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. [6] With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude.\" [28] A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. [29] Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing. [10] According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. [18] Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\" for a short period of time to receive tenure. [30] A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. [2] Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.\" [31] [32] Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.\" [27] Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. [33] Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. [34] Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to \"a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable.\" [34] Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. [18] ~http://teachertenure.procon.org... *You present your facts and then we will post rebuttals for facts from this round*", "qid": 1, "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7423052787780762}, {"content": "Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed", "qid": 1, "docid": "cafa7193-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.741711437702179}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: I would like to begin my rebuttal by addressing my opponent\"s statement that \"teachers have to strike.\" As with any unionized profession a strike is a last resort and normally occurs when there is a standstill in negotiations. However, in places such as New York City, teachers are not allowed to strike as a result of the Taylor Law [1]. The Taylor Law makes it illegal for any unionized public employee to strike. In the event that public employees do strike they are penalized by having to pay two (2) day\"s worth of wages for each (1) strike day. Stating that teachers have to strike is the same as saying that auto workers have to strike. With regard to tenure, tenure is earned after a probationary period of 3 years. [2] During this 3 year period a teacher can be terminated for being ineffective. Although the term tenure is, for the most part, synonymous with the profession of educator the term probationary period is not. Correction officers, police officers, firefighters and others in public service must also serve a probationary period in order to be afforded union protection against unfair and unjust termination. Non effective teachers are not protected by tenure. As with any unionized member in any profession, a non-effective employee can be terminated for job performance whether tenured or not. However, being tenured allows for due process should a school district or city wish to terminate a teacher for ineffectiveness. My opponent is correct in the statement that \"unions donate to politicians to push their own agenda.\" However, the teachers union is one of many unions. Basing an argument on this statement, I could easily argue that all unions should be abolished on this premise. However, unions donating to push their own agenda are no different than a person voting Republican, a person voting Democrat or for any other party line. Politics in itself revolves around agendas. Why does the National Rifle Association donate approximately $7,000,000 per year to Congress? [3] One has to ask, what is the agenda of teachers in the public education system? Personally I feel it is to educate the future of America. If not, why deal with the negative stigma of the profession which on average earns a person approximetly $42,000 per year. [4] [1] http://www.perb.ny.gov... [2] http://teaching.about.com... [3]http://ivn.us... [4]http://www.payscale.com...", "qid": 1, "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7381755113601685}, {"content": "Title: Changing the school year to all year Content: \"With the extra time that teachers would have to work, the more they would get paid.\" Yes, but as I said in Round 1, that money has to come from somewhere. It would benefit teachers, not the economy. Besides, if teachers are really deserving of a pay-rise, it should come without having to extend the school year, for the reasons I've provided. \"What is stopping these students from getting a job during the school year?\" Trying to do well in school. Students would, obviously, do worse overall if they had less time to spend on school-work. This is a bad thing. \"And I'm sorry, but the most evidence I can provide for you is that I myself am a 11th grade teacher. I know it sounds illegitimate, but true.\" This is not \"evidence\" at all. Also, my opponent stated in Round 1 that teachers \"often\" struggle to get through the material in a traditional school-year. I would ask why some teachers manage to get through it while others don't. Seems some teachers need to try harder.", "qid": 1, "docid": "855bacb6-2019-04-18T19:16:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7364959120750427}, {"content": "Title: Teacher Tenure Content: 1) Tenure: : the right to keep a job (especially the job of being a professor at a college or university) for as long as you want to have it. 2) Tenure (As defined by American Association of University Professors): Since its founding in 1915, the Association has seen tenure as necessary to protect academic freedom. Tenure, briefly stated, is an arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee. The Association, also from its inception, has assumed responsibility for developing standards and practices, sometimes in cooperation with other organizations, to give concrete meaning to tenure. Key Association policy statements are the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. I would like to allow the Pro to decide which definition will be used. So far as the debate structure goes, I would like the second round to be stating preliminary arguments. he third and fourth used for rebuttal and concluding statements accordingly, as long as this is amiable to the Pro. I look forward to this debate, best of luck. Sources 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.aaup.org...", "qid": 1, "docid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7360926270484924}, {"content": "Title: Should Bad Teachers Be Fired Content: I BELIEVE THAT TEACHERS, who have the rights to be at a school teaching should be responsible and respectful in every way. Otherwise, their is no point of teaching at the first place. If not fired, i believe it could damage many students as well as the schools curricular activities. Teachers who are bad should be fired because students lives are at risk of earning behavioral issues and would ruin their generation. Instead of their fun school life they earn disrespected opportunities which isn't fair if their the ones paying the school for good education. Each teacher should be respectful if want to be respected otherwise their is no point for a student to learn or be able to learn.", "qid": 1, "docid": "41a0fb20-2019-04-18T12:49:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7341129779815674}, {"content": "Title: Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Content: Good luck! I negate. Con's resolution: Teachers should be laid off because of seniority. Clarification: Teacher are not laid off SOLELY on seniority. Teachers are laid off based on the number of years he or she worked at the same district. Con: 1) New teachers have little to no experience in teaching by themselves. Teaching a subject takes years of experience. A teacher must learn and adapt to different styles of learning, a new teacher cannot do this off the bat during the first day. Hiring many new teachers who experiment with abnormal teaching styles will detriment the school's placement in the state. This has happened at my school last year (some retired, so the school hired new teachers) and our API score dropped by 61 points. ..860 to 799. Due to the recession, many retirees are returning to the workforce. This has happened in the nurse sector, an influx of retired and experienced nurses are returning to their jobs causing employers to hire veterans over freshly graduated students. 2) Seniority rewards teachers for his or her commitment to the school system of years. Why dismiss a loyal employee? Pro: 1) Your music teacher was probably laid off because there wasn't a satisfactory enrollment demand. Can't wait for Round 2!", "qid": 1, "docid": "4fb4627-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7336573600769043}, {"content": "Title: It will attract more teachers Content: It will not attract more teachers. As said above, teaching is a calling. Many of the expected new teachers will be motivated solely by the increased pay, not by any intrinsic motivation. Because they are not intrinsically motivated, they will underperform. They might leave again after a year, but in that year they will have taught a class without the requisite skills and inspiration, possibly spoiling the educational experience of an entire class for the rest of their lives.", "qid": 1, "docid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00012-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7335422039031982}, {"content": "Title: Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured. Content: Teachers who perform below benchmarks such as retention, attendance, academic performance results, assessing required learning outcomes and student feedback, should not be allowed tenure because students suffer to be successful and colleges suffer in graduation rates.", "qid": 1, "docid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7328692674636841}, {"content": "Title: Is learning a child's responsibility Content: No because of Blah. The teachers are entitled to teach and so we should let tehm teach and blah if they want.", "qid": 1, "docid": "8b79d2ed-2019-04-18T19:39:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7293491959571838}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Content: Teachers provide an essential education to our future generations. It is unfair to allow them the power to simply walk off the job because they feel they're not being paid enough. There are other ways to ensure that they are being treated equitably without sacrificing the benefits to our children. For example, mediation has worked in the past for other professionals such as in the healthcare industry to avoid detrimental effects on society. If we allow teachers the ability to go on strike, they will never be happy with what they have.", "qid": 1, "docid": "b58929b-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7264231443405151}, {"content": "Title: The teaching of Shakespeare should be compulsory Content: Freedom of teachers to teach what they want", "qid": 1, "docid": "c089c9f4-2019-04-19T12:45:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7254581451416016}, {"content": "Title: Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired Content: I would like to first draw attention to the fact that the wording of the motion is a case of scopal ambiguity*: \"Teachers who aren't here for more than 90% of the year should get fired\" ^^This could mean either that we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 90%, or we should fire any teachers who have an attendance of less than 10%. I feel I can argue against either, hence I have accepted nonetheless, but I feel I should point out that the motion is ambiguously defined, and that traditionally is considered to work in con's favour. Regardless, it will allow the debate to progress more smoothly for pro to clarify what they meant at the start of their R2 speech. My argument will be as follows: 1) An absent teacher does not usually damage a student's education. 2) There are perfectly legitimate reasons why a teacher may need to be absent for over a year (i.e. would have 0% attendance) but should not be fired. Firstly, most schools have systems in place to account for the event that a teacher is absent- they have supply teachers whose entire job is to cover for teachers who are absent. Though not clearly stated, pro appears to be talking about secondary/elementary schools, and a supply teacher can teach, for instance, how to solve a quadratic equation, just as easily as the full-time teacher could. It therefore does not harm the students' education. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons why a teacher may not be able to attend school for over a year. For instance, if they are diagnosed with cancer, and have to undergo a year of chemotherapy, and hence have to take a year out. This person should not be fired for being in that situation, and pro did not include any indication in the motion that exceptions may be made if the teacher has a perfectly good reason for being absent. Maternity leave is a much less drastic example- the school year is 36 weeks**, which would make being absent for four of them enough to push one under the boundary pro proposed. After giving birth, one is entitled to up to 52 weeks*** maternity leave. So, in short, an absent teacher is not as damaging to students' education as pro suggests, and there are perfectly valid reasons a teacher may be unable to attend for up to a year. As such, I urge voters to side against the motion. *(An explanation of scopal ambiguity: from 1min 15secs). **(According to: https://www.google.co.uk...;*) ***(According to https://www.google.co.uk...;*)", "qid": 1, "docid": "5cfdd422-2019-04-18T12:19:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7247442007064819}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should not be allowed to strike. Content: Teachers are workers just like everybody else and if you want to change the industry, striking is a pretty good way to do it. In my opinion teachers are treated like second class citizens, they go to school and obtain their bachelor's degree, then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis. Just like anyone else, if they're not being treated fairly they should be able to demand better working conditions and higher pay.", "qid": 1, "docid": "b58929b-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7246297001838684}, {"content": "Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: We are going to make two points. The first is to stipulate as factual Instigator's contention bad teachers are allowed to remain in the classroom rather than give an opportunity to more innovative and qualified teachers. The second is to state it's not the unions fault. The fault lies with the administration and with the school board. What Instigator suggests is the unions not do their job or at least one of their jobs which is to represent and protect the interests of their members. Ethical standards and legal requirements do not allow them to decline to represent 'bad' teachers. There is a way to get rid of bad teachers-- school boards can enact policies allowing for removing such teachers; and administrators can document cases against them. Unions can fight it as they should but if the school boards and administrators do their jobs the bad teachers will go-- and the good teachers who may be unfairly or mistakenly targeted. will be protected. It is the last point why unions should be allowed to protect bad teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7235977053642273}, {"content": "Title: Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions Content: Unions sometimes protect teachers that shouldn't be protected. Some teachers are stuck in a rut, \"babysitting\" until retirement, or getting complaints and being shuffled from school to school. They can't be fired and so they continue to take up space that could be used for younger/newer teachers with incredible ideas and innovative lessons.", "qid": 1, "docid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7226076722145081}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Better teachers should be paid more", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7206954956054688}, {"content": "Title: There should not be a teacher tenure. Content: Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. \u201d Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\u201d for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\u201d) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for \"academic freedom\"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: \"Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. \u201d(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. \"(Rebuttal for \"high standard\"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: \"Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. \" This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.", "qid": 1, "docid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7205802202224731}, {"content": "Title: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: My opponents *) only states that some teachers teach better than others. Unless it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements, my opponents *) does not disprove my 1). And no evidence has been put forth to support that it is the case that the teachers who quit are better teachers than their replacements. My opponent's argument 1) from round 2 does not support the claim because although my opponent pointed out many teachers who like their job, whom correlates with good teacher, will quit due to low pay, my opponent never argued the the number of good teachers quitting due to low pay will outnumber the number of bad teachers quitting due to low pay, thus the argument that the average teacher quitting due to low pay is a better teacher than their replacement has not been made. Thus my argument was not disproved. 2) My opponent didn't give evidence to support his claim, so my opponent's argument was based on speculation on what might be true. 3) Now my opponent is arguing that success results in respect, which is not at all contrary to what I argued. I argued that more pay doesn't result in more respect. Whether or not being successful results in respect is irrelevant to the argument. Saying earning more is a factor in success, and being successful results in respect, therefor earning more is a factor in increases to your respect is the logical equivalence of saying being taller is a factor in how much you weigh, and weighing more increases your health problems, therefor being taller is a factor in increases to your health problems. It is a logically flawed argument.", "qid": 1, "docid": "415925a6-2019-04-18T16:10:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7188670635223389}, {"content": "Title: Yummy debtors for lunch. Content: Great argument! I concede. We're on the same page. How much should a professor with tenure be paid? What's a fair value in a failing country? $200k? When .gov provides the loans, yup.", "qid": 1, "docid": "42aeb76-2019-04-18T13:45:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7178277373313904}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00023-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7173099517822266}, {"content": "Title: pay state school teachers based on merit Content: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.", "qid": 1, "docid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.717103123664856}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: Thank you for the more challenging rebuttal. I think the topic over teacher's unions/contracts/tenures is a separate issue. Yes, it is very hard to fire a teacher who performs poorly, even after years of parental complaints and poor performance reviews from administrators. I had a very bad teacher in 6th grade, everyone knew she was bad, and for years, people wrote formal complaints about her, eventually the school administrators moved her into a mobile-trailer classroom outside the school to teach 'basic skills' just to get her away from the rest of the students. Private schools do not have teaching unions, so this problem is non-existent there. There's no perfect system for finding perfect employees, but once again, that's another issue. As for the time scheduling, schools release their students around 2:30 PM, which is still way before the standard work day. If the student plays sports, then they attend that. If they are not old enough and require additional care after school, almost every public school has an after-hours care. I attended one for a time as well. The time there was spent doing HW and playing games with the other kids. This was an additional cost to parents, but it's within reason, (i can not give accurate costs) my parents were by no means wealthy. The money/funding is really the biggest issue and what education will come down to. We all want a better society, a better economy and job market, but how can we expect that with low education standards, and sinking education rankings relative to other countries? It all starts with a good education, it's not always a tangible thing, but it's something society has to make a decision on together for the greater good. We already put a high value on education at the advanced level (college). I have friends that just graduated with $120k-$180k in loan debt over 4-5 years. This was from an expensive university, but you see my point. Why is a 4-5 year education worth so much, but the education you receive for the previous 13 years any less important? The school budget in my hometown was often voted down because there was a large population of senior citizens that would vote the budget down because they didn't want their taxes to go up, even the smallest bit. The school system was not very good, and my parents sent me away to private school because of this. Now that many of them have died (sry to say this), and people with children have moved in, the people who care about their children's education vote the budget up knowing their taxes are being spent on their own children, thus granting the school more for the students. My younger brother is now attending a school that my parents once dreaded the thought of ever sending me to. I personally do not have all the details figured out, I can imagine smaller school districts merging with larger ones to make the system more cost effective. But the idea is to enable and push the minimum standards of education, and this is a decision that society must make. I believe that a viable approach through year-round schooling can be achieved. My inspiration for this topic came from TED Talks conference on Education, and from one of the talks in particular. I will post the link below. Thanks for debating. This is the specific talk. http://www.youtube.com... If you are interested in other education talks, just YouTube search: TED Talks Education 2013", "qid": 1, "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7158468961715698}, {"content": "Title: Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Content: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teachers. -- I will let my opponent go first and purpose definitions as I'm lazy.", "qid": 1, "docid": "d06519d9-2019-04-18T19:14:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7151740789413452}, {"content": "Title: Better teachers should be paid more Content: President Barack Obama said in March of 2009: teachers should be treated \"like the professionals they are while also [being held] more accountable. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.\"[3]", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7136585712432861}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Teachers do make enough money. Firstly, let me state that I agree teachers do an invaluable job. Here are my arguments for why it is fair/useful that teachers are paid less than a number of other professionals. (1) Holidays. Teachers will generally have 13 weeks per year, compared to an allowance of perhaps 4 weeks per year for most other professionals. This discrepancy - about two months' extra time off - should rightfully impact on pay. (2) The absence of monetary incentive to join the profession. Due to the mediocre pay scales, nobody will join teaching \"for the money\". People who desire to teach, generally, will be motivated by (a) a natural desire to educate, or (b) a passion for sharing their speciality subject. Hopefully this leads to a strong teaching force who are in the profession for wholesome reasons. That's all for now.", "qid": 1, "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7136104106903076}, {"content": "Title: Being an teacher is awseome. Content: If you be a teacher you could get along each other with children. Also, as you teach you could have a tine reviewing things what you learned in the past. Also, I think being a professor is good because it's not dangerous and not do dull", "qid": 1, "docid": "f4d1bca9-2019-04-18T12:38:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7130508422851562}, {"content": "Title: School pupils shouldn't be punished with detentions. They are practically imprisonment. Content: Teachers nowadays are giving out way to many detentions leaving students liable to more, Is this acceptable. I would like to welcome my opponent to this debate on a ever lasting topic. Debate starts next round.", "qid": 1, "docid": "b3f24791-2019-04-18T11:19:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.711735188961029}, {"content": "Title: Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students. Content: Teachers 'will' have a higher-pay incentive: If they improve standards then they'll get a higher pay.", "qid": 1, "docid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7113524675369263}, {"content": "Title: It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Content: It will not give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching. Teaching is a calling, not something you choose for the money. Teachers are what we call 'intrinsically motivated': they want to realize an ideal, in this case, educating and raising responsible citizens. Recasting this ideal into a financial reward system actually demotivates teachers who feel the inherent value of their work now suddenly has become sullied by chiefly monetary rewards, which is why performances pay hasn\u2019t worked in many places.[1] [1] White, Performance pay for teachers is a terrible idea and here\u2019s why, 2011", "qid": 1, "docid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00010-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7102624177932739}, {"content": "Title: Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority Content: but new teachers need experience to teach like any other teacher out there. Students should choose because its there education.", "qid": 1, "docid": "4fb4627-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7083836197853088}, {"content": "Title: That would be the better solution Content: If teachers get merit pay for the success of their students,then they will strive harder in order to yield successful individuals. And that would greatly help for the success of its nation. Teachers are not just getting into school to teach but also to learn and to study for the betterment of their discussion so that their students would also be interested to learn and be important.", "qid": 1, "docid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7077677845954895}, {"content": "Title: Should Students Be Rewarded To Go To School Content: Students should be paid to go to school because we do not have a choice as to whether or not we can go yet teachers decide to beome teachers. Teachers get paid a large sum of money and although our reward as students is our education, to prepare our selves for our future, we should be rewarded with more of a physical treatment such as money, a free day of just not having to go to school at all or being allowed to do whatever we want.", "qid": 1, "docid": "3b334439-2019-04-18T14:16:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7068304419517517}, {"content": "Title: pay state school teachers based on merit Content: It will attract more teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7067962884902954}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: The American Schooling System is quite unique in its own way. The education system is the one of the only systems where someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education. I would have to argue that even though your idea is moral it would bring a huge burden to the tax payers in this country, you claim that it would save money to parents but at the same time they would be paying much more in taxes for these salaries going to teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7050075531005859}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation Content: What a shame. After CON's last rebuttal (or lack, thereof) I would posit that not only should we give teachers merit based pay, but we should give debaters merit based pay also. This might encourage people like my opponent to stop posting debates and not following up on them. The problem is rampant. Of the 16 total debates I've had, 5 had forfeits. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... (due to someone's poor judging, I'm actually losing this one) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 1, "docid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7025811672210693}, {"content": "Title: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: 1) There is nothing wrong with teachers quitting their job because of low pay, as long as someone else is willing to take their place. 2) Unless you can give evidence to support that teachers would use extra spare time to prepare for their next lecture, it can't be assumed. If a teacher really wanted work less hours for the same pay, he or she should have picked a different career that pays better. 3.) More pay doesn't result in more respect. For example, lawyers make lots of money but are not well respected. Besides, respect and admiration for teachers should be based on the teachers' teaching skills, not how much they are paid.", "qid": 1, "docid": "415925a6-2019-04-18T16:10:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7023035883903503}, {"content": "Title: Teachers need summer vacation to stay sane and focused. Content: Teaching is a very difficult profession. Teachers often express that they need summer breaks. Year-round schooling takes this away from teachers, and will likely diminish the quality of teaching as a result.", "qid": 1, "docid": "69c8cd12-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00072-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7015305757522583}, {"content": "Title: Year Round School Content: Teachers do have breaks, they have the weekend breaks and two week breaks each season. It is just a total fact.", "qid": 1, "docid": "14ff1ef8-2019-04-18T17:46:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7014527320861816}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay works in markets, can work for teachers Content: Darcy Ann Olsen. \"Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay\". CATO. May 22, 2001: \"Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say \"sayonara\" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done.\"", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00049-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7009103298187256}, {"content": "Title: Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers Content: Darcy Ann Olsen. \"Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay\". CATO. May 22, 2001: \"Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say \"sayonara\" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done.\"", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00032-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7009103298187256}, {"content": "Title: Changing the school year to all year Content: \"There are 6.2 million teachers...\" While I agree it WOULD have an impact on the economy, what I'm arguing is that the impact would be negative. The money to pay these teachers has to come from either the Government or parents. Either way, the economy is worse-off. My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the other negative economical impacts I presented in Round 1. \"Sooner or later, the students...\" I agree, but I argue that later is better than sooner. School years are for schooling and setting one's life up by getting the best grades possible. They have 60 years after high school with which to learn to manage time between tasks. \"I'm sorry that I have no evidence..\" That's fine, but it's a point you can't use to make your case. My opponent didn't answer to my suggestion that if SOME teachers can manage the time effectively, ALL should be able to. My opponent has not answered to my evidence that year-long schooling has no impact on student performance.", "qid": 1, "docid": "855bacb6-2019-04-18T19:16:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7008873224258423}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay for teachers risks favoritism and cronyism", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00010-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7005449533462524}, {"content": "Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: Thank you again. Sorry for time frame again. First of all there is no dropping of the issue of it dismissing teachers who use blackboards (like my science teacher) as antiquated and archaic. My opponent refers to my intro of round one and as already explained is not as relevant and acts as a guideline for my position. =Con 1= My contention one shows that Merit -Pay is effective, it has worked and it can work if implemented. As already stated by my opponet, non-merit by is ineffective. My opponent also provides no evidence against my contention, and as already stated, this debate is Public Forum and shall be judged according to evidence. =Con 2= First of all, Merit-Pay can ONLY be based on student achievement. As posted in my definition earlier, student achievement \"Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high.\" It has various meanings. Merit-Pay is essentially extra money paid for outstanding advancements. How else would a teacher be given merit-pay? Other than how well they are doing their job, which concerns the achievements of the student they are teaching. Remembering that this resolution regards K-12 teaching, not colleges as I believe he mentioned in round 2, Merit-Pay essentially incorporates a form of student achievement. So when I provide the evidence that most Americans support Merit-Pay, it is completly relevant to the resolution stated. So we can safely assume that my opponents arguements have been rebutted sufficiently regarding my contention two. =Con 3= Contention 3. My opponent semmingly intertwines this with contention two. He says that he advocates Merit-Pay based on teacher degrees. This however is faulty. For one, this is already implemented. Second, there have been various accounts of teachers across the nation forging their degrees to earn more cash from Merit-Pay. (I understand you want a source, but because of my fault, time frame, I wont be able to get it.) Most professions offer bonuses and salary increases to exemplary employees. Why should teaching be the exception? The fact that a sloppy teacher and a dedicated teacher earn the same salary just doesn't sit right with most people. Conclusion. I believe ample evidence has been provided to debunk my opponents claims against merit-pay. I plead for a PRO vote. Thank you for your time.", "qid": 1, "docid": "10b8a591-2019-04-18T19:14:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7005372643470764}, {"content": "Title: technology should take place of teachers at school Content: no i dont think that a teacher should be replaced by the latest technology that has made human life easy. a teacher at school is not just preparing you for some sort of small examinations such that we give at school instead they prepare us for the world we have to face ahead. the term teacher is a very meaningful word and we should not consider a teacher only teaching bookish knowledge but they are also our spiritual teachers and no matter how advance the technology becomes the glorious personality of a teacher cannot be replaced.", "qid": 1, "docid": "dd068049-2019-04-18T17:07:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6995159387588501}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: \"However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays.\" True, but teachers have an extremely difficult job, similar to doctors and lawyers. They are educator, disciplinarian, and sometimes counselor. They have to watch over children for 6 hours of the day, not to mention how much times they work before and after those 6 hours, and the amount of correcting they have to do, which takes up most of their free time. \"You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link.\" I would argue that actually, but that is not the matter at hand. \"I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, \"excellent teacher\" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay.\" Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience.", "qid": 1, "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6978172063827515}, {"content": "Title: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed Content: I will not debunk some of my opponents claims. Introduction I resent that my opponent stated that it is \u2018unfortunate\u2019 that we are having this debate both here on a national level. This statement is outrageous. Should the status quo not be challenged, especial If the status quo is harming America\u2019s economic performance, and damaging America\u2019s schools? Also, this debate is not about whether education and teachers are important. Of course I realize the value of teachers and education. This is the common ground that we both agree on. However, it is because I favor them that I am opposed to teacher unions. Education and the future of America should not be hijacked by special interests aimed at helping adults rather than students. To state that anti-union is anti-teacher is like saying being in favor of antitrust law is anti-business. Protecting Teachers My opponent first claims that teachers need protection. This is a false claim. Here\u2019s why a school board would be unwilling to fire a teacher haphazardly: First, the process of searching and finding a teacher is a lengthy and expense process. To find a teacher one has to look over many applications, set up interviews, and pay for advertising the job. Once the teacher is hired, one has to pay for teacher orientation, and file paper work for the new employee. Second off, it\u2019s risky business to fire a teacher that is competent and replace him or her with a teacher that has the potential to be incompetent. In the hiring process, even If one thoroughly looks over credentials, there is still a great possibility that the applicant is incompetent. So as long as the teacher has a decent level of competency, it is much better for the school to keep the teacher then to fire the teacher and risk a new teacher. Third, If a school or school district is known to have a high turnover rate, then it\u2019s unlikely that competent teachers will apply there. Therefore a school district is unlikely to do this. Employees in the private sector do not need to be protected, in which 93.1% of employees in the private sector are not part of unions. Even in the public sector, 63.8% of employees are not unionized. However, it should be noted that If incompetent teachers are not fired, then it means that recent college graduates and those seeking a teacher position that are component are unable to do so. The problem is that teachers are protected too much. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher once he or she receives tenure. In New York City, a \u201crubber room\u201d was creates specifically designed to pay bad teachers to do nothing. Literally, teachers that got in trouble for sexual misconduct, unwilling to follow the curriculum, or abusiveness were just sent to a building to do what they wanted with pay and benefits[1]. Teachers receive more job security than any other occupation. There is no reason for this. Protecting bad teachers simply hurt the schools. Students do not learn what they need to. Often times, teachers need to review material that should have been learned previous years, but an incompetent teacher simply did not teach the material. This drags everyone down. Education is too important for bad teachers to recieve protection. According to this video, If just the bottom 6-10 percent of all teachers were eliminated, then American education would be at the level of Finland, a nation with top education. (watch 1:08 onward). Past Practices If I am correct, my opponent\u2019s main argument here is that teachers have the right to collective bargaining because it is not specifically prohibited in state and local law. This argument fails for many reasons. For one, this debate framework is based on moral principles not legal principals. I specially stated that I was using an Unitarianism framework. This is a basic appeal to authority argument, using the law as a legit authority. It would equivalent to if this was the year 1940 in Nazi, Germany for me to argue that one should not hide Jews from the government because it is against the law. Second, this argument easily fails once a law is introduced to bar teachers from collective right bargaining. Other Legal Issues I will repeat my argument that I stated earlier. Legal issues should not be a major consideration since laws can be changed, and are not a moral authority. My opponent states that teachers should receive collective bargaining rights since other public employees like firefighters, police, etc. also maintain the right. Just because other public employees engage in collective bargaining does not make it morally right. This is analogous stating that a murderer should not be locked in jail since other murders get away with it scot free. I am against collective bargaining in the public sector. I would remove the collective bargaining rights of firefighters and other public employees, however this debate is specifically about teachers. In terms of the argument that the NLRA does not cover public employees, there are also many checks that exist in the private sector that reduce the power of unions while these checks do not exist in the public sector. It should also be noted that many public employees can not engage in specific collective bargaining tactics. For example, police officers are not allowed to go on strike. So it is not unreasonable to remove teacher\u2019s rights to collective bargaining. Specialization and Demands My opponent states that since teachers invest in a college education to obtain a teaching degree, that he or she should be protected. I will explain the problem with this. There is no reason to suspect that teacher unions increase teacher employment. If you protect bad teachers you can\u2019t let potentially good teachers enter the market. So this argument actually works in my favor, since college graduates spend many years studying the field and get into debt, only to find that they can\u2019t get a job because there are no vacancies. It\u2019s also another point in my favor that teacher unions increase the salary and benefts of teachers, creating a surplus of teacher applicants and increasing the number of those who will invest in a teaching degree but will not be able to find a teaching career. Many other jobs that require more specialization are less protected. For example, Doctors and Lawyers have to spend much more years and tuition to practice in the field. However, neither doctors nor lawyers are unionized. One out of every 57 doctor will lose their medical license and one out of 97 lawyers will lose their license to practice law. Remember, this is losing their license to practice, not just getting fired, the latter a far less severe punishment. For teachers, 1 in every 1000 teacher is fired after tenure for performance based reasons [2]. However, the question is: should people be protected from the financial risks they make? No. Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice. An entrepreneur that decides to start a new business must bear the risks as well. Consumers should not be forced to buy the product and the business should not be protected. If new technology automates jobs, then there\u2019s no reason these jobs should be protected. Once one gets into the mindset that jobs must be protected in order to save them from mal-investments, economic growth, consumer choice and efficiency cannot be maintained. Jobs will always exist through this creative destructive process; they will just be reallocated to different fields. Even If a college graduate is unable to find a teacher career, a college degree is versatile and many people enter careers outside of their specialization. Conclusion: I have refuted the legal claims and protectionism claims my opponent has made. I look forward to my opponents response to my arguments. . http://tinyurl.com...[1] . http://www.youtube.com...[2] . http://tinyurl.com...[3]", "qid": 1, "docid": "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6961777210235596}, {"content": "Title: Students should be allowed to grade their teachers. Content: I definitely think that us students should be able to grade their teachers. I find that this should be an annual or bi-yearly practice. I believe that over years, teachers could alter their teaching styles, maybe for better, or worse. I think it is fair that, teachers who mark their students daily, through ability, understanding, and control, students should be able to do the same. Students are marked, and judged everyday based on ability, and effort. With a lot on the line, their marks. So teachers should give the option of being marked either anonymous or otherwise. So they could improve their teaching ethics. True, teachers have already been through school, but non other than students to judge how well of a job their educator has done.", "qid": 1, "docid": "68c2d8d0-2019-04-18T15:02:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6960673332214355}, {"content": "Title: Teachers promote the leaders of tomorrow which should entitle them with higher salaries Content: Hey, i assume when you say teachers, you mean public school teachers. your argument is sound in the sense that mothers should be paid the most cuz without without mothers there would be nothing and following the same logic grandmothers should be paid even more for being grandmothers. This is what you said, \"Let me put it simply, without teachers there would have been no man on the moon. No vaccines. No indispensable medicines. \"Blacks\" and \"Whites\" would still be segregated and the hole in the Ozone layer would be twice as big.\" It is true that teachers have profound role on their students but only some, not all. On the other hand there are teachers who are horrible, and further more teachers are not only bad but criminals who can be indulged in heinous crimes against the children. Given the reality of situation first you need to get all teachers to be the best group in the world's history then maybe you could argue for your cause. Till then your assumptions are juvenile. And secondly you brought the stats for teachers in Australia, if teachers are teachers then why didn't you argue for the teachers in the third world countries, should they not be paid the same as others in different countries according to your aforesaid principles. I appreciate you trying to talk about this with the minister even though i might different on your way and talking points. Simply quoting a newspaper doesn't prove the findings, what was the methodology, until you come to terms with that, your arguments fells short that learning is proportional to teacher's pay. Having received no contact from the deemed \"education\" experts, I relied on two of my lecture and homework giving teachers for their views on the issue I was raising. Visualising a teaching utopia with the aid of my question, both teachers were quick to respond. To my surprise, both Teacher A and Teacher B had contrasting views on the issue I was raising. From Coming from the United Kingdom, Teacher .................................................................. of teachers, Teacher B addresses the issue in a larger picture including the Australian workforce. Till here, nothing whatsoever was a any source of your point just a story. Yes, I agree teachers can inspire the leaders and workforce of tomorrow, but also can parents, friends, family and so many other sources. I am not against paying teachers higher or as a matter of fact anybody else for that matter. But the world we live in is primarily run by economics. Personally I would love everybody to be paid enough that they would spend their lives peacefully, but you should bring in more economic argument for this to happen and maybe a selection process where you can find the best teachers. I would love to have a healthy debate.", "qid": 1, "docid": "e43a535a-2019-04-18T11:37:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6960141658782959}, {"content": "Title: teacher pay should be raised Content: With that said, I will explain why teachers pay should not be raised. But before I do that, let me say that the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. PRO must prove why teachers' pay should be raised, as she does not in R1. Contention 1: Pay is enough currently. Currently, teachers get an annual $47,602 (. http://www.aft.org...) The average salary for an American is $43,444 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As we can clearly see, teachers are earning more than the average person, so a pay raise would not be needed. Contention 2: Most teachers don't deserve it. Most teachers do not even earn the money they receive. 1/3 of Americans can not locate the US on a map, 3/4 can not locate Iraq on a map, and US high schoolers are the 2nd least educated (stupid, if you will) out of 13 major countries tested like Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and the UK. Indeed, certain teachers, like gym teachers, do not even put that much effort into their jobs and do not provide their students with the skills they need. Contention 3: Benefits. Teachers, in addition to the salary they receive, get multiple benefits. Most teachers get a guaranteed salary, summer break, free lunch, and a pension plan. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.", "qid": 1, "docid": "39b69e06-2019-04-18T19:45:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6931926608085632}, {"content": "Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Social Policy: encouraging teaching careers", "qid": 1, "docid": "cafa7193-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00007-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6930159330368042}, {"content": "Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Social Policy for satisfied teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "cafa7193-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.69287109375}, {"content": "Title: Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round Content: I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate. I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job. In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go? I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year? Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up", "qid": 1, "docid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6927617192268372}, {"content": "Title: Merit Pay for Teachers Content: I have been very busy. Today, I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. In my opponent's first contention, part A, he says that teachers will go far enough to deprive students of a good education. You can see that teachers would be attempting to give students the best education possible to improve their achievement. If a student was given a poor education, wouldn't they achieve nothing? And because this merit pay is based on students' achievement, it makes sense for teacher to give the best education possible. And also for part B of my opponent's contention, I have nothing to say but this. We cannot say for sure if this merit pay, if the student achievement that the merit pay is based upon, is even going to be based on standardized tests. Therefore, teachers \"teaching to the test\" or narrowing curriculum may not even be a problem. We cannot worry about it in this debate. Moving on to my opponent's next contention, again, in part A, we cannot be sure that these students will be measured by which percentile they fit under. And also that \"smart kids\" can work without teacher assistance, but will they not achieve more with a teacher aiding them? And as for part B, though a teacher may have \"an incorrigible jerky administration\" I do not see how this would affect their pay. Or if they have students that are out of control, all teachers have these kids. There isn't a way out of getting them put in your class. But let me remind you that merit pay is extra pay. These teachers are not getting any less money, simply bonuses. I was a bit too short on time to gather evidence, but I hope this will do.", "qid": 1, "docid": "be19aa3c-2019-04-18T19:12:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6927000284194946}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Teacher merit can be measured and help determine pay", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6918145418167114}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: All teachers should be paid more, not just a select few", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6917439699172974}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit-pay helps attract teachers where there are shortages", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00022-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6917172074317932}, {"content": "Title: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed Content: He and I discussed this issue in the forums, a while back, and had some differing opinions so it should be fun to formally debate this topic and see what comes out of it. I will be representing the con position, arguing that the bargaining rights of teachers should not be removed. Opening Argument It's unfortunate that we're having this debate, not just on DDO, but on a national level, as well. Teachers are instrumental in shaping who we are as individuals, in some cases even more so than parents. We rarely stop to consider just how important they are in establishing a foundation, for the success of our nation. Everything we are, everything we will become, every success we have in life, will be at least partially attributable to the contributions of teachers. The thought of taking collective bargaining rights away, thus removing all workplace protections, seems appalling to me. If any group of people deserve to be protected, it's teachers. Throughout this debate I will attempt to show good cause for allowing teachers to keep collective bargaining rights. I will also make a number of points, in support of my position through refutation of my opponents arguments. Hopefully after this debate, you'll agree that this group of dedicated professionals that we entrust with our most prized possessions, our children, deserves to have a means of protection, in the workplace. Teachers Need Protection Few ever stop to consider the tremendous amount of liability that teachers carry on their shoulders, on a daily basis. In today's letigious society, the simple act of hugging a child, even if initiated by the child, can be misconstrued as inapropriate contact, by an angry parent. Every aspect of a teacher's life is tied to their job. Their morality, their beliefs, what they do in their private lives, both past and present, what they do on-line, can subject them to disciplinary action, under the broad term \"moral turpitude\". In the classroom, teachers are evaluated formally, or informally, a number of times each year. A big part of their effectiveness though, is based on how their students do on standardized testing. This part of the evaluation leaves out many important factors, not the least of which, is the quality of the students themselves. If students don't understand the importance of, or simply don't care how they do on these tests, and many don't, this can have a negative effect on administrators' view of how effective that teacher is. The simple fact is that not all kids want to learn, and try as they might, teachers can only do so much. At that point, a teacher is dependent on school administrators and parents being engaged. Teachers are willing to accept responsibility for their students, but at some point, we have to accept the fact that they are severely limited in what they can do, and stop holding them responsible. The problem is that the public, and many administrators, don't draw a line, holding the teacher wholely responsible for that student, in spite of failed parents and administrators. Unions provide fair representation for teachers in disciplinary matters, and strive to assure that the action taken against teachers is just. Later I will go into some legal issues involved in the argument over collective bargaining. In meeting his burden of proof, my opponent needs to show why these laws, dealing with the constitutional rights of individuals, should be changed. It should also become apparent to the reader that in enacting these laws, our legislatures are conceding that teachers need protection in the workplace. The very nature of their work makes them vulnerable to unfair treatment from the public, school officials, and the public agency that employs them. There are many other reasons why teachers need protection, and they will be discussed throughout this debate, things like financial issues, difficulty in firing teachers, etc. I'm intentionally leaving them out of my argument because I'm sure they'll be introduced by my opponent, so they will be addressed in refutation. Past Practice\"Past practice is a labor relations term of art that is used to describe a pattern of behavior that is clear and unequivocal, longstanding, known to both parties, and accepted without protest or significant attempt to stop the behavior. If the pattern of behavior is not in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations, and if it involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, it usually qualifies as a \"past practice\"\". (1) As a representative of the United Steelworkers of America for nine years, I argued a number of grievances and contract issues on the grounds of past practice. It's usually easy to win a past practice case, however there are exceptions. The above description is a very good guideline for what it takes to win. The supreme court has ruled that past practice can be sufficient for setting precedence. I'm not going to post a whole lot of case law though, because bottom line is that the effectiveness of a past practice argument is dependent on whether it is, or is not, \"in conflict with law or controlling government-wide regulations\". If state or local laws expressly prohibit collective bargaining for teachers, past practice will likely fail as a legal challenge, even if they've had that right for 10 years, simply because it conflicts with law. However, if state or local law is ambiguous, or does not \"expressly\" prohibit collective bargaining, and those rights have been given to teachers for a time, then there is little reason to deny that as a legal precedent, given the supreme court's findings on past practice as precedent. From a legal standpoint, the effectiveness of a past practice argument is going to vary with each state, according to the law, as written. It DOES become an effective argument in this debate though, when you stop to consider that if it were \"expressly prohibited\" in state law, those rights would likely not have been given to teachers, in the first place. Other Legal IssuesPublic employees are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal act that gives private sector employees the right to unionize, and requires employers to bargain with unions (2). There are some states though, that have their own version of the NLRA specifically for public sector employees, that does give them those rights (3). Removing collective bargaining rights from teachers may be discriminatory. Other public employees have collective bargaining rights, firefighters, police, etc. Removing these rights from teachers, because they are public employees, while allowing them to remain for other public employees is difficult to defend as non-discriminatory. Of course this issue will vary by location, and law. Specialization and DemandsTeaching is a specialized field, in that the educational requirements have few applications in other fields. We demand that teachers be highly qualified, and highly educated. We require them to get a degree in education, but above elementary school, we require a more specialized degree. We demand that they have these things, which require student loans for most people, so we must be willing to pay for them, and allow protections for those who do what we require. I look forward to Dark's response on these issues. 1. . http://www.ilrf.net...2. . http://www.dol.gov...3. . http://www.nysdeputy.org...", "qid": 1, "docid": "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6916894912719727}, {"content": "Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: Resolution: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. This is my first debate. This will be a Public Forum style debate, mainly because the case I wrote is for Public Forum. I would like to provide a general judging scale for a Public Forum Debate and clarify that a Public Forum Debate is scaled on evidence that supports the competitors position. Thank you for accepting and I would like to open up first. INTRO: \"Like the dusty blackboards still found in some school classrooms, the single-salary schedule has served its purposes and outlived its usefulness.\" In response to this need, the authors developed a framework for a performance-pay system that is \"fair, strategic, and likely to win teacher support.\" Their recommendations include the following: (1) Reward teachers who help their students make significant academic gains. The research supports plans that measure student gains over time; that recognize both individual and team performance; and that allow schools to use credible data from classroom assessments. (2) Provide more pay for additional degrees and professional development that are relevant to school and district goals. (3) Offer incentives to teachers in low-performing schools but only if those teachers can demonstrate that they are effective with high-needs students and will be able to address the school's specific learning needs. My partner and I stand in affirmation that merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. DEFINITIONS: Student achievement- Is a term that when applied to merit pay, has various meanings. The two most commonly known are student scores based off of a state test, and the progression of student education in schools that house students that don't normally score high. CONTENTION ONE: Merit Pay is an improvement. A performance pay system will tend to attract and retain individuals who are particularly good at the activity being incentivized and repel those who are not. In 1963, Hoxby and Leigh found, teachers from topnotch colleges earned significantly more than teachers from so-called safety schools. As of 2000, teachers earned the same regardless of their alma mater, the study found. Offering teachers merit pay might lure smart people to the job, Hoxby suggests. The national union's opposition to new forms of compensation is \"wrongheaded,\" said Brad Jupp, a former vice president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, an NEA affiliate. Mr. Jupp, now an adviser to the 72,000-student Denver district, helped design an alternative compensation program while he was the Denver union's lead negotiator in 1999. The union agreed to pilot a pay-for-performance plan. The plan, which has since been adopted districtwide, rewards teachers for improving student achievement, choosing to work in hard-to-staff schools, and earning positive appraisals from peer evaluators. CONTENTION TWO: Merit pay gains support from most of America. Barack Obama wants to start a new program supporting an innovative-schools fund that his campaign says would allow districts to create \"portfolios\" of schools modeled after existing success stories. In short, our presidency supports this idea of merit pay. Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., and Joseph I. Lieberman, IConn., and others put forth a proposal this month on major changes to the No Child Left Behind Act that includes incentives for states to look at performance-pay programs to attract teachers to underperforming schools. This shows that merit pay is being recognized at a federal level. 72 percent of respondents say they favor merit pay in general for teachers, with advanced degrees, student test scores, and administrator evaluations ranking as the top measures for assigning raises. Competition is good, not bad. And parents have a right to demand high, measurable performance from those who would teach their children. Lawmakers should listen to the public, with its common sense born of experience, not to the union bosses who want more benefits for less work. Finally, the public demonstrates that they favor merit pay for teachers. CONTENTION THREE: Traditional salaries are ineffective. The chances of a high-performing student becoming a teacher fell from 21% in 1964 to just 11% in 2000, according to a University of Maryland study. Although the obvious culprit is new opportunities, fixed pay in education also contributed to the nosedive, said Caroline Hoxby, a Harvard University researcher who conducted the study with Andrew Leigh. Supporters of merit pay plans believe that the old pay structures are outdated and don't give teachers incentive to achieve or reward good performance. \"Some of our first- and second-year teachers who are at the bottom of the pay scale do brilliant work that often goes unrecognized,\" one younger teacher told us. \"Conversely, there are teachers at the top of the pay scale who have not changed teaching methods in twenty-five years to meet the needs of the kids they work with now.\" For these reasons my partner and I stand in full support of the resolution.", "qid": 1, "docid": "10b8a591-2019-04-18T19:14:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6910400390625}, {"content": "Title: Children should play a role in choosing their teachers. Content: I find this a very interesting topic both as a parent and as someone who works with a lot of teenagers and other young people. I must point out that as Pro my opponent bears the burden of proving that children should play a role in choosing their teachers. I don't believe she has provided any evidence supporting this yet. I totally agree with everything my opponent says except her resolution and the following sentence: \"Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. \" This is basically just a clarification of the resolution. I agree that teachers should be held accountable if their students persistently perform badly and with my opponents description of current recruitment procedures. I don't however see how this supports the resolution. Her initial paragraph seems to instead suggest that other teachers or principles should observe prospective candidates in a classroom 'audition' type setting. This to my mind is indeed a good idea but quite separate from the debate headline. It is my contention that on the whole children are not the best qualified to assess a good teacher on initial impressions. They are likely to make superficial judgements on whether they like a teacher or not and the majority of students would probably want to employ a teacher they thought would give them an easy ride, rather than one who would make them work harder. I await my opponents response. Thankyou.", "qid": 1, "docid": "cc761b81-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6908607482910156}, {"content": "Title: Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles Content: \"Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains.\" An Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 14, 2005.: \"As substitutes for performance-based standards, school systems now reward teachers on degrees and seniority. Yet neither of those measures may correlate with student achievement. In this competitive economy, companies would close their doors if they paid low-performing employees the highest salaries just because they\u2019d been there a long time or had a grad school diploma on their wall.\"[5]", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00042-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6898338794708252}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay gives teachers an incentive to work harder", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00026-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.689769446849823}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: Merit pay undercuts valuable cooperation between teachers", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6891827583312988}, {"content": "Title: Children should play a role in choosing their teachers. Content: In this day in age teachers are chosen from a pool of eligable people. They are not observed in a classroom setting when other adults are not present therefore, the principal/dean etc. does not know what is going on in that particular classroom. Children from the age of 13 and over should be able to submit suggestions when the school is hiring new staff. When a significent amount of students are failing or doing poorly in a class, the teacher should be held responsible. Children these days have such little say in the people who control their future.", "qid": 1, "docid": "cc761b81-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6889160871505737}, {"content": "Title: Raise salaries of teachers in Serbia Content: *) Some teachers are teaching better then others. 1) People who like their job are on average doing better then people who don't like their job. Many people who like the job of teacher will quit cause low pay. 2) In order to earn more money, teachers are holding private classes. They could possibly use time they spent on private classes preparing for their next lecture in regular school, or they could use that time for relaxing. 3) Kids would respect and admire teachers more if they were earning more. Naturally, everyone wants to learn from successful person.", "qid": 1, "docid": "415925a6-2019-04-18T16:10:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6886160373687744}, {"content": "Title: Merit based pay for the Education System Content: Claim: 1. It is impractical on the federal level. 2. State and Local levels would complicate the grading and rewarding of teachers. 3. It is difficult to prove there is improvement. 4. 'Scores' on standardized tests to measue improvement would result into the same problems of the past. 5. Teachers will care less about their students and more about getting raises. Rebuttal: 1. My opponent is correct, it is both impractical and unconstitutional at the federal level. Education has been delegated a state function. In turn, states often pass this along to the local level. 2. Certainly states could be convinced of the benefit of a universal grading system. Even if they could not, would it not be simple enough to devise a conversion system between the two (or more)? More importantly, it is to a particular state and/or region that each teacher must answer. That makes this an unimportant issue. Finally, private schools already measure teacher performance in a number of ways: peer review, parent feedback, standardized student testing, subsequent education levels (for students), or any variation thereof. 3. The same method that suggests the U.S. is beginning to lag behind other nations would be the same method to 'prove' student improvement. If we can measure a drop, certainly we can measure improvement. Quick facts on student test scores in relation to other nations: http://nces.ed.gov... 4. You may be correct in this respect, however there are other was to measure a teacher's performance, as mentioned above. 5. Almost every other profession has a merit based pay. If you are a poor lawyer you will not retain clients and/or lose your job. Teachering as a profession is in the minority in a tenure track system, that is to say, pay based on years on the job and degree, not performance. Is it my opponent's contention that all professions that are merit based suffer the same as he claims teachers would? Is it necessarily a bad thing for a teacher to care about a raise? On a merit based system, in order to receive a raise a teacher must earn it based on his/her performance. Therefore the fate of the student and that of the raise go hand in hand. Resolved: That more pay with rewards based on merit will attract a higher quality of educator. Resolved: That more pay for teachers will justify raising the education requirements for educators, resulting in a higher quality of educator.", "qid": 1, "docid": "7e01e803-2019-04-18T19:38:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6884992718696594}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay for teachers Content: While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00011-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6884245872497559}, {"content": "Title: Year round schooling Content: Students, parents and sometimes teachers are not in agreement with this plan. Some teachers have actually left the district as a result of year long school as stated in an article from the Atlanta Journal. The article goes on to discuss teachers and students feeling \"burned out\" as a result of attending school for a longer period of the year. This plan would also prevent students from gaining meaningful employment during the summer months when they are not attending the public school system.", "qid": 1, "docid": "53868f7e-2019-04-18T17:07:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6882495284080505}, {"content": "Title: Resolution is to long and will be posted in first Argument: Regarding Merit Pay. Content: ====== The Intro ====== My opponent: 1) Concedes that it is an unwarranted generalization 2) Drops the issue of it dismissing teachers who use blackboards (like my science teacher) as antiquated and archaic. ======== Contention 1 ======== The evidence provided only gave info as to which colleges teachers came from. It gave nothing related to merit based pay. Now my opponent links me to a source. I don't have time to read through that whole source in a 15 minute debate and still have time for an adequate rebuttal. Further, he didn't post it in his original round. He hasn't even posted the specific parts I'm supposed to attack, or the ones that he says are directly related, in this round either, so it stands that he has no reliable evidence for \"Hoxby's suggestion.\" Simply saying \"He has merit pay and his plan is effective\" is far from enough evidence to draw a conclusion. There can easily be confounding variables, it could simply be correlation, not causation, etc. etc. etc. Further, there is still no source for this 72k survey he claims. ======== Contention 2 ======== My opponent has misunderstood my argument. He posted a source saying America supports merit pay IN GENERAL. The problem is that he is defending a specific type of merit pay (student achievement-based.) Many American's, like me for example, recognize the problems with student based merit pay, but don't reject merit pay as a general concept (I, in fact, advocate it) which means him posting evidence of merit pay in general does not allow him to draw conclusions of America's opinions of his specific form of merit pay. ======== Contention 3 ======== The resolution is \"Merit pay BASED ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools.\" I advocate multiple forms of merit pay (such as the 2 PRO listed in his original contention 2, teacher degree based and administration evaluation based.) That does not mean that I in any way support merit pay mased on student achievement, which is what Pro defends. In fact, I would say that it leads us to quite the contrary conclusion, that we should reject student based merit pay, because we have alternatives that solve the problem (teacher motivation, etc.) without the harms student based pay brings (teaching to the test, grade boosting, etc.) ======= Conclusion ======= My opponent confuses his burden. He is not advocating merit pay in general; he is advocating student achievement based pay in specific. He has listed other, better, types of merit based pay that will equally well (if not better) solve the problems of which he complains, not be affected by the problems he argues about in C3 (because they aren't salary based), and avoid the problems his system has, namely, teaching to the test, which I see almost on a daily basis. We thus reach the conclusion that instead of merit pay based on student achievement, we should instead endorse merit pay based on teachers' college degrees and administrator evaluations, thus we negate the resolution and vote CON. Good luck again to PRO in the final round, and be careful with that timer. That last round was posted with 2 seconds left and if you aren't careful, the lag time can get you.", "qid": 1, "docid": "10b8a591-2019-04-18T19:14:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.688171923160553}, {"content": "Title: Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Content: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Merit Pay -- a term describing performance-related pay, most frequently in the context of educational reform. It provides bonuses for workers who perform their jobs effectively, according to measurable criteria. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Advantage One: Pride Merit based pay will increase the pride that teachers take in their work. Teachers now dont have to worry about their performance, they get paid (. http://www.payscale.com...) relatively the same. If they were getting paid by performance, teachers would take more pride in their work, and devote more time to their career. The blunt fact is that not all teachers want to teach, and this would only force them to either a) begin devoting more time to helping their students or b) quit. This would lead to a brighter, more knowledgeable future for our childern. Advantage 2: Returning the Original Purpose of School Merit based pay would be a big step towards the return of the original purpose of school, knowledge. Gaining more and more knowledge. In the status quo, teachers just need their students to pass so they can keep their jobs. Moving to merit based pay would make them focus more on the knowledge aspect of school that we have long forgot about. Knowledge is subjective towards the student, basically the student puts in effort and he gets back based upon how much he put in. This wont change if we move to merit based pay. Merit based pay would make a consideration of teachers caring alot more about how much the student is putting in. Advantage 3: Incentive Merit based pay, in the most blunt way possible, is just incentive to do more. To put more devotion into their work. For teachers who dont like teaching, this may be a turning point in that this is a incentive to start caring about their career, and they may find a rejuvenated love for teaching. For teachers who already love teaching, this would just give them the benefits that they have long earned. Conclusion Merit based pay is good, in that through my advantages of pride, original purpose of school, and incentive, we will look to a brighter future.", "qid": 1, "docid": "d06519d9-2019-04-18T19:14:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.688163161277771}, {"content": "Title: A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Content: Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I argue that a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based, which I define (as agreed to by my opponent in the Comments section) as pay with a basic salary and bonuses based on merit (student achievement.) I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. I think it is far more of an achievement to turn an F-student into a C-student than it is to turn a B into an A. I do not advocate a meritocracy that focuses solely on the elite but one that places emphasis on every child. My simple argument is that to give teachers further financial incentive to concentrate on getting the best out of every single pupil would, overall, have significant benefits to any country. A more educated general population would surely be a good thing in anyone's eyes, especially someone who, like my opponent and myself, is involved in Education. My opponent wants us to limit the parameters of this debate to the US. As a UK citizen who has not travelled a great deal I of course have more experience of the education system here than in America. However if I offer any anecdotal or other evidence regarding the UK school system, my opponent can rest assured that I will try to make them relevant to our discussion of the US system which, by the way, I hope to learn more about in this debate. Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. One obvious example of a field where it works well is Sales, (although of course I do not equate commerce with education), if travelling salesmen and (in some situations) retail staff, did not receive a commission on their sales, then they would be unlikely to put in as much effort to sell their employer's product. An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. Thankyou.", "qid": 1, "docid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6876187324523926}, {"content": "Title: A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards. Content: If teachers feel that their student's performance will have an effect on their own salary. Then teachers will be monetarily motivated to push their students harder. Normally, schools have this incentive(better results, more funding) and teachers receive a fixed pay that gives them no reason to push their students to do their best, apart from the love of the teaching field. Teachers end up coddling pet-students and ignore/mock pupils that need their help the most. But if teachers will be rewarded for improving 'the overall' performance of a class,( And not just make sure Mr/Ms.First position maintains his/her high standards) then this kind of unfair elitism will eventually die out.", "qid": 1, "docid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6875829100608826}, {"content": "Title: Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students. Content: If a teacher's pay is based on performance, teachers who work with students from bad neighbourhoods and illiterate/non-academic families, will get the least pay; even though they will have to work harder than other teachers to get their students to perform well. This will act as a disincentive for teachers to be employed in such schools(and conditions for the school and its students will exponentially worsen). When something is harder and more dangerous it should have a 'higher'-pay incentive as compensation not the opposite.", "qid": 1, "docid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6875565648078918}, {"content": "Title: Student performance should be a factor when determining K-12 teacher salary Content: If we believe that additional pay will motivate teachers to work harder, we must also believe that teachers know what to do to improve student achievement\" and that they aren't doing it because they aren't sufficiently motivated. The assumption is that they must value financial rewards more than student success. Does anyone really think that large numbers of teachers know what their students need but are willfully withholding it? That they would help students learn more, if only someone offered them a bonus to do so? This is a highly cynical view of teachers, one that teachers understandably find demeaning, not motivational. Most teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. Why else enter the profession? But although presenting information may be simple, successful teaching is more complex. Some teachers could certainly do a better job, but they mostly need mentoring, support, supervision, and training in new techniques\"plus opportunities to learn, grow, and take on additional responsibilities just like the rest of the workforce. In the end, it is inherently ignorant and flawed that perfor", "qid": 1, "docid": "42f1857a-2019-04-18T12:55:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6875039935112}, {"content": "Title: random drug-testing in schools Content: Safeguarding the teacher-student relationship", "qid": 1, "docid": "d93c35f-2019-04-15T20:24:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6867884397506714}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Certainly, I agree that the job of a teacher is multi-faceted. This, however, does not separate it from the multi-skilled professions we are comparing it to. With time management skills and a reasonable expection of what can be achieved in a day, most teachers are able to come home at 5pm, using their contracted non-contact time with pupils to complete planning and marking (as you yourself have stated, the actual contact time usually accounts for around six hours, leaving the rest of the day for preparation.) \"Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience.\" This must be an unusual situation in Canada, then. There are many opportunities for teachers in most places to move up pay scales and take on other roles and responsibilities to increase their pay.", "qid": 1, "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.686409592628479}, {"content": "Title: While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot Content: \"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea\". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: \"Teachers only have so much control over how much and how fast a child can learn. Even if they are willing to go the extra mile, state law may not allow them to do so. For example, in California, teachers cannot require students to stay after class or school to get help.\"", "qid": 1, "docid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6859259605407715}, {"content": "Title: Incentivising movement so there are teachers where they are needed Content: Although the extent of rural-urban disparities remains debatable, geographical disparities in living standards and education are articulated across Africa. The location, and provision, of teachers does not always match need. In Uganda, the universalisation of education has been met with inequities, regionally and across socioeconomic groups, in the quality of education (Hedger et al, 2010). Incentives are required to deploy teachers to districts according to need; and encourage teachers to relocate. For example, awards need to be provided for teachers to move to rural areas, and the development of teacher housing schemes - providing teachers with houses in new locations.", "qid": 1, "docid": "cafa7193-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00013-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6858664155006409}, {"content": "Title: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation Content: I advocate making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) [1] a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation. It is a form of merit based pay that assesses how much a student has improved since last year. This allows us to be sure teachers are actually teaching. The source I provide talks largely about ensuring accountability for schools, and I contend that we can use the same accountability to ensure quality teachers. I'll let CON attack this first so that we will have an equal amount of rounds to debate, then defend AYP in my next 2 speeches. I will end with a single question for CON to answer in the next round: What alternative system of teacher compensation would you propose to ensure that schools have the most educated teachers? [1] http://www.ed.gov...", "qid": 1, "docid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6858599185943604}, {"content": "Title: Teachers don't make enough money. Content: Teachers, what would we do without them? Not a whole lot when you think about it. So why aren't they paid as much as doctors, entertainers, lawyers, etc. We would not have doctors without teachers, nor entertainers or lawyers. Without teachers the world would be, quite frankly, \"in the crapper\". Why then are the taught paid more than the teachers? The pupil's salaries surpass the pedagogue's. I await for my opponent, and would in advance like to thank them, and wish them good luck. Sincerely, Kat", "qid": 1, "docid": "828b95b1-2019-04-18T19:43:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6854302883148193}, {"content": "Title: a lack of investment in teachers is the greatest barrier to achieving universal primary education Content: Teacher training", "qid": 1, "docid": "cafa7193-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6844465732574463}, {"content": "Title: Should teachers union be abolished Content: The teachers in Chicago did indeed strike. As I stated earlier in my argument a strike is normally a last resort and is a result of a breakdown in negotiations which is exactly what happened in Chicago. [1] Strikes that come to mind included the auto workers of General Motors as well as the workers of Verizon in New York. Arguing that the teachers union should be abolished because some can strike is the same as saying that the auto workers union should be abolished because they can strike. My opponent has stated that \"In New York firing a teacher is like breaking a diamond. What happens is the ineffective teachers typically get passed along from school to school without ever getting fired.\" My opponent is correct in stating that firing teachers in New York is costly. I will attack this argument making two points. My first point is that New York State has a very high barrier to entry into the profession of teaching. Teachers must obtain a Bachelor's Degree in order to obtain their Initial Teaching Certificate which is valid for a period of five years. During the period of time the teacher is earning his or her Bachelor's Degree the teacher must also obtain the Internship Certificate. Within this five year period the teacher must also earn a Master's Degree and must continue ongoing professional development in order to earn the Professional Certificate. [2] There are also exams that must be passed in order to obtain both the Initial Certificate and Professional Certificate. My second point is that there is a serious question as to exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. Politicians and the media alike feel that the most effective way to evaluate a teacher is to tie the teacher\"s performance to standardized test scores. However, simply tying teacher performance to standardized test scores ignores the individual learning ability of each child, economic factors and most important as far as I'm concerned is the level of involvement of each student\"s parent or parents. How can a teacher should be held accountable for a student not performing if the student continuously misses classroom days, does not complete homework assignments and project assignments? A student such as this will simply not perform up to standards. A teacher\"s job is to educate children not raise peoples children for them. If a school district or city feels that a teacher is that detrimental to students then why is cost a factor, especially if educating the future of America is of the utmost importance? With regard to my opponent\"s final point with regard to salary and negative stigma, salaries in most professions will vary depending on cost of living within different geographical areas. However, when considering the level of entry and education needed to become a teaching professional there are easier alternatives that can earn a person with the same level of education. In fact, approximately 20% of teacher quit the profession with two years. [3] According to a survey conducted by The National Center for Education Statistics \"61% cited more professional working conditions in their new careers verses their time teaching. That same group said their workload was 65% more manageable outside of teaching and they were 65% more likely to better balance their personal and professional life after leaving their teaching career.\" [3] There is no denying that being a teaching professional is a difficult career. In my opinion it makes it even more difficult when the general population has no idea of how difficult and challenging the career is. Especially when politicians who have never been in a classroom setting wish to dictate exactly how to educate students and wishes to terminate teachers as being ineffective when there is no concrete way to judge exactly what makes a teacher ineffective. For this reason alone, teachers deserve union protection. I fail to see any argument that my opponent has made thus far that shows how abolishing the teachers union will have a positive impact on the education received by America's students. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://schools.nyc.gov... [3]http://teaching.monster.com...", "qid": 1, "docid": "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6844021677970886}]}
{"query": "Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: I have to disagree with you. According to studies from the CDC and NCBI, results suggest that e-cigarettes may contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to discourage conventional cigarette smoking among youth. Also confirmed data from the CDC shows an increased use of e-cigarette from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You claim that the e-cigarette \"juice\" is safe, do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I would urge you to give some concrete evidence. There are reasons why e-cigarette shares the same risk for nicotine addiction, and a simulated substance such as e-liquid or propylene glycol, is not without health effects. I feel that your justification for using e-juice is without concrete evidence and purely speculative. Can you rebuke this?", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7420254349708557}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.730807900428772}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: First off let me start by saying I never claimed e-juice to be safe i think they are quite harmful. another thing you said was that they had prpolynic glycol or glycerin which is anothet untrue statment. Allmost all e-juice maufacturers use vegtable glycerin. But what does this argument really come down too, freedom. If you want to tuin youre health at whatevet age you want why should you not be able to with e-juice when you can do it with soda. But if you restrict minors from buying e-juice without nicotine the health risks can decrease. And like i said befor it should all come down to people, do they want to ruin there healt. If they want to thats fine by me im pretty sure that thats natural salection.", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7265629768371582}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7232555150985718}, {"content": "Title: Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. Content: The reason I included vapor is because I wanted to cover all types of smoking. We should also remember that Vapor can also be toxic. It's an Illusion of safe smoking. \"The nicotine inside the cartridges is addictive. When you stop using it, you can get withdrawal symptoms including feeling irritable, depressed, restless and anxious. It can be dangerous for people with heart problems. It may also harm your arteries over time.\"(www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/.../electronic-cigarettes) I also forgot to add that I wanted it to be Illegal around other people >< I apologize!", "qid": 2, "docid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7141907215118408}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: Again, I feel that your information is incorrect. According to several databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary ingredient in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges on the marketplace today. Most e-liquid contains at least 80% and as much as 92% propylene glycol. This is the ingredient that produces the smoke-like vapor when the e-cigarette is exhaled. You are correct in saying people have choices if they want to use products that are safe or unsafe, but it seems more applicable if people are educated in the product they choose to use. And being that I am a parent and a grandparent, I am more concerned about the availability of this product to the younger generation. The idea that vaping can promote cigarette smoking is not good news, especially to our youth. Whether or not you feel that people can do whatever they want, it seems to me that your favorable interest in e-cigs exist because you may either like or use e-cigs, am I correct?", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.711313009262085}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Should be Banned Content: -Thank you once for your submission. Summary:First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco. Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.2. They contain liquid nicotine.3. They are toxic.4. No quality control.5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.6. Reusability.7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).9. Second-hand vapor.10. Lung Damage.Sources:http://health.howstuffworks.com...Don't Smoke and vote for me!", "qid": 2, "docid": "b2b2d4a9-2019-04-18T15:55:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7032526135444641}, {"content": "Title: Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned. Content: To address your claims of the dangers of vaping: There is a difference between a substance possibly having side effects in unhealthy people and a substance definitely causing cancer. The risks of smoking compared to those of vaping are like the risks of walking on the highway compared to the risks of walking on the sidewalk. Vaping is mostly safe, and the same arguments you made against its safety can be made for caffeinated beverages and fast food, so I assume that you want those banned too. What you have yet to do is form an argument explaining why smoking and vaping should be banned, and you were not clear with your last sentence. Your initial post said you wanted smoking and vaping to be illegal. Are you now saying you want them to only be illegal is another person is nearby? What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Is it still a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in his or her own home and others are around, that should be a crime? You need to make your position clear. You should also explain why you think that whatever you are arguing to ban should be illegal. As to why I am against what you initially posted, laws that ban activities that only harm the individual partaking in the activity(assuming that the individual has been apprised of the dangers) are unjust. This has been shown in our various drug laws which have been more damaging to society than the drugs they banned. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or by myself on a street corner, then nobody is affected except for myself. This is especially true with vaping because unlike smoking, vapor does not linger and the vaporizer stops putting out fumes when I am not puffing it. If you think that it should be illegal to smoke near others, then if I walk up to a smoker who is smoking, should he be arrested? Are you talking about smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already banned so that workers are not exposed to concentrated smoke.", "qid": 2, "docid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7002527117729187}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: Vaping is a dangerous hobby, And yes I don't care if they become addicted or not. Life is short, Make it count. Likewise, You're a good debater", "qid": 2, "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.6915781497955322}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: saying that e cigs should not be sold to everyone is like saying we shouldn't sell soda to everyone. The e-cig is just a device that makes things into vapor, what should be restricted is the E-juice itself. I say this because the actual danger is in the nicotine. but if minors could only buy e-juice without nicotine then its just like drinking soda. I bring soda up because soda is filled with dangerous chemicals that can harm you if you consume to much of it. and that is exactly what e-juice is. a liquid filled with tons of mystery chemicals that can harm you. so what is the pout of banning them if we don't ban soda? It also should come down to a persons choice, if they want to ingest chemicals they should be able to.", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.6915507912635803}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: I work at a hospital in an Emergency department. While I was at work a few weeks ago, I walked past a visitor that was smoking his electronic cigarette, or E-cigarette, while walking down the hall. I was very appalled and realized that people think it is okay to smoke these anywhere including hospitals. It seems as though the laws don't always apply to these devices, even though they should. I informed the visitor that smoking in any form is not allowed on hospital property, and while he was annoyed he did put the device away. With the many advances in Health care we have learned much about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. I think that people should have the choice to use it or not, but I do not believe they should be able to use it in any public place. My health and the health of others is important to me. Smoking in any form, be it cigarettes or E-cigarettes, exposes the people in the vicinity and should be categorized the same.", "qid": 2, "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.6859423518180847}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.6835125684738159}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: The initial reason for the electronic cigarette was for people to stop smoking. Personally, I have seen so many people that benefited from it. Although it has nicotine, it does not have tobacco, and it doesn't burn. Vaporizing is and should be allowed in smoke-free places. Also I don't think it is anyone else business whether or not someone is smoking if it is not damaging to them.", "qid": 2, "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.679627001285553}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It\"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. \"E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes,\" Drummond says. \"But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure.\" E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a \"gateway drug,\" leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. \"Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely,\" says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. \"But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative.\" Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.6792624592781067}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes. Content: To begin I will make statements based on fact with reliable sources to back the claims made. I will use the next round to refute my opponent's information. Let's start out with how E-cigarettes are dangerous and finish with how Marijuana is not. I will use the fourth round to add further points. I would also prefer if my opponent used round 5 to recap and please not use new arguments. E-cigarettes were introduced into the United States in 2007 after being created by a company is china. They are similar to regular cigarettes in terms of appearance. The e-cigarette uses a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine which is then transformed into vapor and inhaled and exhaled by the user. Health experts agree, they may pose a serious threat to the the user of the device and the public. I will list and explain various ways that this is true. Health experts also agree they need to be tested and researched more to be deemed safe or unsafe to our health. Possibly the worst of the e-cigarette concept is that they are not subject to tobacco laws because they contain to tobacco. Meaning that they can be purchased with identification proof and can be purchased easily, particularly on the Internet. Meaning youngsters who have acquired enough knowledge to know that e-cigarettes are purchasable online might order one for themselves and keep it. These devices also come in Flavors: Chocolate, caramel, strawberry even bubblegum! Celebrities also use them which may attract children also. A couple examples are Johnny Depp and David Letterman. Katherine Heitgl even used one on a talk show and explained the to the audience! You are probably inquiring what is wrong with something like this? Well, I will get to that in a moment. The reason e-cigarettes are popular among 'former smokers' is because they contain nicotine. An addictive drug found in all tobacco cigarettes. This addictive drug is placed in products like e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes so people do become addicted and remain buying the specified product. This product may even contain MORE nicotine than a tobacco cigarette. Yes, more. Also manufacturers continue to deny testing from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Ushering us towards a more dreadful conclusion. Countries have realized the health risks and have banned them from the country entirely and/or made them lllegal. Examples are: Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico. The FDA also claims that second vapor can cause some serious health hazards. Individuals have claimed that the vapor burns their eyes, nose and throat. Especially those with health problems and the elderly. These E-cigarettes and also cause damage to the wind-pipe. Scientists from Athens, Greece noticed the problem also. A test was done on 32 individuals that volunteered to do so, 8 of which have never smoked before. They were given E-cigarettes and asked to use them for 10 minutes. These are the Results. -Non-Smokers -raised airway resistance by 206% to 182% Which experts quoted was a significant increase. -Current and regular smokers -suffered a 220% to 176% increase in airway resistance. -Asthma patients -found no increase. Now I will explain the health benefits behind Marijuana. I will begin with a very truthful quote by The Economist. \"If Marijuana were unknown, it's discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would hail it's potential for treating everything form pain to cancer and marvel in rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. before I begin I would like my opponent and the voters to watch this video it is very brief and contains a lot of information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mlfvklejuw Now with that in mind I will begin my statement on how marijuana has health benefits. Due to the fact that marijuana does not contain nicotine smokers of the product tend to smoke less because of the lack of the addictive drug. Marijuana also contains THC, a bronchial dilator, meaning it opens up the wind-pipe and lungs excreting dirt and other harmful membranes trapped inside the body. There has been absolutely no cancer resulting from the use of marijuana. Not even a death associated with the herb. There are also health benefits in the cannabis plant (basically marijuana). Like how earlier represented in the video link I posted that it can reduce the risk of cancer. The Journal of the American Medical association tested 5,000 individuals between ages 18-30 years old that used marijuana regularly.\"Had no discernible lung impairment in lung activity from non-smokers.\" There was also a test conducted at Harvard! It revealed the active ingredient in marijuana cute tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability for cancer to spread. Sources: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smokingcessation/10-fact-about-e-cigarettes.htm patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ txconnectme.wordpress.com/2012/04/26marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows/", "qid": 2, "docid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.676182746887207}, {"content": "Title: Juul Is Bad. Content: I agree that Juul is bad, And smoking/vaping in general is bad for ur health, But Juul is a much better alternative to normal cigarretes", "qid": 2, "docid": "17e9941d-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.6726614832878113}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.6723619699478149}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: My initial argument was a statement, not an opinion. The tobacco industry has stated that they are only harmful if you smoke them and I believe them. As an added precaution I not only avoid smoking them, but I am also careful about not to eating any of them. < > I mean no disrespect, but I trust my doctor, his equipment, credentials, experience and reputation over your high school student's medical knowledge. Thanks for coming out!", "qid": 2, "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.6631214618682861}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.6590394973754883}, {"content": "Title: Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed. Content: Nicotine is derived from tobacco. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to use these devices, I am saying they should not be allowed to use them in public around other people potentially putting other's health at risk. They have not proven that these devices are not damaging to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in public and should fall under these protective laws. While there have been benefits from these devices, they have enable some to decrease the amount they smoke or stop smoking, there have also been people that have stared smoking because of them. There has been an increased use in the younger population as well. The effect these products can have on those using them, and those around them include; nausea, head aches, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips. I have also read about people getting wheezy, heart burn, and watery eyes. There have also been reports of young children developing a raspy voice after exposure in a vehicle or enclosed places. There is more and more evidence pointing that these devices can have negative effects on those around them. Since the health of others is at risk, they should not be allowed in public places, and should fall under they same laws as other cigarette products.", "qid": 2, "docid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.6589524149894714}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: It has not yet been concluded that E-cigs help people quit smoking. Theres no proof E-cigs have aided in quitting cigarettes, it has only been proved a remedy for those who cannot quit cigarettes. Also according to health.howstuffworks.com Because they contain no tobacco, e-cigarettes aren't subject to U.S. tobacco laws, which means they can be purchased without proof of age, especially online which is dangerous for our children. No laws make buying these e-cigs easily accessible and when smoking is started at a young age they are hooked and prone to all the diseases and cancers caused by cigs. these devices should be deemed illegal until the proper research trials have been conducted. Teacher also made it clear to limit 750characters", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.6563571095466614}, {"content": "Title: Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens Content: They involve tobacco dependence by trying to treat it with a lesser dosage, if we're consistent with the point of therapeutic value I made. We are not debating if it is legal or not, so that's off the point. Hookah pens can contain no harmful ingredients such as nicotine. E-cigarettes and hookah pens can be used therapeutically, so I'm for it in that manner, and I'm for hookah pens that do not contain ingredients such as nicotine and tar etc. in any manner.", "qid": 2, "docid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.6492269039154053}, {"content": "Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument. Obviously the less smoke you breathe in the less of an effect it willl have, but Con asserts that there is a safe amount that can be taken it. Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage. This does go against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report. Not to mention, further reserach was conducted and even the gaseous phase of cigarette smoke contains reactive oxygen species (a cancer-causing agent) inhibits normal cell function. (1) The study itself found that being exposed to only 2 cigarettes is enough to stop the function of a cell's sodium pump. (1) According to Dr.Rajasekaran regarding the study \"We now know that one need not inhale the particulate matter present in secondhand smoke to suffer the consequence of smoking. Exposure to the gaseous substance alone, which you breathe while standing near a smoker, is sufficient to cause harm.\" (1) The level to which this can be harmful is unknown at this point, but there is no reason to allow this to be done on public property where it can be dangerous to one's health. Not to mention, there's no reason to assume that there won't potentially be a lot of people smoking on public property and if a person comes to the area enough, it could be harmful in the long run. We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold. It could become much more dangerous in the future. Cigarettes have already become more deadly in the past 50 years and could easily become more of a health risk. (2) If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. The amount of people who smoke cigarettes is irrelevent if it is a danger to public health. 1-http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2-http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...", "qid": 2, "docid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.6475372314453125}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media Content: I apologize for my forfeit of the last round as I haven't been on in a few days. My opponent also forfeited a round so I suggest that neither of us receive the conduct vote. To summarize, my opponent has merely ranted about how dangerous cigarretes are without regarding how truly dangerous are other products or things advertized such as automobiles or the navy. My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me. My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.", "qid": 2, "docid": "eef1da7a-2019-04-18T18:52:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.6455726027488708}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: I've never claimed that I'm okay with \"kids\" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; \"Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. \" Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/", "qid": 2, "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.6450400352478027}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned in all public places Content: What my opponent says is true - for a standard cigarette. With an e-cigarette, the problem can be averted.Smoking an e-cigarette is technically smoking. It contains fewer chemicals than the normal cigarette does, and it releases a tiny amount of smoke. This greatly reduces the risk for the smoker and the people around them. With the e-cigarette, is it really necessary to ban smoking in all public places?E-cigarette smoking can also help the economy. They are taxed, and this helps generate money for the economy. With little health risks, the e-smokers don't have to make the economy lose the medicare bills, resulting in a net gain. With places like the US in debt, can we really afford to lose this, given most smokers smoke in public areas?Illegalizing e-smoking has a down-side. Addicted people would still smoke in public places, defeating the purpose of illegalizing it. Cigarette taxes would go away, removing the economic support it brings us. Is illegalizing smoking the best thing to do?", "qid": 2, "docid": "41269782-2019-04-18T18:21:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6412794589996338}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: Yes, I think E-cigs and vapes should be regulated. They should be regulated because their target audience is kids they make flavors from almond to tropical margarita that are appealing to kids. Also, They caused the same harm as tobacco and don't help addicts.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6386309266090393}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win.", "qid": 2, "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6364824175834656}, {"content": "Title: Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs Content: Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.", "qid": 2, "docid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6337597966194153}, {"content": "Title: Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated Content: So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6330851316452026}, {"content": "Title: Djarum Black Cigarettes are better than any other Cigarettes. Content: Look, yes, all cigarettes are unhealthy, so when determining which is the best, you have to consider degrees of unhealthy, and its side-effects. You wouldn't call a cigarrete that has a higher percentage of causing cancer the best would you?", "qid": 2, "docid": "2bb11255-2019-04-18T19:59:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6322728395462036}, {"content": "Title: Germs are not the cause of disease. Content: Niether inhaling nor exhaling will cause any infection of any description. This is mainly due to the fact that viruses don't exist. If my oponent can prove that viruses exist and are logical entities, Then he can easily win the debate. Good luck!", "qid": 2, "docid": "1bfdc9f8-2019-04-18T11:14:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.631878137588501}, {"content": "Title: cigars vs cigarettes Content: we shouldn't smoke either of them. it is bad for you body because it is not good for your lungs or your blood cells. if you want to have bad breathing than that's your fault.", "qid": 2, "docid": "d10e8cb9-2019-04-18T13:27:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6249843239784241}, {"content": "Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: Con asserts that second hand smoke inhaled outside on public property is safe, even if there is a slight amount of risk. He goes to the conclusion of the US Surgeon General Report, but in the report it is also said \" The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist\" (1) Not to mention, the Surgeon General Report also referred to there being no safe level of second hand smoke in their follow up release \"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: Secondhand Smoke and What It Means to You\", saying, \"There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. \" (2) However, a more convincing claim was in the actual report when they claimed \"For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals. \" (1) So, even if Con's assertion was correct that most people can't be overly harmed by brief intakes of secondhand smoke, there is a minority that could see major health problems from having more smoke in the air. Con then asserts that outdoor smoking has little risk because air currents carry the smoke away, as it dilutes and therefore is not overly harmful. However, a study by Stanford University showed that inhaling smoke in the air can be much like inhaling smoke indoors. Wayne Ott who helped run the study said \"if you're at a sidewalk caf\", and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. \" (3) Therefore, this study shows that it can be just as dangerous to be with someone smoking outside as it is inside, which following the logic quoted by Con from the Surgeon General Report (\"[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. \"), then smoking on outdoor public property should be eliminated. Also, one has to account for all the indoor buildings that are public property, that people work in. (4) The Science Daily article shows that merely being around someone smoking can cause harm, as \"Exposure to the secondhand smoke produced by as little as two cigarettes was found to almost completely stop the function of a cell's sodium pump within a few hours. \" (5) Once again, reinforcing the idea that there is no safe level of exposure. Even though the exact level of harm is unknown, it is known that it is harmful, as \"The competence of the cell's sodium pump, i. e. , its inability to regulate sodium, is predictive of cell damage, disease progression and ultimately, survival. \" (5) Not knowing the exact level of how harmful something is, but knowing it's harmful is not appealing to fear. Con himself did the opposite when he claimed he didn't know at what level second hand smoke becomes dangerous. Same with saying something could be harmful in the long run. I was using Con's logic that the more frequently you're exposed to smoke, the more harmful it is. Therefore, in the scenario I suggested of a person who has to frequently go to an area with a lot of smoke, means by Con's logic could potentially be very harmful in the long run. For example, say someone has to ride public transit everyday to get to work and everyone smokes there. Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it is enforced when there is nobody around to enforce it. However, if someone is around, it becomes a health risk as explained above. To conclude, second hand smoke poses multiple health risks in any environment, so therefore it should be illegal to smoke on public property, because being a potentially lethal health risk, it violates one's unalienable right to life. 1-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 2-. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov... 3-. http://news.stanford.edu... 4-. http://www.wisegeek.org... 5-. http://www.sciencedaily.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6249664425849915}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: I don't think it should be sold to everyone. I think the main purpose is to help people quit smoking. I feel that it will entice the younger generation to use this method of vaping, when there are side effects involved with inhaling any substance into the lungs.", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6218006610870361}, {"content": "Title: Should cigarrets be illiegal. Content: Cigarrets should not be illiegal, even thou I dont smoke and think that it is a terrible habit, the cigarrets companies KNOW this and therefor made a public announment in every package that says that IT IS A HEALTH RISK that enduces cancer. So, the comapnies are giving the comsumers a choice with knowlegde. It is a fair game!", "qid": 2, "docid": "6d80c1e2-2019-04-18T19:50:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6187556982040405}, {"content": "Title: kids shouldent vape Content: I've seen kids younger then 14 who are vaping, and when you ask them why they say \"its not bad for me\" so i think that we should slap parents who let there kids vape", "qid": 2, "docid": "ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6178879737854004}, {"content": "Title: Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT. Content: I know that my arguments are subjective, but the truth is, smoking harms people around the smokers. The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way, which makes it truly unpleasant. I will tell you a true story about a smoking situation. [My father used to smoke continuously each day and he couldn't stand a minute without it. Then, one day, he was smoking near my older brother, who was just 7 y/o at that time. The smoke went into his face and he was fanning it away with his hand. Not soon later, he had asthma and my dad decided to quit smoking forever. And he just did it, like that, not needing anything to help himself quit. From the time he made that decision on, he never smoked again IN HIS LIFE.] My brother had asthma because of my father smoking. You could also get ear infections, but luckily, my brother didn't get it. So, that's why I'm saying that everyone smoking should QUIT IT.", "qid": 2, "docid": "ff6b14ca-2019-04-18T17:24:35Z-00007-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6164453029632568}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America Content: 1. The source was right there, the first one.2. As I said in No.4., even if people don't smoke in the public, the smell could travel from place to place and people will inhale it anyway, without even smelling it. 3. \"...it is not threatening to to the public as a whole.\" It is. It's harmful to the environment. Because people keep cutting down trees without knowing how to make it grow back again, we're running out of trees by the minute. We don't have enough trees to breathe in the carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. If we lack oxygen, we won't have enough clean air and it will cause Global Warming. The Earth will start heating up and soon, our planet will be too hot for anything to live!4. Sometimes you can't smell it. I've been educated, you know. It's not like I'm using fibs in my arguments. It can happen.5. \"The people who smoke probably don't care about your teeth.\" You should have used \"their\" instead of \"your\". Nose rings are different. Cigarettes are a drug.6. Diapers are different. Cigarettes are drugs. Of course they hurt your health. Over 440,000 people from the USA and 100,000 people from the UK die each year because of smoking. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;7. When I say appetite, I mean, the flavour/taste of the cigarettes. I'm not saying they're food or anything.\"All of your sources are off topic...\" Why? They're the sources I used for my arguments. \"Freedom of America\" You can't risk your life just for freedom. I'm not saying that the people can't get their freedom, but I'm saying that you can't risk your life just to keep using a harmful drug, which is harmful to both people and the environment. People, as in smokers and passive smokers. \"Drugs affect the mind so bad that people will KILL FOR DRUGS.\" That is why people shouldn't use them. \"So think about how hard it is for cigarettes to be completely abolished by banning.\" It's hard, so that's why people created nicorette. Yes, both cigarettes and nicorette have nicotine, but nicotine itself is not harmful. It's the tobacco in the cigarettes that are harmful. If people get addicted to the nicorette, they'll forget about the cigarettes. Well, it only works for some people. And there's another thing that they use called nicotine patches. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...;You got anything to say, Con?", "qid": 2, "docid": "b8f591f2-2019-04-18T17:23:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6163285970687866}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: I wouldn't have made such polar arguments like my first 2 if I didn't have some evidence to back it up. The myth that Marijuana is not safe is one of the biggest. There has not been one single overdose from Marijuana, and in fact, Marijuana does NOT cause respiratory problems like Tobacco does. From personal experience, Marijuana actually opens my bronchial tubes (you'll just have to take my word). This study concluded Marijuana does not cause lung trouble. . http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org... Marijuana is VERY healthy. In fact, it's been found to REDUCE cancer rates in the lung and brain. Just read these: . http://www.webmd.com... . http://www.ehponline.org... . http://americanmarijuana.org... Marijuana doesn't make you stupid either. In fact, it makes your brain work harder. What you choose to have it work on is up to you. (again, this is from personal experience) It also is not linked to psychological problems. . http://men.webmd.com... Marijuana is what you make of it. It is safe if YOU are safe and unlike alcohol, it doesn't impair your judgment of being safe. On Marijuana, you are in control at all times. Marijuana's health benefits have been known for a long time. Marijuana was made illegal by Richard NIXON. If it wasn't made illegal for being unsafe or unhealthy, then it was made illegal to fight against the hippies. To fight against American culture. People of all ages, professions, income levels, and backgrounds use marijuana, so it does NOT limit one's role to function in society. Also, because of how harmless Marijuana is, the punishment for having it is outrageous! Possession can result in fines going up thousands of dollars and prison terms lasting YEARS! All for what? Marijuana is SAFE and HEALTHY and its criminalization is thus UNJUST. I know many people who would never break any REAL laws, so why should they be thrown in jail along with the rest of the criminals just for smoking or selling Marijuana? You said that interacting with people who sell marijuana (and assumably other drugs too) puts you at a higher risk for trying harder drugs. Well, if Marijuana was sold at Walgreens, you wouldn't be mingling with those characters. In fact, they'd be out of the job. And finally, the price of Marijuana is way too high. I can get into how legalization will actually benefit the economy, but I'm not going to. Yes, I am a US citizen too. I am a marijuana user. I am in control of Marijuana, not the other way around.", "qid": 2, "docid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6160290837287903}, {"content": "Title: Smokeless Tobacco Content: Should the same laws regarding cigarettes be used for the use of smokeless tobacco? I say no. Personally, I'm a supporter of let smokers smoke, but I do understand why they tax cigarettes more heavily than other items. Cigarettes have been proven to harm people other than the person smoking. Second hand smoke has been linked to lung cancer and various other health problems. Third hand smoke is the stuff that lingers on the clothes of a smoker, and it also can cause health problems, especially to infants. However, smokeless tobacco only harms the person who is using the smokeless tobacco. I find it disgusting, but there is no reason to tax smokeless tobacco as heavily as cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco. I understand, smokeless tobacco is just as harmful to the person using it as cigarettes, but that's a personal prerogative. If the user chooses to risk his/her life using a product proven to cause gum/mouth cancer and gum disease, then why stop them? They are hurting no one but themselves.", "qid": 2, "docid": "11115bac-2019-04-18T18:32:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6158692240715027}, {"content": "Title: The Production and Selling of Cigarettes is Murder Content: Good luck to you also. Do you agree with smoking at all?? How ISN'T it murder?? Or manslaughter. It kills, does it not??? Do you know what is IN those things?? The following chemicals are contained in cigarettes: Acetic Acid: vinegar Acetone: nail polish remover Ammonia: cleaning agent Arsenic: poison, used as an insecticide Butane: lighter fluid Cadmium: found in batteries DDT: insecticide outlawed by the US Government in the 1970\"s because of human teratogenic (birth defect) properties Ethanol: alcohol Formaldehyde: substance used to preserve body tissue; a known carcinogen Hexamine: barbecue lighter Hydrogen cyanide: gas chamber poison Methanol: rocket fuel Naphthalene: moth balls Nitrobenzene: gasoline additive Toluene: an industrial solvent Vinyl chloride: plastic piping (http://www.med.upenn.edu...) You know ... I am a female, and so I do paint my nails and do HAVE things like nail polish remover. On the bottle, CLEARLY it says: CAUTION Keep out of reach of children Do not swallow ----- Main POINT Read safety directions before using Highly flammable Poison - not to be taken ---- another main point! I mean obviously it isn't instant death. It's slow and dragged out. Making people look older and their teeth gross and decreasing the healthy function of the lungs. I'm fifteen, I probably shouldn't know some of this. But my parents are both smokers, and it's hard to know that they're dying from something so stupid. I also apologise for not knowing how this site works :) I joined ... Today :D", "qid": 2, "docid": "655a0c95-2019-04-18T18:06:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6151747703552246}, {"content": "Title: Should the smoking age be raised to 21. Content: It is very true what you say about teens and how their going to find a way to do it illegally. However if we enforce laws against these teens and show them what the consequences are from purchasing these cigarettes many would refrain. This is a start towards building for a healthier tomorrow as many teens today are destroying their bodies with the deadly toxins that cigarettes contain.", "qid": 2, "docid": "c27b504f-2019-04-18T16:37:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6149082779884338}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is good for you, And I love it! Content: As soon as you specified what kind of substance was being smoked, I as well as most people knew where this is headed. You're advocating for the claim that smoking is good for you, Implying that this activity is beneficial for everyone. Here are my points on why your argument is not viable and justifiable: Your opening segment seems okay and solid. It is a possibility that there are many negative misconceptions associated with smoking cigarettes. Whether are true or not will be determined within this debate and we will both be the judges so I'd appreciate it if you don't troll. Your own testimonial on smoking is subjective and anecdotal. It is also not credible due to the fact that you are, Supposedly, A twelve-year-old kid and that your view on smoking may not be representative or the majority opinion within the smoking community. If you can give me a survey that supports your rhetoric that most smokers love smoking cigarettes and that it's good for them, Then it can be approved. You have established the proven fact that cigarettes alleviate Ulcerative Colitis and that it is not a cause of conditions like Ulcerative Colitis. Superficially, This point effectively supports your claim that smoking cigs are a good way to improve your health. However, If we were to assess the number/efficacy of positive effects in comparison to the number/severity of negative effects in smoking cigarettes, We would conclude that the negatives outnumber and outweigh the positives by a lot. Positive effects include but are not limited to: a false/deluded sense of stress relief and relaxation, Alleviation of IBDs, Low risk of obesity, Lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Negative effects include: lung cancer, Mouth cancer, Throat cancer, Milanosis, Tooth loss, Tooth decay, \"Smoker's Face\"(premature wrinkling and sallow coloration) birth defects, Stenosis, Periodontitis, Second-hand smoking, Addiction, Stress exacerbation, Increase risk of engaging in substance abuse, Etc. Evidently, The cons to smoking completely overshadow the minute number of pros when it comes to smoking. Furthermore, There is a multitude of alternatives for cigarettes in regards to the list of positive effects of smoking. Substitutes such as taking a break/chewing gum/listening to music/meditation, Medication, Exercise/liposuction/eating healthy, Etc. Are all great ways to reap those benefits in contrast to smoking. And what's so great about these alternatives is that they don't come with the many dangers and lethal side effects that smoking cigarettes have. While tobacco was the basis for the economy that our nation was built off from, It is not the representation of our nation's ethics or at least something that we shouldn't be proud of. Slavery was part of our economy for a while, But we shouldn't uphold that legacy. Besides, We can still use tobacco without putting it in cigs.", "qid": 2, "docid": "545bc510-2019-04-18T11:17:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6140156984329224}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.....http://www.nytimes.com...If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue.part 2....My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks.Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win.", "qid": 2, "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6123658418655396}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places Content: cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money.Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to \u201csmoke\u201d to your heart\u2019s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. .........http://goeshealth.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6114785671234131}, {"content": "Title: We Should Ban Smoking Content: I would like to inform you of the harms and dangers of smoking both cigarettes and tobacco. 1. Cancer Smoking leads and causes to many cancers. Lung cancer and throat cancer are only examples of the many. (http://www.cancer.gov...) 2. Danger to foetus Smoking has adverse reproductive and early childhood effects such as infertility and low birth weight, as well as a higher risk of having birth defects such as congenial limb reduction. (http://www.cdc.gov...) 3. Smoking is associated with adverse health effects. Women who smoke have an increased risk for hip fracture than women who never smoked. Postmenopausal women who smoke have lower bone density than women who never smoked. It is estimated o increase the risk of stroke by 2 to 4 times, men developing lung cancer by 23 times and women developing lung cancer by 13 times. (http://www.cdc.gov...) (http://circ.ahajournals.org...) 4. Smoking harms the body Our body produces antioxidants to help repair some damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than nonsmokers, therefore their body repairs damaged cells at a slower rate. Smokers' eyes sting, water and blink more than nonsmokers, which means they have eyes that are easier to be irritated. They are also affected by dental problems such as gum disease (gingivitis). Smoking can cause asthma and shortness of breath, which affects the ability of the smoker to do exercise. Asthma attacks can cause death due to suffocation. Smokers get gangrene and leukaemia easier, due to a weaker immune system. There are so many medical terms and diseases listed above. All this seems so surreal. I have never seen a smoker affected by the diseases listed above. Well, let me show you how real the harms are by listing these facts and numbers. Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% in women. Both numbers are pretty high, and, here we are talking about DEATHS. On a global level, researchers report that there were 1,690,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease in 2000. In the same year, there were 850,000 lung cancer deaths. that means about 637,000 of these were smokers, which is 230,406 more than the population of the Hawaiian Islands excluding O'ahu in 2010. So, who cares if I want to harm my own body? How does that concern you if I want to? Well, the thing is when smokers exhale, they breathe out smoke, known as second hand smoke. It causes all of the diseases and harms your body in all of the ways listed above. YOU might want to harm your body, but non smokers do not. While you are enjoying your cigarette or tobacco and neglecting the harms it does to your body, passerby breathes in the second hand smoke, and all the adverse health effects mentioned could happen to them, although they did not choose to smoke. When you smoke, you are in fact forcefully harming others' bodies as well! We all have to breathe, and when we do so while walking past a smoker, we breathe inn second hand smoke, as we all have to exhale, and gas (smoke) moves from high concentration (the tobacco/cigarette) to low concentration (the surrounding air, where nonsmokers can breathe it in!). Then nonsmokers get health problems they do not want because of it. It is unfair, really, robbing us of our rights to protect our health. Certainly you can harm your own body by smoking, but when you do so, you harm others, which you are by no right to do so. It is violating the rights of people who choose not to smoke. I look forward to hearing your arguments and rebuttals. Other References: http://www.quit-smoking-central.com... http://www.quittersguide.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "6b3c72e9-2019-04-18T17:48:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6109206676483154}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: I see you have attempted to clarify your initial...vague... statement. I commend you on that. There is, however, the unfortunate consequence (for you that is), that your clarification essentially renders your opening address useless: for it is an irrelevant statement altogether. It appears that you are referring to second hand smoke, now clarifying that you do not in fact smoke cigarettes. You say that cigarette companies say cigarettes are only harmful to you if you smoke them. That is an \"appeal to authority\" fallacy in that you claim their statements to be true simply because they are a large entity that says so. Has it occurred to you that their statements might be skewed? Surely, if I was the P.R. spokesman for a cigarette company I would not go out and admit that my company's chief product has collateral health effects. You say that my medical knowledge is much less respectable than your doctor's. You are correct. Certainly, I would trust my doctor more. I am afraid, however, that you have drawn an irrelevant conclusion from this truth. You are assuming that your doctor can, with 100% accuracy, predict your health. I can cite several examples when doctors have been wrong. There is also another flaw with your argument. You fail to address the chief statement of this debate. Are cigarettes bad for your health? It is possible that you are perfectly healthy right now because you have had minimal exposure to cigarettes: this does not mean cigarettes are not detrimental to your health. If you are so sure that cigarettes are not detrimental to your health I invite you to spend six hours of your life in a smokers lounge at an airport or hotel or bar (take your pick), or any edifice full of smoking individuals. Do this for four years. I can assure you that your respiratory system will not compliment that decision. If you are arguing that cigarettes do not currently pose any bad side effects to your health then please say so. Using the ambiguity of your statements to your advantage is not effective an effective debating manoeuvre.", "qid": 2, "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6108742356300354}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States Content: Refutations The Counterplan . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.usatoday.com... . http://tobaccofreeca.com... These studies prove secondhand smoke can \"from a neighboring apartment can travel through ventilation systems, pipes, walls, open windows and doors, electrical sockets and even tiny cracks in plaster and drywall. \". Studies \" found smoke residue on surfaces and in the air of both smoking and non-smoking rooms in 30 California hotels where smoking was allowed. \"\"Volunteers who stayed overnight in the smoking hotels also ended up with sticky nicotine residues on their fingers, whether they stayed in smoking rooms or not. \"\"Cigarette fumes probably become lodged on the hair and clothes of parents as they smoke outside, says Matt. The particles could then be brought back inside the house, where they would hang in the air or settle in dust. Family members may then inhale them directly or unwittingly transfer them from hand to mouth. Infants are particularly at risk as they spend most of their time indoors and often put objects into their mouths, says Matt. Contaminated dust can settle on toys, carpets and bedding and may remain there for months, he adds. \" Tobacco use is never safe, really. Con's counterplan is flawed because he never provides any evidence of smoking in specific rooms to reduce the risk of secondhand smoke, which is proven to travel everywhere still. Con says \"This counter-plan does not harm to pollution and also to non-smokers. \" Smoke is a gas and will disperse and travel, thus proving his counterplan is faulty. Do you expect smoke to just stay in one place? Right here you can vote Pro, as his counterplan is shown to be worse. This means the secondhand smoke argument from my case is inevitably extended,as secondhand smoke is proven to still be a problem. Con also tries to refute my case through saying that nicotine is not addictive. His first site says \"Cigarettes, as usually used, are addictive. That 90 percent of those who stopped smoking did so on their own should be put in the context not just of the 40 million who have stopped, but of the 50 million who are still smoking. Surveys indicate that more than 70 percent of smokers want to quit. Indeed, every year, one American smoker in three tries to quit, but 90 percent fail by year's end. Even for those who have abstained for a year, one-third relapse. \" But more importantly HIS OWN SOURCE states \"The tobacco companies torture these and other numbers in a desperate attempt to avoid facing the medical reality: smoking is addictive and can cause serious illness. \" By his own reference, Con says that tobacco is addictive. Con just conceded the argument. His second site is funded by smokeless tobacco companies, meaning they probably have an agenda. The website itself attempts to say that tobacco use is safe and is complete bs. I couldn't reach his third source for some reason. His fourth source says that nicotine ALONE does not cause addiction; the study poiints to pyrazine. Fine. So it's not JUST nicotine, pyrazine also causes addiction. This still means that tobacco causes addiction. Again, con admits tobacco is addictive, through pyrazines. His fifth source says \"People simply are obviously addicted to something else in the cigarette smoke than nicotine alone. \" and admits that cigarette smoking is addictive, but points to things other than nicotine. I reitarate: So what? Tobacco has many addictives, nicotine being one of them, pyrazines also. I point back to my statistics that show that 85% of smoker tryied to quit but cannot. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... \"Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance. \" From this definition we see that tobacco is most definitely addictive as it creates a reliance on smoking to function and makes users crave tobacco and be unable to leave. So yes, tobacco is addictive. Economic \"Pro never rebutted my argument that if we ban smoking, the government will have a big loss of money because of smoking, because smoking does big jobs for the economy in the US. \" Actually, I did. Remember when I said that \"if a company is creating chemical weapons to kill innocent people, than that company ought to be shut down, Same for tobacco. It is unfortunate for the workers but is necessary morally and for the sake of our country. \" Obviously, if there is a company that is causinig death to millions of people, the company and said product should be banned. Short term job loss does not equal millions of lives. I believe it is CON that never refuted this. Extend my other studies proving 100- 193 billion loss. A pack of cigarettes, which brings a 6.36 stimulus, will end up costing $35 to society in the long run. Long run over short term. . https://www.medicare.gov... This 193 billion dollar cost is footed by society because non smokers pay taxes, and this money goes to medicare, which is government paying for medical bills. Since most smokers are poor, they receive Medicare aid. Therefore, nonsmokers foot the bill for smokers. Liberty This argument has already been addressed three ways. First, by the framework: a government's duty is to provide for the well being of its citizens, that is why a government exists. There is a reason we try to prevent people from committing suicide, even though it is techinically \"their choice\". Under Con logic we shouldn't help people attempting or about to attempt suicide because it is their freedom. Pro believes that sometimes choice should be secondary to the common good. Second, by addiction: It is true that some smokers may want to smoke, but 85% of smokers have tried to quit but can't. Smoking at this point is not a choice; they are forced to by nicotine and pyrazine. Third,secondhand smoke. Con never proved why his counterplan would work through evidence, while I proved it would not work because smoke travels. Remember my evidence that says smoke can move throughout buildings or stay on the smoker. LIberty has been refuted. Corruption There's no evidence for this. Prove it. Dependent Fits under economic. Short term or long term? True some jobs would be lost but remember that a government's moral duty is to protect the well being of its citizens. Lives outweigh jobs. Besides, a company producing toxic poisons that kills millions a year should not exist, no matter how many jobs they have. Alright, since Con added corruption, I will add something also: Environmental. . http://tobaccofreeca.com... \" In 2005, an estimated 135 million pounds of cigarette butts were dumped into the U. S. environment.2 Cigarette butts are the most common toxic waste found in cleanups and the number one item found on California highways.3 4 And contrary to popular belief, they do not decompose completely.5\" Cigarettes have toxic chemicals in them that threaten aquatic ecosystems when they leak out, according to( Slaughter, E. , Gersberg, R. , Watanabe, K. , Rudolph, J. , Novotny, T. E. , \"Toxicity of Cigarette Butts, and their Chemical Components to Marine and Freshwater Fish, Atherinops affinis and Pimephales promelas,\"). . http://www.mparks.org... \"cigarette filters, cigar tips, and tobacco packaging accounted for 38% of worldwide debris\". These numbers are from Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanups A ban would be effective, as \"Smokefree beach laws help reduce butts on beaches by 45% according to the Audubon Society\". Banning will reduce the vast litter amount. . http://www.lcc.edu... \"Globally, approximately 4.3 trillioncigarette butts are littered every year. Smokers in the USA account for over 250 billion cigarette butts, in the UK 200 tons of butts are discarded, and Australian smokers litter over 7 billion cigarette butts annually. In most Western countries cigarette butt litter accounts for around 50% of all litter. Every littered cigarette butt can take anywhere from two to twenty-five years to biodegrade. Dropped cigarette butts have been the cause of house and apartment fires, as well as some of the largest and most destructive forest fires. Fires caused by cigarette butts claim the lives of about 1,000 people and injure about 3,000 people each year. \" . http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org... \"When people congregate in an airport baggage area or enter a smoking lounge where many brands are smoked, the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg (see Reference 3). Although 14 mg may not seem like a lot of mass emitted, each cigarette weighs only about 0.9 grams total, making it an extremely potent source of air pollution for its weight. As we shall see in subsequent chapters of this booklet, the 14 mg of particles emitted by each cigarette is really a large amount of particulate matter mass, causing extremely high indoor air pollutant concentrations when a cigarette is smoked at home or in a car. The chapter \"Where does the smoke go? \" presents calculations that you can do yourself to illustrate that a single cigarette smoked indoors is a potent source of exposure to toxic pollutants, causing concentrations indoors that are often higher than the federal air quality standards designed to protect public health in ambient air outdoors. \" . https://www.ncdps.gov... Cigarettes cause air pollution, which will happen even if smoked inside, as ventilation ensures it flows outside. Cigarettes are a major source of litter pollution, which costs millions to clean up. Litter costs around 11 billion to clean. If we use the cigarette litter estimate of 38%, this is 4.18 billion a year. Conclusion Tobacco use is a terrible thing, one that causes pain, addiction, and death, even to those who do not use it. It wreck the environment and costs society. Remember how Con's own evidence proved tobacco was addictive; this turn should be weighted in this round.", "qid": 2, "docid": "8a21cca-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6108123064041138}, {"content": "Title: Should the e cigarette be available to everyone Content: Isee now, youre a parent and you dont want to youre kids to use ecigs so you dont want any underage peoplw to have thwm, and thats completely understandable. But you have to relize that kids will get there hands on them somehow and there really is no point in punishing the kids because they will get them again! So what im saying is why not let the kids have the freedome to ruin there health, its natural selction at its finest.", "qid": 2, "docid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6103420257568359}, {"content": "Title: Second hand smoke is BS Content: Hello! I am glad to be debating with you on this subject. I believe that second-hand smoke is bad for your health. Good luck and may the better debater win!", "qid": 2, "docid": "d9cdd36b-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6097571849822998}, {"content": "Title: Putin banned western vaccines in Russia. Content: There was a time when I completely agreed with you. I understand how vaccines are supposed to work. I understand how herd immunity is supposed to work and how we are supposed to have eradicated many diseases via vaccination. The problem is things are always what they seem. Remember the tobacco companies? Everyone thought cigarettes were okay or even healthy. Doctors smoked, yet later we found out cigarettes were anything but healthy. There is always a chance you are correct, but simply spewing statistics won't change my mind. If you really want to change my mind, watch the three videos and tell me why they are wrong. My predictions based upon empirical evidence is that vaccines will be just like cigarettes. I don't know what your implying with your last sentence. I will tell you that my intentions are good and I want only the best for everyone. https://thinkprogress.org...", "qid": 2, "docid": "71aefc55-2019-04-18T12:55:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.60627681016922}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Content: Tobacco has been around for centuries and every year it become more deadly. Cigarettes have increased in deadly ingredients that harm the body and are known to kill. These toxins are unsafe and the nicotine makes them highly addictive. Many say, \"So what if someone else smokes? It doesn't hurt me.\" Actually, it does. The U.S. Government approved nearly 600 additives, but the most deadly part of the cigarette is the gas it releases into the air after being lit. There are over 4,000 chemical compounds that are created after burning a cigarette and about 69 of those chemical compounds are known to cause cancer (1). It has been said that secondhand smoke is not real and does not harm others. If you smoked a cigarette in a room full of other people, they would breathe the same thing you are just like a candle that smells like flowers will be noticed. Subjecting someone else to those kind of toxins is wrong. Is it right to slowly poison your drinking water and share with your ignorant loved ones? No. Smoking in cars with young children has been banned in many places for a reason - it is dangerous and deadly. It is a coping skill or simple boredom cure that can be compared to a slow suicide. Do you think all of this is incorrect? Please, enlighten me. \"Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body and affects a person\"s overall health.\" -Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1) http://www.tricountycessation.org...", "qid": 2, "docid": "c81986ed-2019-04-18T15:29:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6061849594116211}, {"content": "Title: This house would not ban smoking #3 Content: Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: \"But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be.\" I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. \" If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be.\" I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of \"ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too\". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the \"useful vs not that useful\". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless", "qid": 2, "docid": "e4ad2958-2019-04-18T17:52:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6055525541305542}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is good for you, And I love it! Content: I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEW MICHAEL MYERS MOVIE! I'm going the first night it's out. I love all the Halloween movies except # 3 Like you mentioned science has shown that cigarettes can be bad BUT so is everything else. Too much of anything will eventually kill you. There was a kid last year who drank 12 Nestle ice teas a day for 6 months and completely destroyed his kidneys because of an active ingredient in the tea that crystallized in his kidneys. Now the kid is 22 and will be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Eating too much bacon can cause heart disease. Eating too much of one item can cause stomach cancers. Moderation to anything is the key. And tobacco is the same. If you are smoking less than 6 cigarettes a day it will hardly do anything in your body. I told my doctor I smoke 4 cigarettes a day and he just shrugged his shoulders. It is ironic how many doctors and nurses say cigarettes are bad, Yet if you look in the smoking areas just on the outside of hospital properties they are all smoking. I see doctors smoke all the time, You would think they would have the most knowledge on the subject of tobacco consumption. Smoking can only be bad if you chain smoke over a pack a day, Otherwise having a cigarette, Your body gets rid of the toxins within 2 hours of smoking. We have toxins in Coca Cola, Like sulphuric acid, Citric acid sodium citrate which are very harmful to the body in mass quantities yet nobody is complaining about Coca Cola. Cigarettes are no worse than alcohol, And are way better than meth, Heroin fentanyl, Ecstasy and cocaine. The key to cigarettes as in anything else is moderation. Cigarettes are not bad, And I have pointed out some benefits. I believe all the negative info on cigarettes is just media fear mongering. Cigarettes will never go away just like alcohol, People enjoy it and some may frown but in the end it's a personal choice. mic drop", "qid": 2, "docid": "545bc510-2019-04-18T11:17:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6048649549484253}, {"content": "Title: cigarette equals Content: Unfortunately, this is only a three round debate. I was looking forward to hearing your counter argument to mine. However; Debating with you was enjoyable and interesting to say the least. For my closing statement, nicotine free cigarettes are now an option. This takes away the addictive quality that tobacco products have. My opponent made the error of generalizing all brands as addictive which is simply not true. This makes his argument invalid.", "qid": 2, "docid": "30fe2424-2019-04-18T12:49:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6047900319099426}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco Content: NotesThanks for this debate. Writing this round has been fun and I hope the next few are equally so.This debate is unavoidably going to be about sources; the method of determining safety of a substance is through research.I will refer to Pro's sources as numbers, by the order they were presented in.DefinitionsMarijuana\"1: hemp 1a, c\"[1]Alcohol\"1b: drink (as whiskey or beer) containing ethanol\"[2]Tobacco\"1: any of a genus (Nicotiana) of chiefly American plants of the nightshade family with viscid foliage and tubular flowers; especially: a tall erect annual tropical American herb (North tabacum) cultivated for its leaves\"[3]Carcinogen\"a substance or agent causing cancer\"[4]RefutationParagraph One (Intro)Just the actual level of danger matters here.Paragraph Two (Benefits)Excerpt from his source 1:\u201cWe know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,\u201d researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA\u2019s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD.His own source states that marijuana has just as many or more agents known to cause cancer as cigarettes (not pure tobacco). His source also claims that it is not clear why they achieved these results.Unfortunately, his source 2 provides very little information about the actual study conducted. Regardless, Cancer.org states that \"[e]ven though placebos do not act on the disease, they seem to have an effect in about 1 out of 3 patients.\"[5] So I propose that it is likely his study showed less effectiveness than a placebo. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors, too.[7]Paragraph Three (Other Forms)Pro claims that safety of marijuana smoke says nothing of the safety of its other forms, but fails to show reason as to why vaporized marijuana or marijuana edibles are healthier. Also, this debate is about marijuana, not THC. Pro states that just the THC is extracted to make these other forms. No argument there, but THC is not marijuana. It is one ingredient. Pro is only conditionally supporting the resolution. The marijuana evaluated here should be that smoked from a pipe; it contains all the ingredients of marijuana without extra from a marijuana cigarette or other form of delivery.Paragraph Four (The Dangers of Marijuana)We have to worry about marijuana when smoked. Pro admitted himself that the vapors and edibles are just THC, not marijuana. Many, many more things can be said about the dangers of marijuana use than increased heart rate and cognitive and physical impairment. We have to worry about lung cancer, as marijuana is 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes.[6] It also has twice as many carcinogens as cigarettes.[6] So cancer in general is a danger. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues, suppresses the rest of the immune system in general, and speeds up the progression of HIV to AIDS.[7] The article goes on to state that \"[i]t has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia.\" Wow, seems quite a bit worse than just stating, without any sources, that the only issues are \"increase[d] heart rate\" and \"cognitive and physical impairment\".Paragraph Five (Heart Rate Increase)He states that all three substances lead to this. No need for argumentation here.Paragraph Six (\"Cognitive and Physical Impairment\")TobaccoPro states that [p]hysical impairments from [marijuana] are... slightly higher compared to tobacco\" with no other comments on tobacco from him here.AlcoholHe provides no sources to state any physical impairments of alcohol use. So I will ignore the claim that alcohol impairs people physically, as it is unwarranted. Onto the second issue of driving. His source 5 only finds a correlation between states that have medical marijuana and lower traffic-related deaths. If there's a correlation between a society in which people drink juice and a society in which serial killers are rampant, does drinking juice lead to serial killings? His source 6 states that the study \"did find that drivers were more easily distracted when under the influence.\" This is hugely important. Distracted driving accounted for 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries in 2009.[8] And the problem is already getting worse without the widespread use of marijuana. There was a 4% increase in the proportion of distracted drivers in fatal crashes from 2005 to 2009.[8] Oh, and also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that 6.8% of drivers involved in collisions test positive for THC (once again, not synonymous with marijuana, but a major ingredient of it).[13]Paragraph Seven (Addiction)First of all, nicotine is not addictive.[9][10][11] Onto Pro's claims about alcohol. Because he has no sources, it is hard to determine how addictive alcohol is when it \"has been studied to also show physical dependency [sic].\" I assert that it isn't very addictive with alcohol dependence in 5% of the population[12]. This is opposed to marijuana, with 9% of the total number who will use it, 17% (1 in 6) of the teenagers who start in their teenage years, and 25-50% of daily users estimated to develop dependence.[13]Paragraph Eight (Summary)Fatal marijuana overdoses have been reported.[14] All refuted previously.Paragraph Nine (Types of Tobacco)I'm talking about tobacco, not substances containing tobacco.\"Dip\" tobaccoContains nuclear waste, cyanide, more[15]CigarettesCommon knowledge is that they have more than tobaccoE-cigarettesDo not contain tobacco[16]My CaseObservationThis debate is of which is the safest of the three drugs. If the answer is marijuana, Pro wins. If the answer is alcohol or tobacco, Con wins.C1: Gateway DrugI made a table with statistics of [17]http://tinyurl.com...C2: Dangers of MarijuanaSubpoint A: Medical\u00b7 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes, twice as many carcinogens[6]\u00b7 Reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues[7]\u00b7 Suppresses the rest of the immune system, too[7]\u00b7 Speeds up progression of HIV to AIDS.[7]\u00b7 Causes many mental disorders, such as acute toxic psychosis, delusions, depersonalization, depression, flashbacks, panic attacks, paranoia, uncontrollable aggressiveness[7]Subpoint B: OtherApply all non-medical statistics and arguments about the danger of marijuana used in refutationC3: Alcohol and TobaccoApply all statistics and arguments about alcohol and tobacco used in refutationC4: LegalThis one's simple. One should and will not be arrested for use of alcohol and tobacco if one is 21 or older.Unfortunately, I am out of characters to use. In the next few rounds, I intend on elucidating my contention 2, subpoint B and my contention 3. Back to Pro.Again, I thank Pro for the fun debateReferences[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marijuana[2] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alcohol[3] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tobacco[4] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carcinogen[5] cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/placebo-effect[6] foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326309,00.html[7] cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html[8] distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf[9] statepress.com/archive/node/7194[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects[11] tinyurl.com/tdiup[12] niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/AlcoholDependence/Pages/abusdep2.aspx[13] drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/marijuana4.html[14] drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm[15] uihealthcare.com/topics/smoking/smokelesstobacco.html[16] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette[17] marijuanaaddictiontreatment.org/statistics-facts.html", "qid": 2, "docid": "f77858a3-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6046925783157349}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide. Content: Pro did no more than restate that smoking posed hazards, and from that incorrectly jump to the conclusion that because of the potential hazards it ought to be banned. I showed the error of his logic by providing a list of activities that posed hazards for which choice is allowed: riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. Anyone could expand that list with a hundred more. Pro attempted to distinguish smoking from other activities, claiming \"Smoking cigarettes or cigars even in moderation may cause a plethora of severe problems.\" In fact, if a person rides a motorcycle, surfs, or skateboards even once, they could suffer a serious injury or death. Activities that require learning special skills are more dangerous to novices. There is no evidence that smoking a cigar to, say celebrate the birth of a child, has an appreciable chance of killing you. That's not the case with many other activities. Being hazardous is not grounds for banning. Pro argues, \"Making a universal ban will restrict production and a means to harm yourself.\" Correct, and such is the case with motorcycles, surfboards, skateboards, automobiles, and popcorn butter. The point that Pro evades is that he does not have the right to make the trade off of risks and rewards for other people. I posed the case of a old guy who is fully knowledgeable of smoking hazards and decides that the pleasure of smoking is a worthwhile offset to his other pains. I challenged Pro to make the case for the state overriding his choice. Pro ignored the challenge. That's no surprise, because there is no sensible case to be made. One justification for prohibiting individual choice is that it protects society from indirect bad consequences. I pointed out that insofar as smoking poses hazards to others, reasonable restrictions can be made to protect others. Pro made no counter argument. Therefore Pro's case is solely that he ought to be able to judge what's good for you, and then impose his will upon you for your own good. I offered a few sentences noting that Pro's resolution proposed banning all smoking, but that he only argued against cigarettes. He then argued that cigars are physically addictive because nicotine is addictive. Nicotine is addictive, but if the smoke is not inhaled, there is not enough to cause addictions. Pro provided no reference for any of his assertions in the entire debate. Cigar tobacco is processed in such a way that the smoke is extremely acrid. To \"prove\" cigars are just like cigarettes, they find a few Eastern Europeans who inhale the smoke. It's nonsense. My quotation from Kipling was to show that individuals cherish making their own decisions, even if most of us disagree with those values. I have no problem with Gandhi making other choices. We all ought to get the right to make our own choices, and for that reason the resolution is negated. \"If there are no cigars in heaven, I won't go.\" -- Mark Twain", "qid": 2, "docid": "969c6467-2019-04-18T19:17:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6044893860816956}, {"content": "Title: Even if you don't belive in the mormon church, everyone should have their standards Content: Hello. This is a topic that I wish was discussed a little more often. Thank you! I will be happy to go through each of these. Don't Smoke: This one I agree with. The nicotine contained in the cigarettes makes the unhealthy habit addictive. Smoking is known to cause lung cancer, yellow teeth, and can make someone appear older than they actually are. Are there any other reasons besides these that you think we shouldn't smoke? Don't drink: I don't completely agree with this standard. Of course, alcohol should not be consumed in large doses to the point when people's speech and actions are affected severely. Small doses, however, are okay as long as no harm is being done. Don't do tobacco: Again, the nicotine makes it addictive so I agree with this one as well. Eat meat sparingly: From arguments I've seen online, humans are omnivores. They were originally meant to eat plants however their system can digest meat as well. The things people eat (other than humans) should be up to their decision whether we agree with it or not. Don't swear: I avoid swearing for the most part. It makes someone seem immature. I don't feel that everyone should follow this, though, as it can express emotions in a different manner than normal words can. Be modest: This I agree with for people, however, it's a person's choice to choose how they dress. Everyone's definiton of modesty is different too, so it can be up to someone's opinion. Again, thank you for covering this topic! Hope to hear your response soon. :)", "qid": 2, "docid": "2dc3cb7a-2019-04-18T11:32:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.604316771030426}, {"content": "Title: The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco Content: Hello. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for starting what I am sure to be an interesting debate. I would like to start off my argument by summing up my opponents points from each paragraph, and after each, I will give a short rebuttal. 1. There was a new law passed that gives the FDA power to regulate flavoured tobacco products I would like to point out that just because they have the power, doesn't mean that they will automatically ban it. 2. Some tobacco products were omitted because they are not flavoured. There is not really much I can argue here. It is a fact. 3. My opponent's first dip was non-flavored, and he is now addicted. Great. Nicotine is powerful. No matter what kind you tried first, you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine. 4. If you try different kinds of tobacco, you will have the same effect. That argument states again that nicotine is powerful. I agree. The premise is not whether they would get addicted or not. The premise is that the FDA should not ban the flavored tobacco. You have not provided any evidence that they shouldn't. 5. Kids would try all different kinds of chew I disagree, and I will argue that later. 6. My opponent is in the marines, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON has a dip in. Also, he has shared his preference. I disagree again. Not every single person has a dip in. Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? Contention 1 Kids are more likely to try and get addicted to tobacco that is flavored than tobacco that is non-flavored or \"natural\" flavor. Kids are given a lot of information in elementary school. Two of those things are: 1. Fruits are good. 2. Tobacco is bad. When a child starts to develop more, they start to make associations with their surroundings. If they have grown up eating fuits, and liking them, or eating a lot of fruit candy and liking it, they will be more likely to try more fruity things. If they associate the good thing, fruit, with the bad thing, tobacco, they will be much more likely to try it than if they were to associate the bad thig with a neutral thing. I was a little bit rushed for this argument, so i hope it is good enough. I look forward to your response.", "qid": 2, "docid": "fa300ed9-2019-04-18T19:15:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.603313684463501}, {"content": "Title: Juul Is Bad. Content: Why are you on my side? Let me re tell this again. I am with Juul. If I am wirh, You must be against. Which you clearly aren't, So please forfeit.", "qid": 2, "docid": "17e9941d-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6031336784362793}, {"content": "Title: Should 15 year olds be alowed to hookah Content: Should 15 year old be able to smoke hookah even though its vapor", "qid": 2, "docid": "50daf11-2019-04-18T14:37:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6030813455581665}, {"content": "Title: smoking Content: I do agree with some of your stances, but there is evidence that second hand smoke can cause cancer and even death. According to an EPA report on second hand smoke in California in 1997, 53,800 people died from second hand smoke exposure. Also, children are at risk to many smaller, chronic diseases as a result of second hand smoke. I am not saying they will die from it, but they are certainly affected. I am aware that maybe going to the bar every once in a while and inhaling second hand smoke may not have nearly as much affect on you as constant, more long term exposure, but it is still unhealthy regardless. Many public places do have special areas for smokers and I think that is a start in the right direction. One issue I have found and many others have as well that in restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking areas, they are not exactly separated. There are barriers, but they do not necessarily keep smoke from drifting in the non-smoking sections. People do have the decision to enter or not enter these environments and you made a good point about that, but people should not feel limited either. This website contains valuable information on second hand smoke and studies that have been done: http://www.no-smoke.org.... Your points about smokers and their willingness to quit is very valid. I will say, although it would not necessarily be fair to forbid smoking and have smokers give it up cold turkey, perhaps the government instead of one day just taking it away, give smokers time to quit. People are very aware of the harm cigarettes can do to them which in some sense does makes it ok. For instance, I do not smoke and I do not choose to smoke because of the harm I think it will cause on my body. I know people who do smoke and know the precautions, but choose to anyways. It is up to the person and their rights. This idea is not relevant to my argument, but I wanted to point out that my opponents point on this topic is valid. On the other hand, I did want to point at that people do have very different reasons for why they smoke. Maybe they smoke to decrease stress, keep weight off, or any other unknown personal reason. I was suggesting that there are other ways to eliminate these issues. Studies have found that exercise does affect stress relief positively and according to the ADAA scientists have found that regular participation in aerobic exercise has been shown to decrease overall levels of tension, elevate and stabilize mood, improve sleep, and improve self-esteem. There are other ways to achieve what we intend to get from a cigarette, not just going to the gym, which may not be what many people need or want to do. But other forms of distraction, for instance, may be beneficial when trying to quit. http://www.adaa.org... Many people are able to quit smoking and that is a very good statistic to see when it is easy to believe a lot of people cannot quit or have a really hard time with it. Shopping, caffeine, or even cleaning as you mentioned are not necessarily harmful to the body, but I do understand the point you are making. People do have a right to choose, but it is encouraging to see that people do have the ability to quit. I do not agree smoking should be legal, but I do know that is a hard task to achieve especially when people are given the right to do things they wish, regardless of the outcome. Smoking does cause harm to our bodies and others as well, so smokers and non smokers would benefit from the banning of tobacco. The government, I believe can possibly find other means to supply jobs although it was stated that cutting the jobs related to the tobacco industry would be \"more harmful to the overall health and well being to our country than to ban smoking altogether.\" I am well aware that banning smoking would be a hard feat, but the government could aid in assisting those who want to quit and perhaps advocate how harmful it is. At some point, with hope, a huge amount of smokers will quit and banning tobacco will be easier to achieve.", "qid": 2, "docid": "80d56aef-2019-04-18T19:15:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6026498675346375}, {"content": "Title: It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States Content: RE: \"Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage.\" This was not asserted. The assertion was that \"the amount of second hand smoke encountered on public properties and public easements such as sidewalks, parking lots for government buildings, and city parks, etc. isn't substantial enough to jeopardize public health.\"RE: \"The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument.\"My apologies for overlooking the relevant text when I first perused the sources. I have found it now. Foe's argument in support of this proposal is largely based on his assertion that \"there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to\". Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion is based on evidence that \"came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report\", foe's assertion is based on a paraphrased version of a finding of the Surgeon General from a Cancer.org article titled \"Secondhand Smoke\". For reasons discussed below, the paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found within the Cancer.org article is bad evidence and should be disregarded.The Cancer.org article stated that the Surgeon General found as follows: \"There is no safe level of exposure to SHS\" [1 - (SHS presumably means secondhand smoke) - emphasis added]This was not a finding of the Surgeon General. In fact, the Surgeon General never concluded in any report that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. The relevant finding of the Surgeon General was from the \"Major Conclusions\" section of the 2006 Surgeon General's Report: \"The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.\" Here are the Surgeon General's words - \"... there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.\" [2 - Page 11 - emphasis added]Given that this statement was one of the \"Major Conclusions\" of the Surgeon General's report, it's reasonable to assume that the words were chosen very carefully. The Surgeon General did not use the word \"safe.\" The term used by the Surgeon General was \"risk-free\". \"Risk-free\" and \"safe\" do not have the same meaning and are not inter-changeable. \"Risk-free\" means absolutely zero risk. \"Safe\" is a qualitative term that does not mean absolutely zero risk - There are many safe activities which are not risk-free activities. (e.g. Absent unusually hazardous road conditions, it is safe to drive a mile or so to the local post office even though there is the risk of a car accident). To replace the term \"risk-free\" with the word \"safe\", as Cancer.org apparently did, is to insert a judgment in to the Surgeon General's report that the Surgeon General did not make. Replacing the term \"risk-free\" with the word \"safe\" significantly alters the meaning of the Surgeon General's conclusion. For this reason, the inaccurately paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion found in the Cancer.org article \"Secondhand Smoke\" is bad evidence and should be disregarded.Given that the Cancer.org article was the only evidence foe presented in support of his or her assertion that \"there is no safe amount [of secondhand smoke] that one can be exposed to\", foe has not demonstrated that the level of exposure to secondhand smoke occurring outside on public property jeopardizes public health in any significant manner.I agree with the Surgeon General's conclusion that \"there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke\" [2 - page 11 - emphasis added]. However, I still assert that there is a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. (To help illustrate: Because of the risk of falling down, there is no risk-free walk from the bedroom to the kitchen. Yet, it is safe to walk from the bedroom to the kitchen.) Contrary to foe's claim that this assertion goes \"against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report\", this assertion is not inconsistent with the Surgeon General's conclusion. It is, however, inconsistent with Cancer.org's paraphrased version of the Surgeon General's conclusion.I am sure that no reasonable person would dispute that inhaling and exhaling a single molecule of each chemical found in second hand smoke is a safe level of exposure. Scale up this infinitesimal level of exposure to, for example, one milliliter of second hand smoke. Scale the example up further to one liter, to thousands of liters, to millions, and the level of exposure becomes unsafe at some point. At what point that is, I do not know. However, the available evidence indicates that the point at which the level of exposure becomes unsafe is significantly beyond the level of exposure typically encountered outside on public property in the United States. (See debate round 1, \u00b6 4)This is especially true given the differences between indoors and outdoors. Consider that there are typically air currents which carry the smoke away from the smoker. The smoke will mix with the air and become diluted. Smoke typically rises up in to the sky since it is hot. Contrast this with indoor smoking where the smoke cannot escape beyond the ceiling and lingers in rooms for hours and even days. Consider also that people outside are typically traveling from one point to another, and do not inhale secondhand smoke for extended periods of time. Indoors, people will breathe the same air over and over for extended periods of time. Given these differences, it doesn't take much imagination to understand that outdoor smoking causes a much lower level of exposure to secondhand smoke compared to indoor smoking. It is difficult to understand why it is reasonably necessary to prohibit smoking outdoors when, according to the Surgeon General, \"[e]liminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke.\" [2 - page 11]It isn't clear what assertion foe's reference to the Science Daily article is supposed to support or how it would support any of foe's assertions. The study doesn't appear to be related to the degree of risk from exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. Rather, the study was about how the sodium pumps of cell cultures respond to the presence of cigarette smoke. The significance of reduced sodium pump function is unclear. (\"more research is needed to understand the consequences of sodium pump inhibition by cigarette smoke\" [3 - final paragraph from article]Additionally, foe's appeal to the fear of the unknown is not convincing. (\"The level to which this can be harmful is unknown... \"; \"... it can be dangerous to one's health.\"; \"it could be harmful in the long run.\"; \"We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold.\"; \"... could easily become more of a health risk.\" - italics added) Sound public policy must be grounded in established facts, not fear.Furthermore, foe presents a woefully inadequate solution the problem that banning smoking on all public property in the United States would restrict smoking in remote locations such as the middle of the Nevada desert. Foe's solution is \"[i]f there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced\". This is not a reasonable solution. A more reasonable position would be to reject the proposal as unreasonably restrictive.Sources -1 - Secondhand Smoke - http://www.cancer.org...2 - The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke - http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...3 - New evidence of harmfulness of second-hand smoke: Cancer causing agent present in gaseous phase of cigarette smoke - http://www.sciencedaily.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6023808121681213}, {"content": "Title: smoking should legal Content: You forfeited the round so I will just continue with my argument. Like I previously stated, one cannot simply get out of the way of smoke. In fact, an estimate of 46,000 of non-smokers die from heart disease, all because of SHS. Though the argument that I would like to expand on is the one regarding children. A child would not recognise cigarette smoke as something dangerous, they may not like the smell and move, but more often than not they would probably carry on playing. It's unjust to keep your child cooped up inside just so smokers can pollute their lungs out in the open. Children who are exposed to SHS are more likely to suffer from serious complications and they are more likely to be hospitalised even if it's just the flu. I would like to repeat that smoke is not easy to get away from, even if you're inside it can get in through an open window and I don't know what kind of world you live in but in mine that is not okay. Source: http://www.cancer.org...", "qid": 2, "docid": "f01de4de-2019-04-18T17:47:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6017533540725708}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes Should Become Completely Illegal In America Content: I voted you down because I agreed with the other side, but the other side really did convince me. And why does it have to be in America? I don't even live there! Please be aware of where people live before you start talking! No.1. Doctors have proven that smoking takes an average of 11 minutes off your life every cigarette you smoke. No.2. Smoking not only harms the smokers, but the people around them as well. When the people around the smokers inhale the smoke, they harm their lungs. Inhaling the smoke exhaled by a smoker is known as passive smoking. No.3. Smokers can also contract lung cancer from smoking. No.4. The smoke can travel from place to place. Sometimes, people are unaware of the smoke coming towards them, since they can't smell it. They will inhale it anyway. Breathing even just a little bit of tabacco is harmful. No.5. Your teeth get yellow. No.6. Your breath will get bad. No.7. It's not truly pleasant for anyone, whether they are smokers or passive smokers. Yes, people might find that the flavour/taste of the cigarettes is pleasant, but it affects the smokers' health in the bad way. You should know that it\u2019s not just affecting your appetite in the good way that counts, but the way it affects your health. For something to be truly pleasant, it has to affect your health and appetite in the good way. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.health.gov.au... http://www.quitnow.gov.au... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.drchetan.com... http://answers.yahoo.com...;", "qid": 2, "docid": "b8f591f2-2019-04-18T17:23:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6000983119010925}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be permanently banned worldwide. Content: The resolution says that smoking should be banned universally, but only argued against banning cigarettes. Since cigars are generally not inhaled, they have many fewer health hazards than cigarettes, and cigars are not physically addictive. Since they are not addictive, cigars are often only used on special occasions, posing little hazard. Moreover, while smoking marijuana is usually for recreation, it is also legitimately use by chemotherapy patients under medical supervision. It should therefore be left to medical professionals to determine when use is appropriate, not universally banned. Note that heroin and other narcotics are allowed for medical use. Smoking cigarettes poses health hazards. There are also health hazards associated with riding motorcycles, skate boarding, surfing, and putting butter on popcorn. There is in each case a trade off between the pleasure an individual gets from doing something and the hazards of the activity. There is justification for the state to restrict the circumstances of the activity if there is some danger to others, but within those bounds it ought to be up to the individual to decide whether or not they take they risk. That is the case with smoking. There is no question it poses risks, but the individual ought to judge those risks ad decide for himself whether they are worthwhile. Pro argues that teenagers are especially poor at making judgments about risk. If that is the case, then that is a good argument for having special laws to prevent smoking by teenagers. It is not an argument for a universal ban. If grandpa gets to be 85 and suffers from arthritis and the gout, and he wants to sit in the backyard puffing away, from where does the state derive the authority to stop him? He is mature enough to make the decision and his smoking poses no credible threat to society. Four independent studies have been done on the health costs of smoking. All show there is no dollar cost. Smokers die young, and what they thereby save in medical costs offsets the costs of treating the extra illnesses they suffer in their shortened lives. http://www.usnews.com... When put on the spot, anti-smoking advocates admit they don't count the offsetting savings. Studies on the effects of second hand smoke use dubious protocols to get the answers they seek. However, even if true, that only argues that non-smokers be shielded from second hand smoke. That can be done by isolating smokers or by using clean-room air filtration technology to make the smoke undetectable to others. Pro asserts that smoking is generally bad, and then leaps to the conclusion that it ought to be universally banned. A universal ban is unwarranted and unjustified because people ought to assess the risks for themselves: \"A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.\" - The Betrothed, Rudyard Kipling", "qid": 2, "docid": "969c6467-2019-04-18T19:17:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.5999626517295837}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should not be allowed in public places. Content: Basically all he said against my points were that they were nonsense. So pull those points threw because they were untouched. >>Thank you for your good intentions, but I DON'T WANT YOUR HELP! If I wanted to quit smoking, I would. Furthermore, it is not the government's responsibility to help me or anyone else quit smoking. <<< For those who want the help and want to quit can't. Smoking is a hard and dangerous habit. So, you shouldn't make this debate about you. the next paragraph. True. We may know the effects and even the fact what is in it, but think of this. You have kids. You smoke. You know the effects and know that it's terrible for you. But your childern see you smoke and they see you as their hero. They are very likely to take smoking up. That exmaple can work in the public eye. Childern see their favorite celebity smoking on tv or in the movies. They are very likely to do it. Thus, smoke shouldn't be allowed in public places. By the way. What are you talkin about. I didn't post aguements? I debate in a different way. I'm an LD debater, so im just taking this as one debate. So, basically i think we are debating differently. Again sorry for late replys, I have a lot of work to do to get ready for my big debate turnament. Thanks for the pacients.", "qid": 2, "docid": "b12a88b2-2019-04-18T19:52:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.5995050072669983}, {"content": "Title: Djarum Black Cigarettes are better than any other Cigarettes. Content: While I agree that the flavor and the longevity of Black are spectacular, they are incredibly unhealthy (for a cigarette). There have been several cases where smoking blacks in succession have caused people to cough up blood. Also, the addition of cloves makes the smoke thicker and further unhealthy.", "qid": 2, "docid": "2bb11255-2019-04-18T19:59:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.5994882583618164}, {"content": "Title: This house would not ban smoking #4 Content: I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con\u2019s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one\u2019s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e4ad9db7-2019-04-18T17:53:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.5987521409988403}, {"content": "Title: This house would not ban smoking #3 Content: I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con\u2019s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one\u2019s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e4ad2958-2019-04-18T17:52:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.5987521409988403}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should it be legalized Content: Is marijuana safe? No, there\"s no such thing as absolutely safety. The drugs you consume to make your headache go away have side affects: Common side effects of ibuprofen include: nausea (feeling sick) vomiting (being sick) diarrhoea (passing loose, watery stools) indigestion (dyspepsia) tummy (abdominal) pain Less common side effects include: headache dizziness fluid retention (bloating) raised blood pressure gastritis (inflammation of the stomach) a stomach ulcer allergic reactions \"\" such as a rash worsening of asthma symptoms by causing bronchospasm (narrowing of the airways) kidney failure So when you compare cannabis to legal prescribed drugs its just as bad and if it had \"Serious dangers are associated with legalized marijuana use\" They would not on any circumstance prescribe it to patients. One the fact of \"Increased risk of injury or death in a car crash\" Alcohol is far cheaper in places than cannabis her you can buy a gram of cannabis for \"12 odds but you could also buy a bottle of vodka for around the same price and the vodka would do Far more long term damage and short term than cannabis examples: it has memory loss affects long and short, vomiting which can lead to death if your asleep and you vomit, in some cases people turn really violent and attack other people and the worst in my mind is its numbs your body people are far more likely to do stupid stuff while drunk it gives them a confidence boost and tricks them into thinking there fine. So should we ban Alcohol ? I mean it would save more lives wouldn't it. \"In 2012 there were 8,367 alcohol-related deaths in the UK\" that were proved to be related to alcohol. But for cannabis its has zero yes zero direct deaths and personally I have never heard of a stoned driver because they're to lazy to move anywhere. And smoking should be illegal not cannabis \"About 100,000 people in the UK die each year due to smoking. Smoking-related deaths are mainly due to cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart disease.\" the side affect of smoking are the worst. I am sure everyone has heard the old smoking vs cannabis arguments so ill not really go in depth about it. The crime drop wasn't related to cannabis it was overall crime \"Between January 1 and April 30, violent crime and property crime in Denver \"\" the most populated city in Colorado, in terms of both people and weed dispensaries \"\" dropped 10.6 percent compared to that same span one year earlier, official statistics reveal. Homicides have dropped to less than half of last year\"s levels, and motor vehicle theft has shrunk by over one-third.\" The cost of charging and hold a criminal for cannabis \"misuse\" it costs \"In the UK it is estimated that each new prison place costs \"119,000 and that the annual average cost for each prisoner exceeds \"40,000.\" Its ridicules you are sending someone to prison for up to 5 years in prison for possession of a plant so that's \"200,000 to hold them there and \"560,000 for intent so sell that money for 1 prisoner could be used else were like schooling or health care. Con you're full argument in round one was it was dangerous everything you consume in your body has an effect also it would be for adults of course so they will know the risks and are aware that it can have a negative affect. Thanks, I apologize for they sloppy writing and I hope to see a reply Sources: http://www.forbes.com... http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.statista.com... http://www.ons.gov.uk... http://www.patient.co.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... https://www.gov.uk...", "qid": 2, "docid": "9bd2d651-2019-04-18T15:48:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.5974212884902954}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. Content: I am a bit perplexed here. \"Cigarettes are not really tobacco\"Typically a cigarette weighs approximately 1 gram of which the tobacco content can vary between 65-100%\"I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes.\"Relevance? I, as an avid bungee jumper and race car driver hate skydiving.\"There is also a healthy way to smoke.\"If there is a substance that can be taken in one of two ways, and one of those ways is one of the deadliest processes known to man, perhaps this substance is bad.There is also no documented dichotomy between \"breathing\" and \"eating\" smoke like you seem to be talking about, nor any indication that one has a \"nil chance of giving you a sickness\"\"I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absolutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table\"We're talking about cigarettes, not cigars, but is this really supposed to be a contention in a health debate?\"There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you \"eat\" the smoke instead of breathing it.\"Please provide sources. Scientific sources\"Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life.\"What evidence are you basing this on. Cancer.gov says \"Cigar smoking causes cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, and lung. It may also cause cancer of the pancreas. Moreover, daily cigar smokers, particularly those who inhale, are at increased risk for developing heart disease and other types of lung disease\"", "qid": 2, "docid": "d291cb2f-2019-04-18T11:24:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.597396731376648}, {"content": "Title: Like smoking, extremely heavy perfume wearing should be prohibited in public buildings. Content: Thank you for the debate, first of all. This'll be my first debate as well, on the site and otherwise--unless you consider comment-type deals a debate and I really don't. Here's to a good debate and hoping we both learn a lot. Unfortunately, you haven't made much of a case. I'll get into what's specifically the problem, but I'll remind you that you have burden of proof and need to prove point one. If you can be more specific about what this health problem is--because at the end of the day you are trying to convince me and the voters that there is a problem that warrants taking personal liberties--you might have an argument. Response to point 1: How many people are allergic? 100 out of all Americans? 50% of Americans? What health risks? They need to be serious enough to get the law involved. How close must the exposure be? If you have to be a foot away from a person wearing extremely heavy perfume to be harmed, and exposed to it every day, that is a far cry from a small amount of exposure a good distance away killing someone. If it is a serious enough problem to warrant making it illegal, can you give me a compelling reason why the manufacturers can't use an ingredient that doesn't harm those allergic to it? Finally, you've failed to provide any proof whatsoever to back up your claim that \"many people are allergic and can suffer health risks...\" etc etc. Since a third of your argument rests on this being true, you should probably back this up. Not to mention the comparison here is weak at best. You're comparing extremely heavy perfumes to smoking. However, there is a much stronger case to be made for making smoking illegal that cannot be made for extremely heavy perfume. The reason for making smoking illegal is that it presents health problems for everyone exposed to it--everyone--especially children. I quote the Surgeon General: http://www.nlm.nih.gov... \"There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke: even small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful to people's health.\" \"A smoke-free environment is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.\" Can you honestly say the same of perfume? Even if it does represent serious risks for those allergic to extremely heavy perfume at far distances, it cannot compare to something that harms everyone at any level. Response to point 2: Why should extreme unpleasantness mean something should be illegal? It is not illegal to smell foul, dress in bad taste, be Republican (just kidding!), allow children to run around irritating everyone, etc. It's possible there's legal precedent set for this but you'll have to prove it--and that does not make it right. Even then, it is one thing to ban something that everyone finds unpleasant and it's another to ban something that a single person does that is unpleasant. Personal liberties are harmed in the second scenario and not in the first. Response to point 3: Cursing in front of children is not illegal, neither is rudeness and it never has been. Conclusion: I encourage you to prove your claims in point one, and to make a compelling case for why personal liberties should be surrendered to keep from irritating people.", "qid": 2, "docid": "4bc87b98-2019-04-18T19:06:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.5969297885894775}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is good for you, And I love it! Content: I'm gonna have to point out that you still haven't given sources or support on: The number of people who think smoking is good, And that they love it. Certain statements about smoking dcibs that are misconceptions and are not scientific phenomenon. You also haven't addressed my point on the issue of nicontine and how it affects a person's health and overall lifestyle. First you argued that smoking is bad, But good. Now you are arguing that everything is bad unless it is consumed or used at modearte levels. This is false. We cannot use this logic to judge the safety of waht we put into our bodies. There are materials out there that are good, But can be bad if we use them over the limit. And then there are materials taht are innatley bad, Like cigarettes. If there is no distinction, Then there shouldn't be a problem for a kid to go to a liquor store to buy some alcohol or for a person to go in an alley and get crack. But it IS a problem and there IS line drawn between good and bad things. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable disease. There are more than 16 million Americans who are living with a disease caused by smoking. Smoking is a known cause for not erectile disfunction. Smoking causes 480, 000 deaths (13, 000 per day) every year in the U. S. , 6 million worldwide. Keep it fresh, Yo. Fresh Empire mike drap", "qid": 2, "docid": "545bc510-2019-04-18T11:17:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.5966932773590088}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes do not cause cancer. Content: Alas, it appears that my opponent agrees with me that cigarettes do cause cancer. Unless he or she wishes to add something else, which I would be grateful for, I do not know what else to suggest, aside from the fact that scientific analysis does prove that tobacco is indeed carcenogenic.", "qid": 2, "docid": "498510e2-2019-04-18T19:46:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.596367359161377}, {"content": "Title: Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being Content: Every week there is always something we learn about either by reading or listening to about how bad something is bad for us actually has beneficial health effects. They say coffee, then pizza - and every other day it's red wine and of course the smoking. I ask myself is this really something that is true? We can always find something wrong with everything if we dig and do enough research on it. Why is it that smoking is one that Pro and others emphasize on even when its stated as a fact that coffee is just as bad? Well the answer is: that depends how you interpret the facts. Pro still is geared towards the health and well being of others by stating facts of how much smokers smoke ie; the average, chain etc\u2026. It's been said by physicians and they'll tell you there are few things you can put in your mouth that are worse for you than a cigarette. By smoking does help the obesity issue which we have now a day's especially in children. This is a health issue as well which are commonly more so than ever in kids from their parent's lack of direction. This is one example of major health issues to come at an earlier age. So as adults if we have the choice to smoke that's our choice and we should not look down at for that. There are many people who never smoked and have cancer and died at young ages. So while smoking isn't all that bad we is it ok to support the obesity issue which is just as equal if not worse than smoking? Drug companies are already researching drugs with nicotine in to help these conditions removed from cigarette smoking and the first one has hit the market. The answer to that is the E-Cig. There is still nicotine in the cigarette but has been much more accepted in the world. Why, because, it does remove the bad smells, second-hand smoke, or cancer causing chemicals. World renown doctor, Dr. Panariello even suggested that while utilizing the electronic cigarette, there is virtually no risk of getting cancer. These conclusions come from studies which show that nicotine is about as equally harmful to your health as caffeine. So knowing this why is the coffee so much more acceptable everywhere. We can still smoke with this electronic cigarette now in airports, restaurants, bars, work place, homes etc\u2026 some benefits for this is as follows: \u2022No tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or ash. \u2022Get the same amount of nicotine as a regular cigarette. \u2022Each cartridge costs less than $2 and is equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes. \u2022You can save over $1,000 each year. \u2022You won't \"smell\" like a smoker any longer. \u2022Different flavors are available. \u2022No more second-hand smoke In my conclusion the Pro should stop judging smokers. It's just that simple. http://www.healthreportsdaily.com... Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "qid": 2, "docid": "8a8904c0-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.5961938500404358}, {"content": "Title: Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere Content: Yes. I am not stating that one should simply ban everything that is bad, but smoking is known to be hazardous and it is difficult to breathe and it stinks. You can decide to ban fast food if you wish to. I believe that is a contributing factor in an unhealthy society. No. You would not have to ban all the ingredients from the market. Do you know why? Most of those ingredients are okay to use under safe circumstances, but it is the combination of them that makes them deadly. Let's compare cigarettes to a simple compound like Carbon Monoxide. It is made up of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. If we decided to ban the unhealthy use of Carbon Monoxide, we would not be required to ban oxygen nor carbon. Why is this? Both of these atoms are included in a healthy life when the are consumed as separate atoms. One would not simply inhale Carbon Monoxide for fun; however, smoking displays this perfectly. Let's also compare smoking to using Cocaine. Cocaine is a drug that begins as coca leaves. It is dried and soaked in gasoline. Later in the process, battery acid is mixed in. The use of cocaine is illegal, but the contents alone are not. Gasoline is used to run cars, battery acid is used to create energy, and cocoa leaves were an ingredient in Coca-Cola during the early 1920's (1). If you were to create a \"healthy\" cigarette, you would need to ban over half of the ingredients that were found in them. Freely distributing electronic cigarettes will not help the economy which you argued the ban of cigarettes would not do either. Not banning cigarettes allows future generations to become addicted. Do you know what else is addictive and dangerous? Meth. It is also against the law to use. (1) http://www.naturalnews.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "c81986ed-2019-04-18T15:29:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.5936404466629028}, {"content": "Title: Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad. Content: There is a major flaw in your argument. Cigertettes are not really tobacco as yes they have 400+ chemicals in them. I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes. There is only one ingredient in cigars/pipes and that is tobacco. I\"ve been smoking as long as I remember (one a day), and my physical/other check-ups have been perfect for the last 30 or so years. There is also a healthy way to smoke. The people who die of smoking are one smoking cigertettes, and two BREATHING in the smoke. I hate the smell of smoke and never breathe it in, however I love the taste of it. \"Eating\" smoke literally has a nil chance of giving you a sickness. I actually had a throat infection and something was stuck in my throat. The doctor said to not smoke for at least two weeks, and it should be better. After about 2.5 weeks I still felt the same. So I said F it and I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absoulutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table and my throat infection was gone. There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you \"eat\" the smoke instead of breathing it. This is why I believe that we paint an absoulutely horrible picture of tobacco to kids these days. I think instead of teaching them it\"s absoulutely detrimentally horrible, socially unacceptable, and smokers are losers and throwing their life away; we should teach them to not smoke cigertettes, instead cigars and pipes, and to \"eat\" not inhale. Smoking is completely fin and actually relaxing if you do it in the right, proper, and healthy way. Here\"s just a fun one: Some very famous cigar/pipe smokers include of course Mark Twain and Winston Churchill. Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life. https://www.dallasnews.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "d291cb2f-2019-04-18T11:24:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.5936018228530884}, {"content": "Title: Argument: Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest Content: \"'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health\". AEHA. - \"AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful.\"", "qid": 2, "docid": "e31bfa66-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00085-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.5934532880783081}, {"content": "Title: Natural gas can be harmful and even poisonous to ingest Content: \"'Natural' gas may be harmful to your health\". AEHA. - \"AEHA-NS. and its coalition partners are investivaging the harmful effects of piper natural gas on environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergies as part of the Environmental Assessment of the Sable Island Gas Project proposal....The effects of the transmission and use of piped natural gas upon persons with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity (2), asthma or allergies can be significant and extremely harmful.\"", "qid": 2, "docid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00068-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.5934532284736633}, {"content": "Title: Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT. Content: Pro says that \"smoking harms people around the smokers.\" I already addressed this above and Pro offered no counterarguments. To reiterate my argument, smoking often does not harm people around them (in the case when there is no one around them) or it often only harms people who are aware of the dangers, have accepted the risk as rational adults, and could leave if they wanted to. If Pro wanted to argue that people should not smoke in certain situations in which people can be harmed unwillingly and do not have a reasonable ability to simply leave the situation, then I could agree with that, but that is not the resolution being debated.Pro says that \"The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way.\" As explained in my last argument, this is cost benefit analysis. A lot of decisions have both good and bad consequences. As rational beings, people can decide what risks they are willing to take for what benefit.Pro's anecdote proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I have never made the claim that people should smoke around children or others in a situation in which the person who is potentially harmed cannot just leave. Second, Pro provides no evidence that her father's smoking caused her brother's asthma. As a counter-anecdote, I also got asthma as a child. My parents did not smoke nor did my grandparents or anyone around me. Pro also seems to indicate that her brother got asthma because of one particular incident in which smoke got in her brother's face. While exposure to smoke over a period of time may contribute to developing asthma, it is medically ridiculous to claim that someone got asthma because of one time some smoke went in their face.Pro has failed to address anything I wrote in my argument and has simply presented an anecdote which not only does not prove anything at all but also is an example of a situation which my arguments did not condone. Even if I agree that one should not smoke around children (which I do) it does not affect my argument in the slightest.Pro has failed to provide any evidence or arguments that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.", "qid": 2, "docid": "ff6b14ca-2019-04-18T17:24:35Z-00006-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.5931919813156128}, {"content": "Title: cigarettes should be illegal Content: Cigarettes are very bad for you, there not healthy at all it should be illegal i will provide evidence in my next case", "qid": 2, "docid": "5d7b68ff-2019-04-18T15:45:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.593181848526001}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized in the US Content: I already posted this debate but my opponent was unable to post argu First off i'll start by saying under a government that allows the use of tobacco (specifically cigarettes) and alcohol, that same government should also allow marijuana (for recreational and medicinal purposes). I'll start with showing that marijuana is safer than cigarettes: Many say a marijuana is worse because it has no filter. But they do not realize that when you cigarette you smoke the whole thing down, whereas with marijuana, you take a few hits and then stop (usually). And you don't even have to smoke it. You can eat it, use a vaporizer, etc. there are a variety of ways to use marijuana, all of them safer than smoking a cigarette (or chewing tobacco, for that matter). Next, marijuana is safer than alcohol. Alcohol impedes your judgment as well as slowing down reflexes, etc. Most ppl are familiar with the effects of alcohol. Marijuana on the other hand, slows down reflexes, but does not impede judgment. You are aware of what you do and possible consequences when you are on marijuana. also, MJ only affects your memory while you use it. once you are done, you can remember what you did. alcohol, however, affects your memory long after you are no longer drunk. I am still randomly remembering bits and pieces of times i have been drunk. You can remember clearly things you do while using weed. Now i don't have enough time to finish an opening argument, so i'll continue to present points throughout this debate, which, by the way, is 4 rounds. mattshuster mattshuster Con ~ Round 1 hi, thank you for posting this topic and even if it's commonly used i still find it to be a very interesting debate i would ask that everyone who votes, would vote on the basis of who argues better and presents their case better not on whether you personally believe marijuana should/should not be legal. moving on first i would like to start of by laying out my case, since this is 4 rounds i won't use any of this speech to refute my opponent and will simply focus on my own. 1: despite the dangers of any other substance such as alcohol or tobacco, marijuana remains a dangerous drug. As the National Institute on Drug Abuse tells us within just 1 hour of using marijuana the users risk of a heart attack more then quadruples. It also impairs your ammune system's ability to fight illnesses, a side effect indeed, but one that can in the end lead to a permanent effect or disease. In the end they tell us that in general those consuming marijuana have more overall health problems then those using tobacco, and have about a 30% chance of a successfull rehab once addicted to marijuana. 2:even if marijuans can be found to be non-harmful, it leads more often then not to other more dangerous drugs National Institute of Health reports that \"very few young people use other illegal drugs without first trying marijuana\" Erich Goode, Drugs in American Society \"The marijuana user has a statistically higher likelihood of trying and using a wide range of dangerous drugs than is true of the nonuser\" Even if my opponent can prove marijuana has no other negative side effects then it being rapidly available still promotes the addiction to other drugs, clearly a harm in the legalization of it As my opponent said, I will add more as we go, with 4 rounds I felt no need to argue all my points in 1 speech", "qid": 2, "docid": "13b24e7c-2019-04-18T19:44:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.5928596258163452}, {"content": "Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: First of all, I would like to address the fact that I don't care if you misspell a couple of words in your debate. It's fine if you do that, and I understand that spell check can be kind of crappy at times. I would just like the judges to acknowledge this fact, and possibly get a couple of points for it. Also, when you are referring to drugs, do you mean cigarettes? If so, could you address this in the following speech? If cigarettes are allowed in the debate, could you also allow the subject of E-Cigarettes too? Rebuttal: Clarification 1: I thank my opponent for giving the newer/updated source. I understand the fact that you were unable to give me the correct link. It is very informational. Rebuttal 2: Thank you for clarifying on the phrase \"peer pressure. \" I agree with the fact that peer influence is a better term for it. But I would like to quote you on one of your phrases: \"when you start drugs young,\" which is one of the points/rebuttals that I brought up in my previous speech. First of all, this is exactly why schools bring up the subject of drugs when you are younger. Therefore, it has become far less likely that a younger individual would accept drugs, unless they are very messed up. I would also like to address the quote that you made: \". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up. \" First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by \"Contention 1. \" By contention 1, do you mean my first rebuttal to your argument, or did you perhaps mean my very first contention? Seeing as how you appear to be referring to my first rebuttal, then I will give reasoning for that. If you meant something else, could you address that fact in your next speech? While one might be taking drugs, there are tons of other solutions for drug addictions (i. e: Pondera, which was mentioned in my previous speech), so that is what makes drugs harmless. They don't pose any threats because the threat can easily become neutralized by revolutionary products like Pondera. Rebuttal 3: Thanks for clarifying on the subject. I did look around a little bit; it was very interesting. However, I think that you dropped my argument in that paragraph. I will assume that you agree with that statement, or you overlooked it. In case that you just missed it, you can make it in a future speech. Otherwise, I guess that argument goes to me. Rebuttal 4: You're correct, I went off on a tangent, and got off topic. I will give a rebuttal to this, and then we should just leave the particular subject, unless you wish to pursue the subject further. You said, \"You could see how your products are killing so many people, and it happens, no matter whose fault it is. \" Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs. Also, when I mention inexperienced drug users, I was not using myself in the 'equation. ' I won't give much of a rebuttal to this argument, seeing as how it went off subject, and it is highly one-sided. Rebuttal 5: I will agree with the fact that the source is against the argument. I should have done more looking on the particular subject. I can't argue with the fact that my own source contradicts my own arguments. Arguments: I will specify on some of my topics once more. First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. As I have said before, they separate the wheat from the chaff. People who just want to experience drugs are even more stupid. They already know the consequences; they are easily persuaded. Stupid, and easily-persuaded people have nothing to contribute to our society, and should therefore die. Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.", "qid": 2, "docid": "e08bd04b-2019-04-18T13:58:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.5926252603530884}, {"content": "Title: Alternative medicine should be ban. Content: Currently if you buy cigarretes you get a warning saying: smoke killsbut if you buy homeopaty: you don't get any warning We are all the state, and we should stop thouse kinds of scams.", "qid": 2, "docid": "9b6d741a-2019-04-18T18:01:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.5921041965484619}, {"content": "Title: If a business wants to allow smoking then the so be it, government should stay out! Content: lvisman you are repeating your self I fully admit that you have opened my eyes about how second hand smoke coming from a business that permits smoking can seep out the windows and doors and on to public property where people walk and those people could inhale the toxic fumes of cigarette smoke unwillingly and you and I believe that is wrong. So we got that far you and I agree on a common problem but we do not agree on solution. You keep pushing my point of if it is the right answer to make smoking in a business against the law because it affects innocent people outside the property line of the business why shouldn't it be against the law to drive a car, or run a lawnmower with neighbors around, or ride a dirt bike near people, or simply to hold a weed whacked next to your neighbors house and rev it in your hands because you like the sound of the engine, why shouldn't any of those things be against the law as well? You say \" Overall, autos, factories etc, serve a useful purpose.\"(lvisman) What purpose does holding down the throttle of a weed whacker because you enjoy the sound serve, or what purpose again does going on a joy ride serve, there are so, so many more examples. You can't just push this point I am making under the rug, you do not give a valid answer you are just avoiding it. Your talking about a business that effects innocent people in the nearby street but again what about cars. Listen to what the National Safety Council has to say about car emissions, \"Cars also emit several pollutants classified as toxics, which cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer in the country each year.\" (NSC). According to the EPA \"driving a car is the single most polluting thing that most of us do\".(EPA) I think people such as your self lvisman don't give the majority of people enough credit. I would go about things in a different way. One suggestion would be to take 100% of the money collected from cigarette tax and put it back into educating people about how bad smoking is. I use so smoke little more then half a pack a day and no one needed to make it against the law for me to stop. The TRUTH commercials and other various information about how horrible cigarettes can effect a persons health is all I needed, well a lot of will power is definitely needed as well but I did it, my father who smoked much more then I did, did it, and if me and my father along with loads of other people who have quit can do it then anyone can do it because we are all humans just like everyone else except lvisman he might be an alien. Ha, just kidding, not really, but I think that my tax idea is pretty good. Just remember that making it illegal to smoke in a business does not stop people from smoking. My solution is a real solution that would not only help people to completely quit smoking but it would give people education, sense of achievement and no laws would be needed to do it. We shouldn't exploit people for their mistakes and take their money from taxes and use it somewhere else. Give the money back to the people with a problem in the form of education which would help people to quit. You have to have some faith in people. Laws are just going to outcast people and make them angry and depressed. Education will help people to stop their addictio for themselves and make them feel better about themselves in the process. What do you think lvisman?", "qid": 2, "docid": "836720b-2019-04-18T20:03:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.5917539000511169}, {"content": "Title: The ban coffe,tobacco, alcohol, and fast food Content: I believe these products are not only unsafe, but a detrimental to society. Ban- Making the possession, sale, cultivation, production, use, and paraphernalia of the said items illegal. All these products are addictive. When combined, they are much more addictive and dangerous. 1) Tobacco is extremely dangerous. It contains nicotine, methane, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methanol, ammonia and over 2000 other chemicals. Keeping tobacco legal tells children it is okay and even cool to destroy their bodies with tobacco. Nicotine is one of the most dangerous substances to humans. Tobacco companies will never tell you nicotine is deadlier than cyanide. That's right. Nicotine is 8 times as deadly as cyanide to a non-smoker and 4 times as deadly to a smoker. About 90% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking. The average smoker smokes 13 to 16 cigarettes. Some smokers spend over $9490 dollars a year on cigarettes. Some people give up their food or their children's food to afford cigarettes. Cigarettes are probably the most widely used addictive substance. 2) Coffee contains over 1000 chemicals. Coffee and all other caffeine containing products should be illegal. Caffeine is a stimulant and an addictive substance. If you advocate keeping caffeine legal, you may as well advocate the legalization of cocaine. I have met plenty of teenagers and adults addicted to caffeine. It's use can induce rage paranoia, nervousness, restlessness, inability to sleep, and even induce heart attacks. When someone tries to quit, they often experience headaches, lack of energy, and mood swings. 3) Alcohol contains acetone, ethanol, and methanol. It is a dangerous substance that causes numerous cancers, including liver cancer. We have no idea how many cases of drunk driving have occurred in the past because most get away with scot-free and others get a slap on the wrist for putting lives at risk. It is addictive and induces violence and rage. People act irrationally when drunk and commit action which they later regret. 4) Fast food encourages unhealthy eating. It makes them people obese and unhealthy. It is a huge factor in heart disease , high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. It does long term damage to individuals leading to countless diseases and it should be banned.", "qid": 2, "docid": "a8e68bc8-2019-04-18T17:52:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.5914853811264038}, {"content": "Title: Cigarettes are bad for my health. Content: Cigarettes are clearly detrimental to your health. You speak solely of the present, where you have not experienced any of the effects of cigarettes (which typically occur in the long term). You are basing your health solely on symptoms: you cannot look inside your body, so ultimately you THINK you are healthy without any real way of knowing.", "qid": 2, "docid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.5909669995307922}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is good for health! Content: If it causes death, then why am I not dead yet, hmmmmmm? Smoking being bad for the health... it's all a scam!", "qid": 2, "docid": "96aec3d0-2019-04-18T15:26:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.5909650325775146}, {"content": "Title: Is smoking bad for you Content: Smoking may be legal but that doesn't mean it's good for us! In fact, it's just the opposite: smoking is the only legal consumer product that kills you when you use it exactly how it's meant to be used! That's pretty scary, isn't it? Cigarettes are made from tobacco. The tobacco plant is the only plant ever discovered to contain the drug called nicotine. Nicotine is a very strong poison that can kill a human in less than an hour if even a small amount is injected into the blood-stream. Tobacco smoke contains very tiny amounts of nicotine that aren't deadly but are still very bad for our health. Tobacco smoke also contains many other chemicals. In fact, it contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are very harmful to our bodies. All of these chemicals mix together and form a sticky tar. It's the tar that gives cigarette smoke its smell and color. The tar sticks to clothing, skin, and the insides of our lungs! Tar is very dangerous inside our lungs. It sticks to the cilia in our lungs that are responsible for sweeping out germs and dirt. If the cilia are covered in tar, they can't work right, and germs and dirt can stay in the lungs and cause diseases damage tar does to your cilia is only the beginning, though. The tar and smoke are made up of many chemicals that are known to cause cancer, as well as many chemicals that are just plain bad for you.With the nicotine and tar working together, there are a lot of bad diseases linked to smoking cigarettes. Diseases like throat cancer, mouth cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease are all caused by smoking.In fact, 40,000 people die each year from diseases caused by smoking. Each cigarette you smoke takes 5 to 8 minutes of your life. Is it worth it? The following famous people died because they smoked: Humphrey Bogart (age 57) Jesse Owens (age 67) Michael Landon (age 54) Nat \"King\" Cole (age 45) Sammy Davis Jr. (age 64).Unfortunately, even if you don't smoke, you can still get sick from tobacco smoke. If you breathe the smoke from another person's cigarette, it's as bad as if you were smoking the cigarette yourself! This smoke is called second-hand smoke and it kills hundreds of people each year. If your parents smoke, you have a greater chance of getting ear infections, asthma, bronchitis, and tonsillitis. Children who are exposed to smoke all their lives have underdeveloped lungs, and they are two to four times likely to have allergic reactions and asthma than children of nonsmokers.Second-hand smoke is starting to really bother nonsmokers, and that's why there are more places where smoking isn't allowed than there used to be. Now you aren't allowed to smoke on a plane, in a bus, or in many buildings. Non-smokers want to breathe clean air! Cigarettes aren't just bad for our health. They are bad for the environment, too! Think of the amount of paper that goes into making each cigarette. Young people smoke about 6,000,000 cigarettes per day! That's a lot of trees that are cut down, and the paper can never be recycled! Look around outside. There are cigarette butts everywhere! Do you know that it takes more than 5 years for a cigarette butt to biodegrade? That means that it takes at least 5 years for the cigarette butts to break down unless someone cleans them up. Gross! Most people realize that smoking cigarettes are dangerous for their health. But are other forms of tobacco just as dangerous? The death rate for pipe and cigar smokers is actually less than the death rate for cigarette smokers but still higher than the death rate for non-smokers. BUT, that's not because the tobacco used in cigars and pipes is safer! It's because cigar and pipe smokers don't inhale as deeply as cigarette smokers do when they smoke. If a person inhales deeply for cigars and pipes, then they are actually more dangerous than cigarettes! Don't think that cigars and pipes are safer than cigarettes! Pipe smokers have a very high rate of lip cancer, and compared to cigarette smokers, pipe and cigar smokers have a higher chance of getting mouth cancer, throat cancer, and larynx (voice box) cancer. The second-hand smoke from cigars is really bad. One cigar puts out as much smoke and tar into the air as 42 cigarettes! Stay away from cigar smoke if you want to stay healthy! Some people think that smokeless tobacco is safer than cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco comes in two forms: chewing tobacco and snuff. Both forms are put into the mouth and sucked on. It's true that smokeless tobacco is better for your lungs since there is no smoke to breathe in. BUT, it is very bad for other parts of your body. Just like regular tobacco, smokeless tobacco contains nicotine, which is a very poisonous drug that speeds up your heart and increases your blood pressure. Holding an averagely-sized wad of chewing tobacco in your mouth for 30 minutes gives you as much nicotine as smoking 4 cigarettes!Besides the nicotine, smokeless tobacco contains all the bad chemicals that regular tobacco does, including the ones that cause cancer. Here are all the things that smokeless tobacco can give you: You can have a reduction in your ability to taste and smell You get stained teeth You get bad breath It can cause tooth decay It can cause gum disease It can give you bleeding gums It can give you sores in the mouth that don't heal You can experience dizziness It can make you throw up It can decrease your physical ability You can get mouth, lip, cheek, and tongue cancer You can get palate, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus cancer You get a fast heart rate and high blood pressure You can get heart disease", "qid": 2, "docid": "4ebdedaf-2019-04-18T11:49:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.5909571051597595}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse Content: Smoking cigarettes is inherently violent especially in the company of children who have no other options or the legal ability to move out. I'm not going to bother providing sources because it's just common knowledge that it causes all sorts of health issues even before the child is born. If you poison someone's drink, that's murder. If you hit someone, shoot, someone that's violence. And so is slowly destroying someone's pulmonary functions. against their will. A surgeon general report has found that a single whiff of cigarette smoke damages the lining of the blood vessels. There is an immediate health hazard.", "qid": 2, "docid": "b9a0e07c-2019-04-18T12:40:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.5906035304069519}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA Content: Many thanks to Pro for his response and for this great debate.Smoking and HealthPro said that the examples which I gave of dangerous things are not as dangerous as smoking. Really? Just one mistake in rock climbing, and your life will end in seconds. Moreover - even if we assume that the examples which I gave of dangerous things, are not as dangerous as smoking - it would be very mistaken to say that it doesn't exist things which are more dangerous than smoking. Indeed, there are numerous other things which are more dangerous than smoking. In fact, even drinking a lot of Soda can be more dangerous than smoking.[1]Pro said that I contradicted myself. This claim by Pro is ridiculous. Yes, I did say there are other things that also give negative impacts on your money, health, beauty, and the environment. And yes, I did say that just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. But did I contradict myself by saying this? I don't see how I did. Pro doesn't explain how I contradicted myself; he merely just claimed it.Pro said that he agrees on freedom of choice, but that the government should care for the people's welfare. That's true. However, although the government has a responsibility to protect its people and their welfare, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. Thus, since the government has a responsibility to protect its people, it should give out the information that this and that can harm you. But since the government also has a responsibility to defend the people's freedom of choice, it should also allow the people - after giving out the information that this and that can harm you - to choice for themselves if they want to use this thing or not.Smoking and BeautyPro said that coffee just costs you your beauty, and that he clearly didn't say that something that causes only this should be banned. But this is clearly not what Pro said in his second round when he first presented this argument. What Pro said when he first presented this argument is simply just that coffee costs you your beauty. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then coffee should be banned as well. And if Pro wasn't trying to say that smoking should be completely banned just because of the fact that it can cost you your beauty, then why at all mention this in an debate that is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US?Smoking and MoneyPro said that buying a cigarette is a waste of money, because it's like buying poison. Sure, but it should still be the choice of the individual to buy a cigarette by his own money if we wants to. Pro also said that other things that cost money can benefit us, like foods, homes, and clothes. However, as I have said previously, smoking can also give us some positive benefits and impacts.Smoking and IQPro said that the things which I mentioned are just bad in a couple of aspects, but that smoking is bad in many aspects. The things which I mentioned that can also lower your IQ, is alcohol and artificial food colorings. Sure, smoking - in contrast to these two things - is probably bad in many more aspects. However, this category is about IQ, so smoking being bad in many aspects really doesn't matter. Pro is trying to ignore the real case of this category. What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can lower your IQ. That's it. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then alcohol and artificial food colorings should also be banned. And if Pro wasn't trying to show that smoking should be completely banned when he said that smoking can lower your IQ, then why mention it at all in the first place? This debate is about if smoking should be banned in all states in the US, so why give an argument if its purpose isn't to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US? Smoking and FiresPro said that these things that can create fires have a few positive impacts on us. But this doesn't matter! What Pro first said in this category is that smoking can create fires. I then responded by saying that this isn't a good argument to completely ban smoking, because then numerous other things which can create fires should be banned as well. It doesn't matter if these things that can create fires have positive impacts on us or not.Smoking and BabiesPro said that women that are not pregnant can get pregnant in the future. Of course, this is true. However, I really don't understand why Pro is pointing out this self-evident fact. Pro also said that people are usually not aware that there are pregnant women near them, so not smoking in the first place is better. This may be true in a place where there is many women. However, what about a place where these is only men? Shouldn't we be allowed to smoke then? This is why this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that people should not be allowed to smoke at any place - be it a place where there is only women or a place where there is only men.Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking doesn't just influence children, but that it can cost numerous other things that is bad too. But so does many other things as well, like for example eating a lot of fatty foods or drinking a lot of Soda.Smoking and DeathPro said that despite the risks of automobiles and surfing, if we are more careful, the risk can be lowered. Of course, the risk to die can be lowered if we are more careful. However, just with smoking, there is always a risk to die in regards to automobiles and surfing. So again, if we are to follow Pro's logic and ban smoking just because it can kill you, then these two things (although it can lower your risk to die if you are careful with these two things) should be banned as well. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if smoking can kill you, as long as it is your own choice in the first place to smoke. It's your life, and the government shouldn't tell you what you can't do with your own private life. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that paper has a much more positive impact on us than smoking. However, I didn't say that paper doesn't have a much more positive impact on us than smoking. I only said that smoking does also have some positive impacts on us. In Pro's third round, Pro said that paper and other things which I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. This is why I pointed out that smoking does in fact also have some positive impacts on us. It seems like Pro agrees with this now.Pro also said that banning smoking can help people who are trying to quit smoking. However, just completely banning smoking is not the only option that we have. For example, using nicotine replacement therapies and other medicines can very much help people who are trying to quit smoking. Moreover, what about people who are not trying to quit smoking? Should smoking be banned for them too?As for my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, this argument goes unrefuted. Pro only said that he know that crime is a side effect, but that the punishment shouldn't be tough, such as fines. This, however, has nothing to do with my argument that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime - let alone refute it.Smoking and EconomyPro said that it is very hard to say whether smoking is good or bad for the economy, because nobody knows exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. Of course, we cannot know exactly how much money non smokers take from the government. However, we can still know that they take more money from the government than smokers. I explained why in my previous round, and Pro didn't give any response to it.The resolution has been negated. Vote Con._______Sources[1] http://www.alternet.org...", "qid": 2, "docid": "bf051ce8-2019-04-18T18:03:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.5901889801025391}, {"content": "Title: should cigarettes be displayed for sale. Content: None of that is a problem if they were banned. Advertising isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Outlawing advertising of cigarettes is downright silly. If they are deadly, and they are, BAN THEM!", "qid": 2, "docid": "79b2937f-2019-04-18T19:47:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.5894738435745239}, {"content": "Title: Cigars and Cigarettes should be banned and stopped being sold in shops. Content: Finding illegal ways of smoking could be OK, as long as it's not in public. Going through all that fuss of getting illegal cigarettes shows that they are willing to put their lives at risk, but I still think that cigarettes should be banned from shops. Even though people can find illegal ways to smoke, it will lower the amount of people who will smoke.", "qid": 2, "docid": "6b4bfaa3-2019-04-18T17:09:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.5893819332122803}, {"content": "Title: GMO's are safe Content: Toxicology reports in many organisms provide evidence that suggests GMO's from multiple manufacturers are safe to consume. The notion that there is simply not enough long term data is false. The very few studies out there that claim GMO's are unsafe are flawed, from choosing mice that die of cancer in normal environments, to lack of validation methods, and of course just bad experimental design. To date not a single person has died as a result of consuming genetically modified food or acquired any disease.", "qid": 2, "docid": "d5da3073-2019-04-18T12:09:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.5893553495407104}, {"content": "Title: banning smoking Content: I am suprised that people only look at the negative sides of smoking has anyone tried looking at this?People often go with the general sentiment on things like these, most of what you hear is hogwash. Cases of cancer are linked with smoking, but it's not proof. Only 1 in 3 of us will get lung cancer. (By \"us\" I also include non smokers). Smokers are a persecuted lot, since this habit has been banned from workplaces, restaurants, buses, subways and planes. You don't think they'd outlaw breathing for christ's sake. Smokers have the only real community that's left in the workplace today. Smokers suffer from less stress, since they actually take a few breaks per day. That bruhaha about second hand smoking is a load of crap. it's just a phrase made up to get normal people who earlier didn't care about it, to go and further persecute the smokers. It's cool to smoke. Ever seen a hacker or a real artist with a health shake? Smokers support the economy by paying all those taxes, which *AHEM* some of us don't. Warning: The Surgeon General fails to warn you that non-smokers die every day Studies have shown that prolonged contact (as in several years) with second hand smoking can cause mild lung problems. Second hand smoke has no immediate harmful effects. Actually, why not just ban non-smokers? :D Too much is made of the 4000 chemicals that make up a cigarette. Several carcinogens found in cigarettes are found in peppers, carrots, strawberries, tomatoes, onions and grapefruit. Believe it or not, nicotine is actually \"a surprisingly potent drug for a variety of diseases that afflict the brain, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Tourette's syndrome.\" (An image makeover for nicotine: It shows promise against brain diseases, HealthCentral.com - Feb. 21, 2000) Smokers have a 60% lower risk of Parkinson's disease Nicotine has a positive effect on ulcerative colitis, which is an inflammation of the stomach lining, and this disorder affects nonsmokers more than smokers. Smokers actually recovered better from a heart attack than nonsmokers Smoking was found to reduce the risk of estrogen-dependent endometrial cancer (dunno what that means, it just sounds really cool) Schizophrenics (4 million Americans) who smoke can get enough nicotine stimulation to switch on a brain receptor that helps filter information. Stanford researchers have discovered that low doses of nicotine - a major component of cigarette smoke - appear to promote new blood vessel growth (in mice). (\"Nicotine to be used to treat heart disease,\" Reuters Health, HealthCentral.com - Sept. 2000) Alcohol is even more harmful than smoking. Yet not much is said against it as compared to smoking. Half a bottle of wine can supply you with 32-40 times the amount of lead a whole pack of smokes can give you. \"Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system but dead smokers save governments money\" sorry I got carried away ? I rest my case :)", "qid": 2, "docid": "99bfea9a-2019-04-18T17:52:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.5892185568809509}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should not be banned. Content: It's true that our arguments should be more about morals and logic than stats and science, at least to a degree. But if the stats, facts and science contradict a person's \"common sense,\" what is more reliable? I would go with the proven stats and science. You say \"There is scientific proof that second hand smoking isn't harmful in anyway, there is also scientific proof that it is harmful. There is no conclusive evidence about any of the effects of smoking.\" Well, then we go with logic--my common sense saying \"smoking hurts you.\" You even said earlier that smokers know what the drug does to you (and you tried to use that in your favor). Because of all these controversies in the stats and so-called facts, do you honestly think it's a good thing for USA to have selling up and down the streets? A ban would make more sense because me and less than half the nation agree that smoking gives no benefits to anything/one. An example for tobacco products (on this same topic) are the people who DON'T know if e-cigarettes are safe or not. I haven't brought that up yet even though the people that use them are considered smokers and it should be part of this topic. Sorry but I have to show more statistics: there are roughly 2 million e-cig users in America, and none of them are sure what the product is doing to them. Why should the government allow companies, who don't tell the public what the health equations for the product is, sell a new type of tobacco/cigs? That was wrong in the first place and something should be done about it. \"Do you know why a pack of smokes costs so much? Because the government taxes them at extortionate rates. This brings me to another con of banning cigarettes, the amount of money the government brings in from them.\" It's a multi million dollar industry, yes, and this is one reason they haven't banned it yet. But marijuana is less harmful and it's still forbidden by law (what the h?). Let's get things straight. It generates taxes from the citizens of America, why would you support that? Besides, addiction to tobacco impacts poverty and development. In poorer countries, up to 30% of income is spent on tobacco, reducing funds available for nutrition, education and health care. [1] If you care about changing the poverty in this world than you should think about supporting a smoking ban. \"Does all smoking lead to cancer? Nope.\" Really? Well it might not lead to cancer but it raises your risk of DEATH and you'll probably die EARLIER. \"Suicide - 'The action of killing oneself intentionally' To be honest I dont only find this false but I also find it offensive to smokers, for someone that wants to help peoples health you sure aren't the nicest treating person calling them murderers etc....Homicide - \"The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another\" Once again this is very insulting towards smokers...You seem to not only not be a fan of people's rights to make decisions for themselves but you are also rude and insulting towards them.\" Do you still not understand what smoking does to your health? 1) I don't see how wanting a ban on smoking is taking away necessary rights, that just doesn't make sense, and 2) sometimes you have to be rude or even offensive in order to tell the flat out truth. It is deliberate when people smoke, but I do admit the people are innocent because addiction is a trap that consumes your life and thoughts quickly. \"So even though I clearly stated at the start of the debate that I undrstand that smoking is a health risk you have chosen to try and humiliate me by finding non-existant flaws in my argument, that's sad.\" You should work on your spelling a lil' bit, just a suggestion. Then you should figure out your position because yes, you did admit how smoking is a health risk, but the whole of your part in Round 3 (and maybe 2) have seemed to be focused on how the side effects on smoking isn't that bad! \"Oh yeah you may remember a time in history when the american government tried to ban something else, alcohol, back in the 20's and early 30's. How did that go? Oh yeah competing gangs started everywhere selling unsafe, untaxed alcohol to people stead of regulated, safe alcohol being sold.\" You're funny. I mean that in the weirdest way possible. First I'd like to mention that even in so-called safe places, alcohol can easily be overused and abused. In fact, because alcohol is only supposed to be sold in regulated facilities and by reliable companies, alcohol is one of the most stolen products in America. [2] This site says that it is estimated in 2020 for smoking to be banned. [http://www.everydayhealth.com...] Then we shall see what happens. It also says the majority of smokers in America want to quit, so when the ban happens they'll be forced to quit. In my opinion a ban would cause a minor revolution. Why? Because many people will either end up in jail, or be free from tobacco because they are forced to quit. What will happen then is a thing I'd like to find out because it would either prove you or me wrong. \"The smoking ban removes freedom of choice.\" In some cases, that's a good thing. I am not exactly democratic or libertarian. Thank you for reading this debate also and I hope you choose logic over lies. SOURCES [1] http://ash.org... [2] http://www.minyanville.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "1dff01c3-2019-04-18T15:47:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.588474690914154}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial Content: I accept. Pro has made a large number of arguments, all of which do not apply. He has incorrectly sources this material. By adding ..] to the end of all of his sources they only take you to the homepage of the website listed. There are no articles, no videos, and no graphs available for view of his arguments. Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.) The only viable point in Round 1 by Pro is his contention: \"My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe.\" This is his argument and burden of proof. This contention deems vaccinations are beneficial and safe. However, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent. [1] [1] http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com...", "qid": 2, "docid": "9ecae4ea-2019-04-18T16:00:57Z-00006-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.5880676507949829}, {"content": "Title: HeLLOOOO???? IT Content: Um... HELLO????? It's called the second amendment!!! The second amendment means you have the right to bear arms, and a cigarette is like a gun.Even though cigs are bad, they are classified as a harmful weapon that can cause serious injury or damage. Also, right now we are both breathing in campfire, barbecues, and even marijuana smoke! I do not see a ban on those items and I do not see a ban on cars? Do you? How about we just ban cars???? Also tabacco is a legal drug and so is marijuana, so you cannot just ban it! Also, I looked up that the smoke from smokers produces 0.00092% of carbon dioxide emissions in the world! I have tons more but I'm about to run out of battery, so my last point is that we are building our own natural disasters, like building power plants! Only two out of the 50000 power plants in the world produce more carbon dioxide than the smoke from smokers does in a year!", "qid": 2, "docid": "cc393e78-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00010-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.5880034565925598}]}
{"query": "Should insider trading be allowed?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Israeli Involvement in 9/11 Content: 1) My opponent claims that Jewish insider trading is a normalcy and happens on a regular basis. This is true, but not in the amount of money we are discussing at this junction. Just before 9/11 there was an \"extraordinary\" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Authorities believed, and some continue to maintain, that trading insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.\u2014Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 \"put\" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options. On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. 2) How can you possibly argue that Mossad agents, (spies) of Israel dancing and cheering at the towers crumbled a coincidence? They were also found to have over 4200 US dollars in cash, and maps of NYC (blue prints) in their van. It is literally impossible for the equivalent of American CIA operatives (Israeli Mossad agents) to be doing this at this exact time and date and it being coincidental. 3) That's exactly my point. This attack is good for Israel because Americans will be in the Middle East fighting \"terror with us\". What is the US doing now? Bombing Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq etc. The average leader would express condolences, but his immediate response is it would be very good for Israel? 4) Your answer to my argument is that it requires further investigation. Because you have the burden of discrediting my points, you have by default conceded my argument in number 4. I will however follow up and say that I urge you to review this youtube video of the foxnews report on Amdocs and espionage in the United States. http://www.youtube.com... 5) How is the FBI finding a massive spy ring of Israeli nationals a coincidence? 6) We cannot let any government explain anything. Too much trust in government violates our personal sovereignty. We must question those that govern us. Buy relying on government to \"educate and take care of us\" we take another step toward tyranny.", "qid": 3, "docid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.72861647605896}, {"content": "Title: Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Content: http://www.youtube.com...Watch my copy of the video instead. It will save you from having to skip ahead a bunch of times.Apologies in advance for the poor quality of my case. I literally prepared it 10 minutes before and this was my first live LD debate. Thanks to my opponent for working everything out. The debate was awesome fun. Looking forward to our future insider trading rematch!", "qid": 3, "docid": "5461331e-2019-04-18T18:07:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7222111225128174}, {"content": "Title: force think tanks to reveal all of their sources of funding Content: Private investors have a right to privacy", "qid": 3, "docid": "d551a373-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7109580636024475}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "601edf69-2019-04-18T19:23:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7075394988059998}, {"content": "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] \u201cThe Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure\u201d, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554", "qid": 3, "docid": "d551a373-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00028-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7042472958564758}, {"content": "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] \u201cThe Political Activity of Think Tanks: The Case for Mandatory Contributor Disclosure\u201d, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 115, No. 5, March 2002, pp. 1502-1524. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342554", "qid": 3, "docid": "d551a373-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00022-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7042472958564758}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "f7ec9d09-2019-04-18T17:11:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7001509070396423}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.6942548155784607}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "8896d9bf-2019-04-18T16:26:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.6910485625267029}, {"content": "Title: Ban Trade With China Content: This is a debate of whether or not trade with China should be banned. The parameters are to be set for trading with the US and trading is limited in definition to being only for tangible elements or items not including intellectual items. This was a class debate. I won, but my friend (who was my opponent) wants me to debate on DDO to be his \"rematch. \"", "qid": 3, "docid": "d5890587-2019-04-18T18:15:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.6908835172653198}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "8d63ccbc-2019-04-19T12:45:45Z-00020-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.6880505084991455}, {"content": "Title: Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil Content: i belive that monoplies should be allowed because normally they were smarter and deserve to own a monoply. Componies like Standard oil should not have been split up. It is wrong", "qid": 3, "docid": "516d30ec-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.6841127872467041}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "719c5af4-2019-04-18T17:54:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.6827400922775269}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.6816834807395935}, {"content": "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 \u2013 their very existence depends on the protection of a G7 member.", "qid": 3, "docid": "9f823ae-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00020-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.6815463900566101}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.681092381477356}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "8d63ccbc-2019-04-19T12:45:45Z-00012-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.6790317296981812}, {"content": "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...", "qid": 3, "docid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.6765241622924805}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "c6cde3cf-2019-04-18T13:19:48Z-00006-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.6753290891647339}, {"content": "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!!", "qid": 3, "docid": "c51e1d6e-2019-04-18T16:11:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.6729583740234375}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "e6e79224-2019-04-19T12:44:50Z-00020-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.6729228496551514}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "f49b16a2-2019-04-18T18:51:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.6727639436721802}, {"content": "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!", "qid": 3, "docid": "c8b9054d-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.6726983785629272}, {"content": "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., \u2018Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism\u2019, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate...", "qid": 3, "docid": "1bccd7fd-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00017-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.671563446521759}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "18337a84-2019-04-18T18:48:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.6687762141227722}, {"content": "Title: A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy Content: The topic is: A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy. I started this same debate, but my opponent forfeited. I've literally cut and paste from my other debate. First round includes substantive arguments. In order to win this debate, I must show at least one example of a government intervention into the free market that, if removed, would harm the economy. I will present three such examples: patents, insider trading, and market externalities, 1. Patents Currently, the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to issue patents and copyrights for a limited duration. This is an intervention into the free market, because it prevents competitors of the patent holder from engaging in a competing enterprise. However, in the absence of such grants, the economy would be harmed because there would be less of an incentive for companies to develop new pharmaceuticals. Although invention occurred before the issuance of patents and copyrights, much of the innovation of the 20th century, particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, occurred because patents permitted the holder to guarantee a period of economy prosperity, which in turn justified the development of new products. In the absence of patents, there would be a substantially reduced incentive to develop new drugs, which would harm the economy. 2. Insider Trading Federal laws prohibit the use of \"insider information\" to make decisions about buying and selling shares on a market exchange. Although the set of rules surrounding insider trading is beyond the scope of this debate, it generally prohibits people who have non-public information from using that information to buy and sell stock (usually of a company that they work for or are affiliated with). This is an intervention into the free market, because a totally free market would permit people to buy and sell stock using whatever information they have available. However, if insider trading was permitted, many investors would not have sufficient confidence in the stock market to invest their funds. Investing money into the stock market is always considered a risky venture because most companies have the potential to go bankrupt. However, most investors rely on publically available information to make their investment decisions, and feel confident that the market price accurately reflects all available information. If \"insiders\" such as corporate executives have access to secret information, such as the fact that a new product is likely to fail, or the company is about to be purchased by a competitor, they can use that information to make a large profit. The result is that \"outsiders\" stand to lose significant money in their investments. If this occurs often enough, investors will begin to lose trust in the system, and may choose not to invest their money in the stock market entirely. The stock market is the primary method of raising capital for corporations, and a lack of capital would hamper productivity, which harms the economy. 3. Market Externalities A market externality is a cost placed on someone other than the person who receives the benefit. For example, a company which dumps toxic waste into a river gets a benefit (a cheap place to dispose of waste), which people downstream on the river get a cost (it damages their land). Currently, the federal government regulates interstate waterways to prevent the dumping of toxic waste. This is an intervention into the free market, because a truly free market would not prohibit a party from maximizing its profits. However, if market externalities are not regulated by the government, the country will actually lose productivity. In a scenario where there are no controls on pollution, companies have an incentive to destroy common lands, such as rivers, public fields, and the atmosphere by disposing of their waste products. This is efficient for a company, because they don't bear the full cost of the waste disposal, yet receive all of the benefit. However, this leads them to pollute more than if they did have to pay the full costs. The result is that there is more pollution than optimal. If this reaches extreme levels, short sighted companies could permanently damage waterways and the atmosphere, which would significantly harm the economy. Conclusion Although most people would agree that there should be some government interventions into the free market, others take an absolutist view that there should be no such interventions. I believe I have demonstrated three reasons why, at the very least, there should be some interference with the free market.", "qid": 3, "docid": "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6683829426765442}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6682240962982178}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "73e98031-2019-04-18T18:31:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6680079698562622}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "aaef51b4-2019-04-18T15:11:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6679088473320007}, {"content": "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] Avenda\u00f1o, Rolando, and Santiso, Javier, \u2018Are Sovereign Wealth Funds\u2019 Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds\u2019, 2009, p.9. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/0/44301172.pdf [2] Ibid", "qid": 3, "docid": "1bccd7fd-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00013-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6675199270248413}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "dcc2b2c3-2019-04-18T17:41:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6674492359161377}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6674047708511353}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "b2b9aed3-2019-04-18T11:19:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6665993928909302}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "18cf6a31-2019-04-18T19:41:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6654754877090454}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "719c5af4-2019-04-18T17:54:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6651866436004639}, {"content": "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 \u201cFire!\u201d 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\u2019s 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "80b17c10-2019-04-15T20:24:13Z-00012-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6641988754272461}, {"content": "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........", "qid": 3, "docid": "ab331ce-2019-04-18T18:06:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6638253331184387}, {"content": "Title: Girls should not be allowed to wear mini skirts in work related environments. Content: My point of view in this debate is completely about ethics. It is not about freedom of expression, nor is it about the rights of the employer. The purpose of this debate is to talk about ethics, and that is all I'm here to talk about. Contention 1: Foreign Business International trade is a risky business, simply because of vast cultural gaps even between countries that are similar. For example, in England, it is rude to maintain prolonged eye contact because it is seen as aggressive. In Japan, wearing white is taboo, for it is the color of death. In France, liberal dress is considered to be rude. When looking for trade partners, foreign businesses try to learn as much about a business as possible. This includes standards of procedure, rules of conduct, and dress code. The employees are a business, and the way they act and dress are all major indicators of what a business is like. When women are allowed to wear miniskirts, which are quite liberal pieces of clothing, foreign businesses see that and are turned off, because they feel unwelcomed and humiliated. It is unethical for a businesses that trade internationally, or are planning to trade internationally, to allow employees to wear liberal dress of all kinds. Contention 2: Consumers & other employees There are some consumers who do not mind liberal dress. There are other consumers, like me, who do not patronize certain businesses simply because of their employees dress code. Nor would I invest in a company that does not have a strict dress code. That would not be a problem if not for the 80% of women who believe that miniskirts do not belong in the workplace, and 61% of men who share that opinion (Reuters 2011). That's a huge percentage of people who feel uncomfortable being around women in miniskirts. This applies to both consumers and the miniskirt wearing women's fellow employees. Is it ethical for a business to make their customers and employees uncomfortable? Absolutely not. Contention 3: Investors Professional investors prefer to invest in businesses that appeal to as many customers as possible, maximizing their ability to make a profit. As I've shown earlier, foreign countries don't like to trade with companies that have lax dress codes, and consumers don't like them, and employees don't like them. If nobody likes them but the people wearing them, where will a company go? Down the drain. Investors don't like companies that are doomed for destruction. End of story. Contention 4: no advantage There are really no advantages to wearing miniskirts except to the people wearing them. And the people who like miniskirts can wear them when they return home, still gaining their advantages. To finish, miniskirts are bad for business. They turn off foreign business, they turn off consumers, they turn off employees, and they turn off investors. The only advantages of miniskirts are reaped by the wearers. So, you ladies who wear miniskirts can wear them to anywhere you want, save your workplace, because, really, they're bad for your job.", "qid": 3, "docid": "19fb9788-2019-04-18T16:24:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.663404107093811}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "4852b088-2019-04-18T15:44:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6623609662055969}, {"content": "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 \u2013 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "8d63ccbc-2019-04-19T12:45:45Z-00021-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6621870994567871}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "1e11750b-2019-04-18T18:28:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6613197326660156}, {"content": "Title: Governments should do more to prevent the mega-rich from exploiting tax loopholes. Content: You analogy is flawed. The difference in your \u2018restaurant 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 \u2018loophole' 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 \u2018almost broken.'", "qid": 3, "docid": "dee3c256-2019-04-18T19:38:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6611136198043823}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6610057353973389}, {"content": "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] \u2013 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., \u2018Sovereign Wealth Funds and Corporate Governance: A Minimal Solution to the New Mercantilism\u2019, 2009. http://legalworkshop.org/2009/07/19/sovereign-wealth-funds-and-corporate... [2] Garten, Jeffrey, \u2018We need rules for sovereign funds, 2007, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5e0808-454a-11dc-82f5-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz...", "qid": 3, "docid": "1bccd7fd-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00018-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6607406735420227}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "d7639a3f-2019-04-19T12:47:41Z-00009-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.660055935382843}, {"content": "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!", "qid": 3, "docid": "8397905b-2019-04-18T18:15:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6585453748703003}, {"content": "Title: Pensions should be privatised Content: Private Accounts Would Primarily Benefit Wall Street", "qid": 3, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6584402918815613}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "28814335-2019-04-18T17:53:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6582186222076416}, {"content": "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= \u00a31.00I would like to have my own debate on this subject. I would be con ( against selling ).", "qid": 3, "docid": "16ade04-2019-04-18T16:24:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6580533981323242}, {"content": "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?", "qid": 3, "docid": "4f5bb166-2019-04-18T16:02:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6568523645401001}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "6f7be0d8-2019-04-19T12:45:27Z-00008-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6568093299865723}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "4d8e22e3-2019-04-18T15:48:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.656663179397583}, {"content": "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\u2019re 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\u2019d say yes.\"", "qid": 3, "docid": "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00079-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6566098928451538}, {"content": "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!", "qid": 3, "docid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6565505266189575}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "4d8e22e3-2019-04-18T15:48:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6560559272766113}, {"content": "Title: Did George W. Bush Play A Role in 9/11 Content: Suspected insider trading Some conspiracy theorists maintain that Just before 9/11 an \"extraordinary\" amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks and speculate that insiders may have known in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that: A measure of abnormal long put volume was also examined and seen to be at abnormally high levels in the days leading up to the attacks. Consequently, the paper concludes that there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks. \"Allen M. Poteshman, The Journal of Business On the days leading up to 9/11, two airlines saw a rise in their put to call ratio. These two airlines were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines whose planes were hijacked on 9/11. Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 \"put\" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options.[citation needed] On September 10, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. No other airline companies saw anomalies in their put to call ratio in the days leading up to the attacks. American Airlines however, had just released a major warning about possible losses. Insurance companies saw anomalous trading activities as well. Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers Insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09. Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors at the World Trade Center, experienced bigger-than-normal pre-attack trading of options that profit when stock prices fall. Other companies that were directly affected by the tragedy had similar jumps. Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options trading on September 10. A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day.[citation needed] The initial options were bought through at least two brokerage firms, including NFS, a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments, and TD Waterhouse. It was estimated that the trader or traders would have realized a five million dollar profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm. The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that \"Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.\"[69] The report further stated: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options \" investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price \" surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 \" highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Air defense stand down theory A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur.[66] Conspiracy theorist Mark R. Elsis says: \"There is only one explanation for this ... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11.\" One of the first actions taken by the hijackers on 9/11 was to turn off or disable each of the four aircraft's on board transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplane's tail number, altitude, and speed, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD\"s radar screens, making them very difficult to track. On 9/11, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the U.S. since 1979.[74] \"They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,\" says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Only one civilian plane\"a chartered Learjet 35 with golfer Payne Stewart and five others on board\"was intercepted by NORAD over North America in the decade prior to 9/11, which took one hour and 19 minutes. Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). \"Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ,\" says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[2] The longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was some eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing \" not hijacked \" Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. Israeli agents See also: September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories: Israel It has been claimed that Israeli agents may have had foreknowledge of the attacks. Four hours after the attack, the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of a white van in the parking lot of an apartment building, for \"puzzling behavior\". The Israelis were videotaping the events, and one bystander said they acted in a suspicious manner: \"They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange.\" While The Forward, a New York Jewish news magazine, reported that the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives, a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in the United States said that they had not been involved in any intelligence operation in the United States. The FBI eventually concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.", "qid": 3, "docid": "920c32e3-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.655773937702179}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6554861068725586}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "cbee8f7a-2019-04-18T18:58:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6550294160842896}, {"content": "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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u2018The Biggest Scam in the History\u2019, 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\u2019s 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\u2019s analogies do not correspondent with the situation of taxation \u2014 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 \u00eds 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 \u2014 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...", "qid": 3, "docid": "fe0a9dfd-2019-04-18T16:39:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6549043655395508}, {"content": "Title: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. Content: \"LETTER: We should privatize Social Security.\" Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: \"Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in.\"", "qid": 3, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00053-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6548851728439331}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "477f61a3-2019-04-18T12:42:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6544819474220276}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "adb117f7-2019-04-19T12:44:05Z-00011-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6541988253593445}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "b91de616-2019-04-18T15:01:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6539266109466553}, {"content": "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]", "qid": 3, "docid": "27d290e5-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00075-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6537765860557556}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Blackmail Should Be Legalized Content: Opponent\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cexchange\u201d 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 \u201coriginal right\u201d 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 \u201ctrades\u201d 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 \u201cI would not want to be coerced, so I should not promote coercion.\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "a1df2c30-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6537009477615356}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00032-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6535964012145996}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6535544395446777}, {"content": "Title: It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours\u2019, employers\u2019, former-partners\u2019 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 \u201cWhy?\u201d 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "fd5af3c0-2019-04-15T20:23:04Z-00019-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6532856822013855}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "adb117f7-2019-04-19T12:44:05Z-00010-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6532827615737915}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "f0c766c4-2019-04-18T19:41:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6531864404678345}, {"content": "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\u2026 [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 \u2026 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 \u2013 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6528411507606506}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "719c5af4-2019-04-18T17:54:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.652195394039154}, {"content": "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...", "qid": 3, "docid": "f17b44bd-2019-04-18T19:09:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6520862579345703}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "442da727-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00014-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6520060300827026}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "d381e8f3-2019-04-18T12:40:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6516700983047485}, {"content": "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...\u2014Thanks 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!", "qid": 3, "docid": "aaef51b4-2019-04-18T15:11:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6515207290649414}, {"content": "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 naivet\u00e9 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "9d79629d-2019-04-18T14:26:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6508452892303467}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "43cd531f-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00006-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6508278846740723}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "94920586-2019-04-18T13:00:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6507668495178223}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00083-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6504974365234375}, {"content": "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\u2019s begin with a brief resolutional analysis. RA 1: Determining value.The resolution states \u201cprivacy is undervalued.\u201d 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\u2019s examine pro\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s three contentions was governments\u2019 violations of people\u2019s 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 \u201cconcord, harmony, or agreement.\u201d My criterion, or the way in which we will achieve my value is communication, which is defined as, \u201cThe art of expressing ideas.\u201d 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, \u201cToday\u2019s 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.\u201d I believe that this lack of communication and subsequent disunity is the result of an overvaluing of privacy. The movement commonly called \u201cprivacy of the child\u201d has so effected families that they consider it a protection of each individual\u2019s 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\u2019s Dictionary as, \u201cthe discretionary right claimed by certain U.S. presidents to withhold information from Congress or the judiciary.\u201d 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\u2019s 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, \u201cATF officials remained unresponsive to queries from Mexico.\u201d 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 attach\u00e9 to Mexico, lamented, \u201cwhy 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?\u201dI 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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "abe4beb0-2019-04-18T17:32:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6503943204879761}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "43cebe21-2019-04-15T20:24:20Z-00016-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6503865718841553}, {"content": "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, \u2018House bans earmarks to for-profit companies\u2019, 2010", "qid": 3, "docid": "69ce96ae-2019-04-15T20:22:21Z-00028-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.650344967842102}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "c8e1e7d-2019-04-18T17:09:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6499791741371155}, {"content": "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", "qid": 3, "docid": "960d2978-2019-04-18T18:06:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6499183177947998}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "af42087e-2019-04-18T19:48:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6499089598655701}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "5bb62445-2019-04-18T14:40:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6496105194091797}, {"content": "Title: creation of stocks should be banned Content: 1the whole reason we have laws and regulations in a society is to prevent \"the few\" from harming the rest. also, even if everyone involved in stocks was responsible and honest (HAHA!), stocks would still pose a major threat to our economy. in fact, i think it is inevitable that it will cause major harm to our economy sooner or later. our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone.2they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually.3 -banning the creation of stocks wouldnt take away stocks people already have, or prevent them from trading old stocks (there are 8,696 of them). and like i said, they can invest their money elsewhere. -plenty of people lose tons of money in the stock market. and any stock trade will end up with someone getting the better end of the deal.-as for people who make a living off of stocks, so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job, maybe they can actually contribute to society, rather than just their own pockets, at the expense of others.-if you were really concerned about unemployment and the stability of our economy, then you should be against stocks, because they are unstable. it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression.4that's just another way that the rich have rigged the system so that they get richer, while the little guys and small businesses need to swim upstream. if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations, which would really be better for everyone anyway.", "qid": 3, "docid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6496033668518066}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "d179442a-2019-04-18T19:17:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6494836211204529}, {"content": "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...", "qid": 3, "docid": "4f5bb166-2019-04-18T16:02:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.649278461933136}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "372d26a3-2019-04-18T19:58:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6491378545761108}, {"content": "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?", "qid": 3, "docid": "fe6a066-2019-04-18T19:41:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6490789651870728}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "aaef51b4-2019-04-18T15:11:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6488816142082214}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6482973098754883}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "f18350a7-2019-04-18T11:11:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6482199430465698}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00014-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6480780839920044}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 3, "docid": "f82fe990-2019-04-18T18:57:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6480368375778198}, {"content": "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!", "qid": 3, "docid": "b1967727-2019-04-18T16:06:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6479129791259766}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Content: Thank you Con for your swift response. This debate has been about whether \"The United States should allow imports of goods and capital from any society outside of the United States allowing that the domestic laws of the U.S. (such as regulations, finance laws etc.) are followed. Essentially, anyone may sell goods to the U.S. and invest in firms, land, capital goods so long as they abide by the laws that all U.S. investors and U.S. firms have to abide by with goods sold in the U.S. and investments in U.S. firms, land, and capital goods.\" I have argued in the affirmative, and Con had contended. Our disagreements have been on two points; the semantics of the resolution, and the economics of freer trade. In his opening round, Con argued that some things should not be imported because of the harm they could do. I pointed out that much of his list is negated by the full resolution (which frankly would not fit in a nice headline). Con rebutted that drugs and exotic animals still follow the domestic law of some states, and also attempted to bring in an argument that past laws (such as laws protecting slavery) could be allowed under the wording of my resolution. I argued that while yes, states do have differing laws, both the laws of the states and the laws of the federal government of the U.S. are in effect in the U.S., and so Colorado would likely not have legal importation of marijuana while the federal government maintains that it should be illegal. On the argument of using past law, I have argued that this is an absurd legal theory; our current law supersedes the past law, and future law will supersede current law and make past laws null and void. Punishment for breaking new laws in the past may be protected by ex post facto, but one cannot sell things that are illegal today. Con has simply responded with an assertion to this point. At this point, it is up to the voting audience on whether firms can sell things based on past law. On the second point, economics, I have argued that imports help to free up land, labor, and capital at home for more productive means. I have also argued that the \"balance of trade\" is only really a problem when factoring in debt the U.S. federal government sells to foreigners by means of Federal Reserve monetizing the debt. Con has responded by pointing out the labor \"freed\" from unproductive sources, and call it a detriment when 700,000 jobs are lost to free trade. I point out that this is the freeing of labor for more productive uses, and that welfare and inflation hamper us in this competitive sense, but also point out that the problems inflation and welfare create are still present without imports and that the imports increase our wealth even as the Federal Government artificially increases the costs to the consumer. Con has since rebutted that free trade is the main cause of the problem and that central banking and welfare may merely exacerbate the problem. Con then goes on to say that central bank inflation helps to increase wages and that reduced poverty is linked to both the same time period as welfare reforms and freer trade. I hold that he makes my point for me; inflation artificially increases the costs of both the final good and labor, granting the foreign competition an advantage, and that freer trade has reduced the price of goods and thus increased the standard of living by allowing poorer people to purchase more with less labor. Where the central banks inflation hampers the U.S. competitively and increases the prices of goods and labor, at best not doing anything to affect prices within the domestic sphere at all on balance, freer trade helps to increase the standard of living where government laws and practices reduce the average person\"s wealth. Where welfare creates artificially higher prices and wages, and creates a gap between incomes that apply for welfare and incomes that provide more than welfare benefits plus wages, free trade actually boosts the effectiveness of welfare while reducing this gap. Further, to say reduced poverty is linked to the welfare reforms from the same period as increased trade creates a dilemma; which reduced poverty, the freer trade or welfare reform that still artificially increases prices and has a gap? I hold that the freer trade has reduced poverty by increasing real wealth, just as argued in PR2. Con has argued that poorer countries may not export capital; that still does not account for lower prices in what they do sell improving real wealth. Con created a straw-man in saying that I am against free trade hurting the economy because inflation increases imports. By this very straw-man, Con has created a dilemma for the position he has held for 2 rounds; if all free trade is bad, then why have any at all? The answer must lie in what Con does not contend. On the note of free trade incentivizing peace, Con has remained silent. On the point that while federal programs have hurt 700,000 jobs and, for sake of argument, 2.8 million U.S. citizens, Con has had much to say. About the 297.2 million citizens that benefit, over ten times the number of people negatively affected by free trade, Con has remained more quiet. While I have hopefully argued well that the 700,000 jobs are more the fault of government policy rather than freer trade, isn\"t a policy that helps 297 million and increases peace while helping to reduce the welfare gap and effects of inflation that most affects those 3 million negatively better than one that does not increase peace and hampers 300 million with at best a static market? I argue that it is, and that the resolution should therefore be affirmed. Thank you Con for this debate, and thank you to anyone who has read this full debate. Please vote for the better competitor, and provide RFD for any vote you cast.", "qid": 3, "docid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6478778123855591}, {"content": "Title: Free trade undermines democratic processes Content: Free trade agreements allow for foreign investing corporations to bypass domestic judicial system. The government in this way gives up its right to regulate foreign investment and citizens cannot be protected against corporation abuses.", "qid": 3, "docid": "3d9e8a34-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00133-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6475675106048584}]}
{"query": "Should corporal punishment be used in schools?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: Accepted.Corporal punishment should be used in schools.Corporal punishment is defined as:\"Physical punishment\" http://www.google.ca...;", "qid": 4, "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9271941781044006}, {"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: Before I start this debate, I want to define the topic. First of all corporal. Punishment and schools a place where children get their education. So if you define the topic, it'll come out like this. Should places where they give children education use punishments. I think that we should use this corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been use for a long time and nothing bad happened.", "qid": 4, "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8982216119766235}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Seeing as my opponent has forfeited. , failed to follow he rules of the debate, and has not defended his case. I will urge a con ballot. I have followed the rules of the debate, I have argued every round, I have defended my own case, and I have attacked my opponents case, I believe that corporal punishment should not be implemented in schools.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8787257671356201}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: round 2 speaker 1 (me): present argument/case round 2 speaker 2 (you): present argument/case NO REBUTTING IN THIS ROUND YOU MAY NOT ATTACK MY CASE IN ANY WAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT YOUR CASE. round 3 speaker 1: attack your case round 3 speaker 2: attack only case not my rebuttal. round 4 speaker 1: attack/defend rebuttal round 4 speaker 2: attack/defend rebuttal round 5 speaker 1 : conclusion round 5 speaker 2: conclusion I do not believe corporal punishment should be implemented in schools. Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00009-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8596775531768799}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Thank you for the debate. I will offer an opinion on corporal punishment in school which supports its us", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00008-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.849595308303833}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools and why it is incorrect, rather than at home. How can children know the difference between right and wrong, and how can teacher ensure and establish order in class as well as an appropiate environment for learning. My opponent will start this debate with his arguments. Than you for accepting this debate and Happy Holidays!!", "qid": 4, "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.838516116142273}, {"content": "Title: should schools use corporal punishment Content: I will begin my side by saying corporal punishment is highly unnecessary, and doesn't do anything besides implant more negative behavior. Also since you didn't specify what type of education, I must assume all grade levels(excluding college), and thus we will debate on that. First off, corporal punishment is a unnecessary act, and the schools have no right to hit a kid without consent of parents. Also since you never specified whether school had the parent consent. You have so many more punishments such as : Detention, sat. detention, in school suspension, suspension, and expulsion. I don't see why you need to enter the fist of \"justice\" into the picture. Secondly, striking the child isn't going to solve anything, all it is going to do is embarrass the child, and cause possible physcological problems. Also if the child is in high school and gets hit, then he or she may strike back. Also the allowing of corporal punishment in school leads to child abuse. What stops a teacher for beating the kid, or a student beating a teacher back in self defense. Thirdly, violence does not belong in the classroom. It does not help the education, and in fact probably harms it. The child will be more afraid of the teacher, they won't pay attention to the lesson plan. Also most associations are against corporal punishment, the one that caught my eye was The American School Counsellor Association. Hmmm, counsellors against the beating of children, didn't see that coming. If the people who are suppose to watch and help guide our children oppose why should it be used?", "qid": 4, "docid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8384655117988586}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: I am going to go pro on this on, but not all the way. Let me explain, I believe that some slight forms of corporal punishment should be allowed, but not to the extent that you are talking about in your argument. In schools, children do not learn as much when they are being disrupted by other classmates. If a classmate is being a distraction, the others don't learn. If there are some very mild forms of punishment like a slap on the rust with a ruler or some other form of mild physical punishment, the student will be more likely to stop and quit being a distraction at other times. If physical punishment is only used as a last resort, being punished will become a thing that students (especially young students) not want. If a student knows they will only be lectured, they will be less likely to stop behaving that way than if they were lectured and mildly punished physically. When a student wants attention, sometimes they act out to get it. If they gen punished corporeally they wont resort to acting out in school to get the attention that they yearn. Also if it is used less often, and more conservatively, the student will not be psychologically harmed in the process.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8377610445022583}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment can make a valuable example of a student", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8363189697265625}, {"content": "Title: If teachers and parents weren\u2019t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. Content: The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers \u2013 but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8344970941543579}, {"content": "Title: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools Content: Hello all. This debate is on whether or not corporal punishment should be reintroduced into the education system, to be used by teachers and school administrators. I will be arguing in the negative, and my opponent will argue as a proponent of the reintroduction of corporal punishment into the school system.Definitionscorporal punishment: a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish a person convicted of a crime or as retribution for a perceived offence, including physical chastisement such as spanking, paddling or caning of minors by parents, guardians, or school or other officials.school: an institution for educating children. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that this policy will apply to all of these institutions, not just ones under the jurisdiction of the state.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All Main Arguments and ContentionsR3: RebuttalR4: Response and Summary of Previous Rounds/ConclusionPlease note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 8,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round.-----------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.", "qid": 4, "docid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8344818353652954}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment is a good tool for disciplining unruly children", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00040-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8322391510009766}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: It should be aloud in school so children will have better discipline and pay attention more. Studies show that since corporal punishment was banned discipline in children has gone dramatically down.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.830305814743042}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: \"Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not.\" There are exceptions sure but exceptions don't count. \" Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively.\" This is a common or in other words a commonly heard case when children are abused. There is no evidence of this in schools when corporal punishment is applied nor in average families, instead this practice is held due to its quick and effective nature. \"Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong.\" Same objection as above. \" Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay.\" As I have pointed out, under the spoiled section theres a link where we read that society is becoming more and more violent. Extra Arguments: 1.\" Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously\" Both statements are unheard of when corporal punishment is moderated. 2. \"They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions.\" Elaborate. 3. \"Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.\" I proposed controlled corporal punishment and not battering.", "qid": 4, "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8297605514526367}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: School and home corporal punishment(example spanking) on children should be banned. I will let my opponent present his/her arguments first or to simply accept and then me present my arguments.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8281011581420898}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: http://abcnews.go.com... This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good luck.", "qid": 4, "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8243821859359741}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: Sorry for forfeiting but I was stuck without Internet for about one week because there were some malfunctions without the connection. Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not. Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively. Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong. Pro also states that undisciplined kids may Become tyrants. Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously. 2. They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions. 3. Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.", "qid": 4, "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8235369920730591}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment helps protect teachers and adults", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8227212429046631}, {"content": "Title: it works! Content: Corporal punishment is the most effective way of maintaining school discipline and dealing with juvenile crime. I went to an inner city co-educational primary school in an industrial area during the late 1950s/early 1960s. Academic standards were high. Between 30% and 35% of its pupils passed the 11+ and went to grammar school. Discipline was strict. The headmistress caned or slippered boys and girls on the bottom. Corporal punishment was used for minor infringements of rules, for deliberate defiance and to prevent prosecution for criminal offences. It was more of a deterrent for girls than it was for boys who were always challenging authority and getting into mischief. I and three other boys received \u201csix of the best\u201d for disrupting lessons and refusing to do homework. Not wanting to be caned again, we settled down, worked hard and passed the 11+. The school's major disciplinary problems were caused by ten and eleven year old C stream pupils who lived on a new council housing estate At the beginning of the autumn term, the boys organised playground protection rackets. Some carried flick knives or knuckledusters given to them by elder brothers who had been in prison or borstal. One teacher was attacked with a broken bottle. Although uninjured, he had a nervous breakdown and was away from school for two terms. Girls had jam and marmalade rubbed into their hair. Both boys and girls had their clothes slashed with flick knives. Classrooms were vandalised and on two occasions boys were caught setting fire to coats in the cloakroom. At the time children as young as seven could be prosecuted and sent to approved school. The head was put under great pressure by the staff and the local authority to involve the police in these incidents but she always refused. Unlike many head teachers, she accepted responsibility for her pupils\u2019 behaviour out of school hours. Most weekends she was called to the police station to deal with girls caught shoplifting and boys arrested for assault or vandalism. Often the only way she could persuade the victim to withdraw the charges was to agree to cane the delinquents and the punishments were carried out at school with parental consent. Using corporal punishment efficiently and effectively, she kept the members of the school\u2019s criminal fraternity out of the justice system giving them a chance to escape from their back grounds and make something of their lives. One boy who was caned for vandalism obtained a degree in engineering. Another who had been whacked for rubbing marmalade into a girl\u2019s hair went to university and graduated with a degree in economics. Because Dr. Phil is such an expert I guess his expertise is wiser than our ancestors and our elders who have effectively used corporal punishment to discipline their children- our parents and grandparents even. If we were to listen to them they would tell us that corporal punishment is not for everybody because some children can be settled with a reprimand and disapproving look. That being said, they would still rely on the expediency of the cane because all some of these bad kids need is a good spanking.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00042-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8203929662704468}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punsihment for children Content: O Observations My opponents title: 1.\"Corporal punsihment for children\" Has the word punishment misspelled. 2.We will be focusing on corporal punishment in schools \"This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools\". I am free to assume that there's no corporal punishment outside of school and vice versa. 3.I can begin in round one \"My opponent will start this debate with his arguments\" O Burden of Proof Is equal. O Definitions Corporal Punishment: \"physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority.\" Dictionary.com Child: \"a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.\" Dictionary.com O Notes Interestingly my opponent said \"Corporal punsihment for children\". That's right we're talking about punishment for children and not against them. One must realize that corporal punishment and child abuse are two different things .One acts as an attention getter in a controlled atmosphere, while the other is used intentionally to harm the child in a physical manner. My opponent may not under any circumstances say what kind of corporal punishment I support. In this debate you have mentioned no specifics hence I get to add my own details. O Arguments 1. Quick and Effective Corporal punishment is quick and effective. I don't think that this can be argued. 2. Being Spoiled Undisciplined children are in danger of becoming tyrants. Todays society is a good example: http://www.leaderu.com... 3. Parents We can argue until the bears take over this site but ultimately its our parents choice: \" Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an \"opt-out\" system. In others an \"opt-in\" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you", "qid": 4, "docid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8188473582267761}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: Pro begins his argument by listing the supposed \"pros\" of corporal punishment. 1) Yes it can be argued that corporal punishment teaches kids discipline but I think that the reasons why it teaches discipline is appalling. Corporal punishment teaches kids to be disciplined out of nothing else but fear. There is no real or valid motive for a child to be disciplined as a result of corporal punishment apart from fear of physical pain. This is in effect isn't teaching children genuine discipline or the importance of discipline. Here are some other proven to work alternatives of disciplining students other than physical abuse (. http://www.webmd.com...). Why would corporal punishment need to be enforced as a means of discipline when there are plenty of other means. Not to mention the sheer problems associated with corporal punishment mentioned in my round 2 arguments. 2) You have no sources to back up the claim that corporal punishment actually deters bad behaviour. This article argues that corporal punishment doesn't deter bad behavior. (. http://getreadyforcollege.wordpress.com...) several case studies show that by repeated physical tortures children usually become even more adamant and might also start hating their elders as they do not understand the reason that why doing certain things are intolerable. On the other hand, disciplining without hitting would mean to first make the child understand that why certain behavior is acceptable and some are not. Teach the child some basic rules of the society and why are they to be followed. It has often been found that by giving logical reasoning to your child's answers, they can be stop many wrong deeds. This is also educating the child about conduct instead of making the child fear constantly. Here is a case study on both the negative physical and mental effects of corporal punishment:(. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...) 3) I'm not sure how \"no suspensions\" is such a pro of corporal punishment. Firstly students can still get suspended if corporal punishment exists in their school but surely suspension is more beneficial to a child than corporal punishment. Suspension 1)Removes a problematic student from school. 2)Provides temporary relief to frustrated school personnel. 3)Raises parental attention to their child's misconduct. It does all these things without the physical and physocological effects of corporal punishment. 4) Also I don't see how corporal punishment limits the amount of educational disruptions. Taking the time to give out corporal punishment in whatever form is much more of a disruption than telling a student to be quiet for example. Again there are many other effective means of punishment other than having to resort to physical violence, which as I have shown, has a great amount of disadvantages. Pro tries to argue that there are restrictions to corporal punishment e. g male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, however I do not see this as a valid argument. There may be restrictions to corporal punishment but this isn't really making a case on your stance that it should be enforced in school. I would like to state that The United States is the only nation in the western world which still permits corporal punishment in its schools. And even having said that, corporal punishment is banned in schools in 31 states. Statistics show that corporal punishment is on a decline. (. http://www.corpun.com...) This is another point for my case. There is obviously a reason for this decline. People are coming to their senses are realizing that the disadvantages of corporal punish enormously outweigh whatever advantages there might be, which I feel I have shown I look forward to the final round.", "qid": 4, "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8187244534492493}, {"content": "Title: Many students who misbehave in school come from unstable families Content: Teachers can be trusted to use corporal punishment as an option. They will think about what to do on a case-by-case basis and try to understand why a child is behaving a certain way. Then, if they think it is appropriate and it would help, they may choose to physically punish the student. Sometimes students who misbehave come from families who are too soft on them and do not discipline them enough, so their teachers need to take the task of setting boundaries. For this type of students, corporal punishment may be very helpful.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00072-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8172743320465088}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment should be limited, but not abandoned", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8172707557678223}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: No becuase it's just another form of bullying and bullying is wrong so if Corporal Punishment is used it makes things worse for a bullied child", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8166268467903137}, {"content": "Title: corporal punishment Content: Should corporal punishment be be banned or kept in schools, daycares, etc? I am a student and I think that with the way children/teens act in today's society they need to be disciplined in some way shape or form. Give me your opinions, should we bring it back or not? If we have more punishment in schools and daycares just think how much more respect kids would give their parents. I think it should be brought back, and kept .", "qid": 4, "docid": "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8163174986839294}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools Content: Before I start, let me just say this much: I'm against corporal punishment, this is just for fun since we just did this debate at school. Corporal punishment is when a teacher punishes a student physically for a mistake, and it needs to be brought back to schools. It is true that it has been misused in the past, but with new rules, corporal punishment would be a new and healthy part of a student's life. In this case, the ruler shall not be used, or any other tool used to strike the student, including the hand of a teacher. Instead, the punishment will be carried out in the form of running. Depending on the severity of the student's mistake and his/her physical status, the student will be required to run a certain distance. By doing this, it will not only ensure the student will not be abused by a teacher, and it is also good physical excersize. According to http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au..., running will help build strong bones, strengthen muscles, improve cardiovascular fitness. burn plenty of kilojoules. and help maintain a healthy weight. This way, not only is the student punished, it also helps maintain a student's good health. This form of punishment will also avoid missing classtime, which is a problem caused by detention or suspension. The running will be done before or after school, therefore no classtime will be missed, allowing the student to learn everything he/she is supposed to learn. It also costs no money to use this form of punishment. It is efficent both time and money wise. Therefore, corporal punishment should be brought back to schools in the form of running.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8145866394042969}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: I will make my rebuttals to Round 2 here in Round 3.1. Corporal Punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. Con adds to this by stating if the child is aware that they will be given corporal punishment, they will be more aware and prevent further bad actions/behaviors. Punishing the child for these behaviors, though it may be tempting, is not the way to go since it gives the impression that having the emotions in the first place is a bad thing. Klein suggests that rather than scolding a child for acting out, \"Helping a child understand their negative emotion (anger, sadness) and in time learn to understand why they feel as they do will help them develop competence socially and emotionally. So, empathizing with a child, rather than scolding them, while setting a limit (i. e. , \"I understand you are angry, but I can't let you hit. \") bears better outcomes later than scolding and punishing the young child. \" Rather than \"shutting down\" a child's emotions, help your child see that you understand his frustration and it's OK to feel that way -- but that there's a better way to express it. [1]Con continues adding by stating that corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child, resulting misbehaviors. While this is true in some cases, parents are more likely to scold and give them other punishments, other than corporal punishment. Groundings, lectures, limits, etc. are a few examples of parent's different options to punish their child, other than corporal punishment.2. Corporal punishment is quick. Con takes this the school punishment way, by stating that other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because they can miss school and waste time. Sure, maybe while they are serving their punishments. .. but have you forgotten that the students will be then given all of the homework AND lessons when they come back to school? Teachers are not required but are heavily recommended to evaluate what they have learned. They can even have times before or after school so that the child can be privately taught what they have missed and must know. Therefore, resulting in the child gaining back their miss knowledge during detentions or suspensions. Therefore, non-corporal punishments are not a waste of time and can teach their child a lesson. It would only be a waste of time if the school gives detentions or suspensions for absurd reasons, which seems to be increasing over the years.3. A study shows that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. While my own arguments in Round 2 refute this claim, I must add something that this argument has made me remembered. Corporal punishment is child abuse and can cause trauma. In some cases\u2014depending on the number of reports made, the severity of the abuse, and the available community resources\u2014children may be separated from their parents and grow up in group homes or foster care situations, where further abuse can happen either at the hands of other abused children who are simply perpetuating a familiar patterns or the foster parents themselves. In 2004, 517,000 children were living in foster homes, and in 2005, a fifth of reported child abuse victims was taken out of their homes after child maltreatment investigations. [2] Sometimes, children do go back to their parents after being taken away, but these statistics are slim. It's easy to imagine that foster care and group home situations, while they may ease the incidence of abuse in a child's life, can lead to further types of alienation and trauma. For children that have suffered from abuse, it can be complex getting to the root of childhood trauma in order to alleviate later symptoms as adults. The question is, how does child abuse turn into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder later in life? What are the circumstances that cause this to happen in some cases and not others? [3] Therefore, the reason those have corporal punishment misbehave less is that of damaged family relationships and trauma. 4. Young children learn the dangers if you give them the pain of those dangers. The child will only learn the true way of those dangers if they experience it. If the child almost dies, why in any way would you want to hurt your child because they legitimately almost died? If you love them that much, you should be more or so having a heart attack than actually hurting your own child so they understand the pain of those dangers. It's best to keep them fully safe than experience any pain at all. It may cause trauma as well, they can be incredibly scared of those situations and can be bad if adults can do it themselves, not children.5. As corporal punishment decreased in schools, misbehavior has not decreased. I will not be refuting this argument fully if you do not show the proof (or the FULL link to the source) of where you find the proof. Those are my rebuttals for Round 3. I take the floor to Con.", "qid": 4, "docid": "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8128311038017273}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: I will now present my argument as defined. Arguments Against Corporal Punishment being enforced in school. 1). The more \"spankings children\" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior. Source: (Study reported in Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, August 1997 by Murray A. Straus, David B. Sugarman, and Jean Giles-Sims) 2). Poor children, minorities and children with disabilities are hit more regularly in schools, sometimes at 2-5 times the rate of other children. Source: (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Surveys from 1976-2003, Center for Effective Discipline. ) 3). Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is a way to solve problems. Research shows that this is indeed the message that kids receive whether it's inflicting, receiving or witnessing . Source: (Eron, Walder & Lefkowitz, 1971; Hyman & Snook, 1999; Lahey, Moffit & Caspi, 2003, Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002. ) 4). Studies have shown that corporal punishment of children is related to decreased morality, increased aggression, more antisocial behavior, increased criminality, decreased mental health outcomes, increased adult abusive behaviors, and increased risk of being victimized by abusive relationships in adulthood. Source: (Meta-Analysis of 88 corporal punishment studies (Gershoff, E. T. 2002). ) 5). Some statistics here: 78% of corporal punishment states achieved below the national average at the fourth grade level in reading. 75% of the corporal punishment states achieved below the national average in eighth grade level reading (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2004). Sixty-seven percent of Ohio corporal punishment schools fell in the lowest 25% of schools on state school report cards in the 99-00 school year (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2001). 6). Injuries often occur e. g bruises, broken bones. Children's deaths have occurred in the U. S. due to school corporal punishment. (hearing before the Juvenile Justice Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. October 17, 1984) 7). Corporal punishment enforces physical aggression as an acceptable and good means of getting rid of unwanted behavior in our society. (Position paper opposing school corporal punishment by the Society for Adolescent Medicine (Greydanus, DE. et al, 2003). ) 8). More school shooting deaths were found in states allowing school corporal punishment than those who do not. (D. Arcus, 2002. ) 9). There is evidence that harsh physical punishments are damaging to children, emotionally as well as physically. (Mohr, WK and Anderson, J. A. 2002. ) Facts: 10). Schools are the only institutions in America in which striking another person is legally sanctioned. It is not allowed in prisons, in the military or in mental hospitals. 11). Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge). These are the main reasons why I believe that corporal punishment should not be enforced in schools. I look forward to the next round. Further online source: (. http://www.neverhitachild.org...)", "qid": 4, "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8127835988998413}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: As my opponent had posted an argument in round one, albeit a cursory one, I did the same. May I suggest for future debates that my opponent state that round one is for acceptance and avoid making an argument in round one.School shootings are obviously largely an American phenomenon. My opponent is going to have a hard time linking them to bans on school corporal punishment, for two simple reasons. One is that school corporal punishment has been banned in many countries, where school shootings are either very rare or have not even occurred at all.[1] The other reason is that there are nineteen US states where school corporal punishment has not been banned at all.[2][3][4]I am amused that my opponent has used a debate as a source. Not only is it a secondary source, it provides rebuttals for me of any points he gleans from it.Via my opponent's own source, in defence of corporal punishment:In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement, 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment.[5][6] Shrewd observers will have worked out that the large majority, four in five, believed that class room behaviour had not deteriorated and that education would not improve with the reintroduction of corporal punishment!I suggest the minority of teachers are the ones whose methods of discipline are ineffective and need more training at the very least.In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has expressed its opposition to corporal punishment in schools.[7]Via my opponent's source, we can see that if there is any correlation between corporal punishment and crime, it is that use of corporal punishment coincides with crime. Of the states with the ten highest murder rates in the United States, educators paddle children in eight of them.Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the US, educators paddle children in one of them.Of the ten states with the highest percentage of the population in prison, educators paddle children in nine of them.Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of the population in prison, educators do not paddle children in any of them.[8]Crime in the UK (which is what my opponent is referring to with his 67% increase) has been rising since 1918. Plainly banning corporal punishment is not the reason for an upwards trend. Corporal punishment was actually banned in 1986.[9][10][11] There would then be a delay until children reached typical criminal age. Citing the crime increase since 1981 doesn't tell you anything useful.Part of the reason crime statistics have risen sharply is an increase in the reporting of crime. The British Crime Survey showed that the number of crimes was far higher in 1981 than that recorded by the police. There were three times as many thefts, twelve times as much vandalism, three times as many sexual offences, nine times as many robberies, and twice as many burglaries as the official statistics recorded.[12]\"Children\"s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain\"Assertion not backed by evidence.My opponent claims that corporal punishment would be effective against bullying. Is my opponent claiming that bullying is a recent phenomenon, and does not actually occur in places which still have corporal punishment?My opponent claims that corporal punishment \"worked for 7000 years.\" What does my opponent mean by \"worked\"? Does he want to hold up 5000 B.C as a glowing standard? Surely all my opponent can mean by \"worked\" is that the human race continued to exist. Anyhow, tradition is no reason to continue a practice. We can imagine a man in Mexico arguing for the reintroduction of human sacrifice on the basis that it was an honourable tradition.Violence committed by adults on defenceless children is not defensible. If an adult assaults an adult in this manner it is criminal. Guards are not permitted to paddle prisoners. Why is this seen as an acceptable way of disciplining children? If we cannot treat adults in this way, if to do so is abuse, why do some think children should be so dealt with? Also, what lesson can children possibly learn from corporal punishment, except might makes right?My opponent has failed to engage with the scientific literature that says corporal punishment achieves the opposite to its aims. If they cannot do so, everything else is moot. The debate is over. I'll add a couple of more sources for my opponent to engage with.Research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement.[13] Research has also shown a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased school truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.[14]I note that my opponent wishes to blame the hippies for everything, but that would be another debate.[1] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...[2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.stophitting.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6] http://debatewise.org... [7] http://www.principals.org...[8] http://www.nospank.net...[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[11] http://moourl.com...[12] http://www.historytoday.com...[13] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385\u2013393.[14] Strauss, M. A. (2000). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.", "qid": 4, "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8120875358581543}, {"content": "Title: THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools Content: First I agree with Corporal Punishment should not be the only way to \"encourage\" pupils.. In my point of view, physical punishment should not only include hitting but should also include other kinds of physical actives; e.g running laps. In the modern society, as in more developed countries, Teachers will get in deep trouble for any corporal punishment towards their pupils, however, in many family, they still believe corporal punishment is the quickest way to punishment misbehaving child. If a child is about to preform a dangerous move, enforcing corporal punishment will make them remember better not to perform a certain activities in the future. Secondly, if verbal warning or shouting cannot stop the pupil misbehaving, physical punishment should take place. To argue your point on ruining the child teacher relationship, I believe as long as the reason of punishment was correct, it should not be any problem because there is a good purpose for the punishment.", "qid": 4, "docid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8116719722747803}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: I will concede the debate. I prefer debates as an exchange of opinions and not as a listing of competing links. That's fine but I prefer debating our own opinions not posting those of others and calling them facts. In addition Con had the much stronger case. As a general rule corporal punishment in schools is a poor idea. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when the strap or other implement shouldn't be used.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8114574551582336}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment should be banned from schools Content: My opponent supplies us by a new article from the famously liberal abc news. (I'm liberal myself but for this debate I have to admit that this is an extremely biased source). They essentially tear apart the idea of corporal punishment based on the 'theory' (for which no evidence is supplied) that corporal punishment increases aggression in children (which is ironic because you'd think having felt the force of violence that children would be less aggressive).Now I shall explain exactly why corporal punishment needn't be banned from SCHOOLS despite it's rightful ban in other places.As I said in round 1, \" A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of \u201cbut you can't take away my freedom\u201d, \u201cyou have no right\u201d or \u201cI have rights\u201d. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact.\" corporal punishment would allow the teacher, in a strictly monitored manner, to spank the child for not only the original reason but for the rudeness of the remark, is rather ineffective and useless (and my opponent supplied zero evidence otherwise).Also,, was my contention that \"If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior.\" The only point against this was that my opponent claimed to have first-hand seen reduction in repeats of detention as opposed to spanking issues but this easily could be because of more lenience in the school when it had detentions.I re-iterate that Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime. (Source R#1)", "qid": 4, "docid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8109889030456543}, {"content": "Title: THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools Content: So we see that con has also brought into this scene that corporal punishment is physical use so i simply see that this would not work because it hardly benefits the student being punished and it also doesn't teach him that what he was doing was wrong. Secondly we see that this is a mistrust issue thus far and i see that the child would resent the teacher for and we cannot deny this fact because we are talking about teenagers at the moment and they are at a stage of mistrust and hatred to most figures in their lives. Now onto how I believe it will affect the child. I see that this entire idea of corporal punishment revolves around the fact that it creates a strict environment but i see that you cant create a safe learning environment out of fear children wont seek to do their best, learn what they can and wont try to be creative because of the fact that they will be scared that these ideas will result in corporal punishment. It oppresses the children and creates an environment where they can as parents think it is fine to do something similar to their children if they had it done to them. Rather i see that by giving them positive reactions to their positive behavior over punishing their negative behavior they will strive to be better and do positive things thank you", "qid": 4, "docid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8093897104263306}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: Everyone enjoyed my Christmas dinner. I've just taken an apple pie out of the oven, so I'm finished in the kitchen now. Merry Christmas to all at DDO.Right...I'll start by summing up the scientific evidence.Studies of corporal punishment show that those who are so disciplined have significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, and one or more externalising problems. Those who are spanked are significantly more likely to become wife beaters.Other studies show that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment are more aggressive.These effects remain when studies discount those who have been abusively hit.Research indicates that corporal punishment in schools can lead to students having a negative self-image, and can negatively affect school achievement. There is a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.In the short term, corporal punishment has been shown to be no more effective than other methods of discipline.Even if corporal punishment did not cause the above mentioned problems, then it would still be ineffective at preventing them. However, there is a body of evidence and theory which shows that corporal punishment is a stressor and can lead to a violent reaction. This establishes causation beyond mere correlation.My opponent failed to show that any of the things he claimed were linked were in fact linked.There is also the human rights issue which speaks against corporal punishment. My opponent has been unable to say why it is not okay to hit others, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. That is because it is not okay. Violence against children must stop.", "qid": 4, "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8070638179779053}, {"content": "Title: Physical Punishment. Content: I agree that children should be punished by their parents. But as far as school punishment goes the school administrative staff should recommend a certain action against the child but should have no authority in dealing out any physical punishment. If a teacher hits a student the there will be a massive uproar with people who are anti-violence and child abuse supporters will start a big fuss. In all you will cause a lot of trouble for a little problem.", "qid": 4, "docid": "e6fbb7b9-2019-04-18T15:17:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8070546388626099}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment in schools Content: Good luck, Lordknukle.*******Why shouldn't it be legal?Trust IssuesCorporal punishment in school facilities involves the hitting/beating of a student if they have disobeyed class room or school rules. If corporal punishment were to be implemented as a form of disciplinary action, there is no doubt that students would cease to disobey rules. However, this method can and will severely damage a student's trust with their teachers. As a result of this, the student loses that connection with their teacher to the point where they can't go to them a source of comfort. For example: James, 13 years old, has continuously interrupted the teacher with his distracting behavior. As punishment the teacher hits James in the face and is sent back to his seat. Because this damages their teacher-student relationship, the student will most likely avoid using that teacher as a source of comfort for other issues he may be having (bullying, grades, etc).Family/peer issuesI believe that is either extremely disobedient in class or has bad grades has either or both of these: Abuse/neglect at home Bullying inside and outside of school At home: Lets refer to the year 2006. This year, 61% (or 1.25M) children were victims of some form of neglect. These include not only physical, but mental, educational, emotional, and even sexual (http://pediatrics.about.com...). Neglect and abuse at home has a tremendous effect on a child, and to prove this, please take the time to read some of these stories: http://www.forthechild.org... For more statistics: http://www.childhelp.org... These children (mostly young) were all subject to some form of abuse. I'd like to point out one girl's story: Judy: This young girl (age 10) was moved to 20 different foster homes. Her crazed step father had sexually and physically abused her for many years. As a result she threatened to commit suicide in a school bathroom (no relativity). Take Judy's story and add the factor of corporal punishment in school. This would only add to here extremely bad situation and would have most likely ended up worse than it did.Bullying: http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org.... This link provides statistics on bullying. Feel free to scroll through. There is no doubt that students in fear of any form of bullying would not want to be beaten by their teacher for disobedience because: 1. Teachers and school faculty are the \"bully police\", so to speak. If they are physically punishing their students, the victims of bullying are less likely to go to those people for assistance. 2. Along with bullying, corporal punishment can cause the student to suffer from a depressive state of mind, resulting in possibly lack of loyalty and decline in curricular performance. Lesson learned...?What does corporal punishment in schools (and everywhere for that matter) accomplish? As I've said before, it is used to gain the expected behavior of the target. However, if this does work, another problem unveils itself. Not only does this inflict harm on the student, but it also teaches the student that you need to use physical violence to resolve disputes with peers, family, etc. This especially would become a problem when they are put in a position of authority.ResolutionOther methods (detention, suspension, etc.) can be far more effective, and for that matter, safer. Things like detention and suspension will not teach the student to resolve issues violently and will most likely not provoke depression (if not already being experienced from other matters). For detention especially, the teacher can assign tasks such as cleaning the desks, extra class work/homework, all the things that a student without detention would not want to do. As a result, the disobedient student would cease to break faculty rules.********Looking forward to your argument.Sources listed: http://www.forthechild.org... http://www.childhelp.org... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org...", "qid": 4, "docid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8069756031036377}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools Content: I would like to start off with the definition of corporal punishment, acquired from [1]. \"Corporal punishment, physical chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, caning, mutilation, and branding. Until c.1800, in many parts of the world, most crimes were punished thus, or by such practices as confinement in the pillory or stocks, which combined physical chastisement with the humiliation of an individual possible in a relatively small, cohesive society. Flogging was especially prevalent, being used also to keep order among the institutionalized insane and in schools and the armed forces. \" I would like to remind the voters that this argument is based on corporal punishment in schools, not military, law enforcement, insane institutions, etc. I begin my argument with a list of the pros of corporal punishment in schools, which is what I will base my argument on. These are found on [2]. Teaches students discipline Deters bad behavior No suspensions Limits amount of educational disruptions These are several pros that can be justified in any modern day school system. With students today becoming more rowdy and rude towards teachers, less time is used for teaching, and more is used for issuing detentions, write ups, scolding in class, or other forms of punishment. This naturally would hardly deter any common misbehavior, as they would soon go back to their usual antics. Looking at the graph on [3], this illustrates how education in The United States has dropped from 1900 to present day. Keep in mind, the beginning of the 1900's to the late 1970's, corporal punishment was a widely used form of punishment in all schools across America. The message sent was clear. You go to school to learn, and you respect the teachers who give you this information. If the respect is not given, then you were punished. This undoubtedly kept students in line, a reason for the higher test scores. [4] shows the states who still use the method of corporal punishment, rarely, yet still in effect. For those who think corporal punishment allows for students to be physically \"beat\" I would like to use this next topic to show what forms of corporal punishment there are, and the restrictions. [5] lists the types of corporal punishment, and although many seems harsh, the most commonly used forms are that of canning, paddling, flogging and saucing. There are, however, restrictions set on corporal punishment, as seen in [6]. Such restrictions include male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, and vice versa with female teachers to male students. I end my debate here, as I still would like to include more arguments in my next round. I again thank Con for his acceptance to the debate, and hope for a fun clean interesting debate. I would like to remind voters that I am simply playing the devil's advocate and minority voice, and that the arguments may not reflect my personal opinion. I ask that you vote based on content and not beliefs, as these may not directly resemble my values. 1. . http://www.infoplease.com... 2. . http://www.ehow.com... 3. . http://www.google.com... 4. . http://www.infoplease.com... 5. . http://privateschool.about.com... 6. . http://www.educationrightscenter.org...", "qid": 4, "docid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8057630062103271}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment fosters violence in society.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00033-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8044602870941162}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment can cause serious physical damage", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00029-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8044406175613403}, {"content": "Title: Physical Punishment. Content: I am clearly for physical punishment as a method of education. Some parents today are not enough strict and they do not put enough restrictions to their children.In some cases this children take the wrong way, some parents try to look like a friend more than a father , but a children have enough friends, they need parents that , among other things , impose rules and make sure that their child respect them. In other hand, we have to make sure that we all know the differences between physical punishment and child abuse, I do not mean that this kind of punishment is appropriate like a daily thing, but I think that it could give good results in some situations. (I also think all I said could be used for the school too).", "qid": 4, "docid": "e6fbb7b9-2019-04-18T15:17:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8030754327774048}, {"content": "Title: Physical Punishment. Content: I am clearly for physical punishment as a method of education. Some parents today are not enough strict and they do not put enough restrictions to their children.In some cases this children take the wrong way, some parents try to look like a friend more than a father , but a children have enough friends, they need parents that , among other things , impose rules and make sure that their child respect them. In other hand, we have to make sure that we all know the differences between physical punishment and child abuse, I do not mean that this kind of punishment is appropriate like a daily thing, but I think that it could give good results in some situations. (I also think all I said could be used for the school too).", "qid": 4, "docid": "e6fbb7b9-2019-04-18T15:17:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8030754327774048}, {"content": "Title: Spanking In Schools Content: I will now summarize this debate and make a closing statement. Con has presented arguments that are self-contradicting: Should spanking \"be banned from everywhere,\" including children's own homes, or is it \"the parents [sic] choice\" whether or not to spank their children? I have shown that spanking should not be banned universally, and I have also demonstrated that if parents are allowed to spank their children, it is also their right to choose a school that will do the same in an appropriate manner as well. My opponent also mentions studies that have shown that spanking \"causes problems later down the road,\" but he has failed to present any of the studies in his sources. On the other hand, I have cited sources that show that corporal punishment is very effective, and I have also presented a testimonial from a teacher who was grateful for the ability to apply it in class due to its effective nature. Con has thrown claims around willy-nilly throughout the debate, but has not been able to back up any of them. The one piece of evidence my opponent has presented, i. e. the case of a child who went home to her mother with bruises on her bottom, has been shown to be unconvincing at best. The mother of the child was upset that the school was not implementing corporal punishment correctly, not that the school was enacting corporal punishment. The child was most definitely at fault, and faced a few bruises on her bottom as opposed to something that might appear in her permanent record. If anything, spanking was the correct decision in this case; it just should have been implemented differently, which only shows that supporting corporal punishment is better than abolishing it, as it can then be refined and implemented better. In addition to successfully refuting all of Con's points, I have done the following:-I have shown that spanking is similar in many ways to other forms of punishment that society imposes; to oppose spanking in schools (or in general) would be to argue a much greater point about punishment in general. -I have shown that spanking provides teachers with another tool to keep their classes progressing smoothly. -I have shown that spanking has benefits, largely due to its immediacy and proven ability to keep children from misbehaving. -I have shown that spanking is actually a great alternative to other forms of punishment imposed in schools, in that it does not potentially ruin a child's future. In closing, from looking at the exchange between Con and me, one must conclude that corporal punishment in schools is appropriate if carried out correctly, just like any other form of punishment society must use at various levels of misbehavior, whether the punishment is to send a criminal to prison or even to punish a dog to keep it from becoming unruly. Spanking should not be eliminated from schools everywhere, and if anything, it should become a more widespread practice.", "qid": 4, "docid": "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8028758764266968}, {"content": "Title: The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools Content: Hello to everyone reading. In this debate, I will be arguing that it is inappropriate and irrational to introduce corporal punishment into the entirety of the education system. I claim that corporal punishment is ineffective (and in most cases, harmful), leaves indelible psychological stains, and undermines the respect and benevolence within a teacher-pupil relationship. With the following contentions, I will elaborate on these claims.ArgumentsC1: Prohibiting Corporal Punishment Reduces AbuseWe can see in countries across the world that have prohibited corporal punishment in schools that this ban has reduced rates of abuse in the home. Since Sweden banned the use of corporal punishment in education institutions in 1979, the rates of support of this practice among parents have dropped form 50% to 11%, and in correlation with these rates, domestic abuse rates have fallen. By this example, we can conclude that when corporal punishment is banned in school, it reduces domestic abuse rates in the home, and is therefore productive and beneficial.C2: Corporal Punishment Has Long-Lasting Psychological EffectsBeing punished physically, even in a controlled, academic environment, is a shock to the system. This shock is amplified in young children. It has been concluded in numerous studies that corporal punishment increases the risk of dangerous and threatening behavior developing in the punished child. Corporal punishment has been linked to addiction and various other serious mental disorders.A study affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics found the following:\"Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.36\u20132.46).\"This psychological harm can cause a growing resentment to authority, making it more challenging for the teacher to effectively impart knowledge to the students. Evidently, corporal punishment is ineffective in the short-term and long-term, and outweighs any of the (apparently) few benefits. As psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff writes:\"Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use.\"C3: Corporal Punishment Undermines the Student-Teacher RelationshipStudents learn when they feel supported and comfortable in the teaching environment. Especially when the teacher utilizes corporal punishment, the students' trust in the teacher is severely damaged. As Edward Clark explains in his work \"Creating a Context for Teaching and Learning\", students do their best work when they are given positive reinforcement for successes rather than negative reinforcement for mistakes.Furthermore, when teachers attempt to impart lessons of acceptance and tolerance, students will not take these lessons to heart. Students will begin to associate teachers with the same type of violence they suffer at the hands of bullies and others which abuse them. This association, along with the natural resentment to authority explained in C2, effectively undermines the student's relationship to a teacher.C4: Corporal Punishment Can Be Used As A Tool for Non-EngagementCorporal punishment often draws away from the true nature of the problem, and instead focuses on the pure deterrence aspect. According to a principal of a school which uses capital punishment, many of the most commonly punished students are from struggling households where corporal punishment is more often administered. Physically punishing perhaps the most vulnerable students is not effective at teaching the underlying problem with their actions, often, it just escalates the problem itself.In states which allow corporal punishment as a means for teachers, 36% of these are above the national mean of state composite test scores, while 89% of the states that have banned this practice in schools are above the mean. This disparity has often been attributed to a lack of engagement to the student body by teachers, who use corporal punishment instead of engaging to find the root of the problem.-------------------------Overall, it has been proven and supported that banning corporal punishment reduces abuse in the home, and instituting this form of punishment in schools has negative psychological effects, undermines the relationship between students and teachers, and can be used as an excuse or cop-out for teachers instead of engaging with misbehaving students.It is resolved that the reintroduction of corporal punishment into schools would be inappropriate and irrational, for the above-mentioned reasons.-------------------------Sources(1) http://www.nospank.net...(2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...(3) http://www.apa.org...(4) http://ojs.great-ideas.org...(5) http://www.newsweek.com...(6) http://www.gundersenhealth.org...", "qid": 4, "docid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8025525808334351}, {"content": "Title: It depends on how the actual punishement is administered Content: Assuming the person punishing knows exactly what they are doing and knows how to control themself, there should be no problem with Corporal Punishment at all, the rules of Corporal Punishment would need to be altered, obviously. Because as they are they could hurt the child, But if altered it would be perfectly reasonable to administer corporal punishment I would say speak for yourself, or at least what you know. If the majority of administered corporal punishment was done incorrectly then the history of child protective services would be a whole lot more radical. Corporal punishment has been used by a majority of households and education centers for thousands of years until very recently. There will always be those who abuse the system, but that does not mean the system does not work. Now that society- at least Western society is claiming to be so much better, or wiser than previous societies then at least it can come up with a more regulated and consistent implementation of such a practice.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00048-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.8024848699569702}, {"content": "Title: Assessment of Parental Ability Should Be Compulsive For All Expectant Parents Content: I concur with my opponents assertion that my stance on corporal punishment may have been seen as misleading. Please allow me to clarify. I personally don't believe that corporal punishment is the correct way to discipline a child. Discipline should be intended to educate, not punish for the sake of punishment. I believe it is confusing for a child to be told it is bad to strike others, then receive a physical strike from the very person who is trying to instill this lesson. In my country, smacking a child can be illegal. Parents have been charged and convicted of child abuse for administering a smack on the bottom for the childs misbehaviour - www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Father-arrested-and-locked-in-a-cell-for-smacking-son.html - (interesting to note here that the father asserts that he thought it would have been more reasonable to remove the child from the household, but not to arrest him! Fatherly concern indeed!). But to report every such case is to involve the child in an incredibly traumatic episode, causing more damage than the smack itself, and detracting from cases where child abuse is actually taking place. So I do not support anyone, even my friends, who smacks, and I think there is always a better method, but where there will be more damage to the child by taking action, and the parents seem caring, nurturing, people who are providing that child with the best upbringing they can provide, I would leave well enough alone. Smacking is covered by British law, I appreciate this may not be the case in other countries, and is considered acceptable by law if in the course of \"reasonable chastisement\". So allowances for this form of punishment are already in place, whether we agree with it or not. In any case where a mark is left, it should be investigated, and this is very clear. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/.../Smacking-the-rules.html Opinion is definitely split on the effectiveness of parenting classes. A group setting does not seem to be ideal, but success has been seen when professionals have worked on a one to one basis with parents - blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/.../theres_little_proof_parenting.html I apologise to my opponent for the lack of a link regarding the case of Fritzl. Information can be found here news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7371959.stm Neighbours and friends were aware that Fritzl had a daughter, Elizabeth, with whom he had his other children, but were told she had run away when in fact she had been incarcerated by her father. Allegedly even her own mother was unaware of her daughters imprisonment in their basement. My opponent is correct in his assertion that psychological illnesses are notoriously difficult to diagnose, although the techniques for diagnosis are improving as more is becoming known about the nature of these illnesses and disorders. And, of course the nature of psychological disorders can be that the person afflicted has had a lifetime to practise lying, which makes it more problematic to identify them. But does this mean we should simply not even try? And I can do nothing but agree with my opponents assertion about government failings. I wouldn't have a leg to stand on! I believe that, in setting up any kind of social agency, it should be run by people who have an idea of what it is like to live without the protection most politicians have been afforded in their affluent upbringing. In an ideal world, if this kind of scheme were to be put into operation, it would be manned by compassionate, empathic individuals who were dedicated to protecting potential abuse victims. My opponent makes a very good point regarding assessment of expectant parents. The alternative, which would be licensing conception, would be impossible to implement. People have sex. People have sex recklessly. Imposing some kind of penalty for conceiving a child \"illegally\" would result in an upswing of back street abortions, putting many lives at risk, or in concealed pregnancies and births, where a sick baby would not receive the assistance it needs. So I feel this could not even be considered. I don't believe that abortion should be enforced. I do, however, feel that the care system for children needs improvement, and that age should not be a barrier to adoption. There are plenty of very good homes for children, where the parents are simply deemed to be too old, at the age of 35, to adopt. However, in many cases, adoption would not be necessary, where only one parent is potentially abusive, and this could be monitored with the assistance of family members, the partner, doctors, and health visitors. I stated previously that I believe punishment should be intended to educate, and it is no different in the case of someone who exhibits potentially abusive character traits. Behaviours can be learned and unlearned, it is identification of psychological disorders that remains unaddressed. In conclusion, I would like to assert that I am fully aware that to have something as basic as conceiving, giving birth to, and raising a child under scrutiny by a government department is something that makes people - including myself - uncomfortable. I believe in a humans right to live freely. I also believe, however, that we all have a duty to send a clear message that we will not tolerate the abuse of vulnerable people. I have witnessed neighbours being interviewed on television news after the latest victim of abuse is removed from the house next door in a hearse, stating that \"someone should have done something\". Yet these same people scream about their rights when it comes to any new legislation, with blatant disregard for the rights of the children who are suffering in this way. My idea, I am fully aware, needs scrutiny, adaptation, clarification, if it were ever to be seriously considered. It would not be a solve-all solution, but simply a beginning. I simply believe we need to try to prevent this as far as possible. In cases like these, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted means burying another child.", "qid": 4, "docid": "7be0e044-2019-04-18T19:09:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8013149499893188}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: My rebuttal and argument is that corporal punishment on children (Example: spanking) does not work. Spanking children distracts the child from the real goal; when you spank the children will than focus on the punishment and will not focus on the reason their bad behavior was bad; this means they will continue with that behavior because they don't consider it bad behavior. Corporal punishment also makes children view aggressive and violent behavior as acceptable increasing their chances of being violent. A scientific study has found that children who grow up in schools that use corporal punishment performed worse on tasks then those growing up In schools that did not use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment results in children not internalizing rules and standards meaning that the only reason they don't do bad things is fear of corporal punishment; children who do not get spanked are more likely to believe in rules and laws meaning they don't do bad things because they view bad things as bad. http://scienceblog.com... Another study found that spanking kids leads to more long-term behavior problems. Meaning spanking does not work but in fact increases bad behavior. http://www.cnn.com... Another study found the same results as the first two. http://www.time.com...", "qid": 4, "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8007572889328003}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment represents failure to engage students", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7995085716247559}, {"content": "Title: Reinstate corporal punishment in schools Content: Oh gosh. Alright. Let's get this over with. When I was in fifth grade, I was going through severe depression and suicidal thoughts. I was acting out of line because of things happening at home, and if corporal punishment was allowed do you think that would help me in any way? Here's the answer: NO. Children can learn their lesson without physical pain. It's not so much that the teachers can't enforce rules because the punishment is weak, no. Instead, it's because some teachers are pushovers. Will corporal punishments help them not be pushovers? Likely not. Could the power be easily abused? Absolutely. My mom and dad have their experiences that they've shared with me. They find today's methods to be better and effective. And what about people with autism or bipolar disorder? Some of them aren't put into special classes. If they're in normal classes (which is more common than one may think), do you think they should suffer physical pain because of a mental illness? What if they're shutting down and don't respond? Oh, well, for giving your best efforts to keep calm, rather than being asked what's going on, you get your wrist smacked with a ruler and a wooden oar smacked against your a$$. Doesn't that sound pleasant and completely utterly reasonable? It shouldn't. Many teachers at the schools I've been to are hesitant to give a student punishment no matter how badly they're acting up. I'm not sure that corporal punishment would make a big difference, as they would probably avoid that. Gosh, sitting outside in the hallway was enough for a kid to learn their lesson the first time; it's humiliating. Though I haven't been there many times, a few of my classmates have and they always feel embarrassed. Always. So imagine that I'm teaching a class and you and a friend are talking. Oh no, the horror. How will the class ever survive? Well, it won't. So obviously you need to learn your lesson. I take a ruler and smack your wrist with it ten times, then go back to teaching. Now, you have a bruise on your wrist when instead you could've simply been told to stop talking.", "qid": 4, "docid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7988227009773254}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools Content: I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: \"Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it isn't.\" \"Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it shouldn't.\" \"Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools\" is like saying \"Flowers being picked.\" One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment \"Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012\" http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to \"In loco parentis,\" a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. \"this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent\" http://en.wikipedia.org... A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it.", "qid": 4, "docid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7981666326522827}, {"content": "Title: Abuses do not demonstrate corporal punishment is inherently wrong Content: While it is true that corporal punishment can be abused, this does not demonstrate that it is always abused, or that it is inherently abusive. If it is used abusively, than measures should be taken to limit such abuse, instead of eliminating the practice altogether, which would be an over-reaction.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7980726957321167}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: Here are a few of my arguments for corporal punishment. 1. Corporal punishment sets clear boundaries and motivates children to behave in school. If children are clearly given the fact that if they misbehave, they will be given corporal punishment, then this will make them more aware of what will happen to them and will make them think twice about their actions. A lot of the time corporal punishment is not told clearly enough to the child and they do not understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore misbehave. 2. Another argument for corporal punishment is that it is quick. Other forms of punishment such as detention or suspension in schools can hurt the student because the student can miss school, and waste hours on top of hours sitting in detention, while corporal punishment is quick and takes a second. So non corporal punishment can ultimately be a waste of time. 3. A study showed that kids who have corporal punishment misbehave less. In other words it deters misbehavior. If we have corporal punishment kids will not misbehave as much because of misbehavior. 4. Young children are not able to discern right and wrong to the decree that older age kids are. For example, if a young kid were to stick his finger in an electrical socket, then if you give them a smaller dose of pain, then it will teach them not to do life threatening things. Little kids don't understand being grounded. They don't understand their being punished. Rather with corporal punishment toddlers know that their experiencing pain and it teaches them not to do the wrong thing. 5. As corporal has decreased in public schools and home, you would expect to seem a decrease in misbehavior, but that hasn't been the case. This is why corporal punishment is better. It shows kids that they will be given physical pain if they misbehave. In conclusion, corporal punishment should be allowed. Sources used 1. procon.org 2. soapboxie", "qid": 4, "docid": "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7970064878463745}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment hampers children's creativity", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7955684661865234}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: 1)The problem is that corporal punishment only provides a negative sanction on the specific circumstance. For example if a child punches another kid then corporal punishment only provides a negative sanction for punching another kid instead of kicking another kid. The corporal punishment directs focus on the major goal which is that hurting people is a bad thing; and in fact since corporal punishment is a form of hurt corporal punishment actually helps defeat the goal to make children understand that hurting people is a bad thing. 2)You said that \"You stated that the child would focus on the punishment and not on the reason they were punished. Then you took a leap and made the claim that they will not consider it bad behavior because they focused on the punishment.\". I didn't actually take a leap considering the fact that I posted several studies that support my claim and its conclusion. 3)Again I did not just state that corporal punishment causes children to become desensitized to violence; I posted proof that corporal punishment causes children to become more violent and more likely to commit a violent crime. 4)You make the claim, \"The older generation that was raised with corporal punishment show more respect for the individual and society as opposed to the child today\". I'd like to point out that you saying something is don't make it true. All you've done is put out a claim with nothing to support it. And now ill post some evidence that your claim is incorrect. The fact that crime rates have been steadily dropping ever since corporal punishment has been decreasing contradicts your claim. http://www.census.gov... Also states/countries with corporal punishment have higher crime rates than those who prohibit corporal punishment. http://www.census.gov... http://www.nationmaster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 5)I also would like to reiterate that I posted proof that corporal punishment does not work; I posted proof that it increases violent and bad behavior, and is detrimental to the mental development of children.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7927603721618652}, {"content": "Title: All schools should bring back corporal punishment Content: I was really hoping for a more intelligent opponent. In the first round you cut and paste a paragraph that included sexual abuse and spanking OFTEN. We are debating corporal punishment. Then you cut and paste corporal punishment to reduce anti social behavior. That is not what a school would spank for. Then you assume that I would rather spank than warn. I always talked to my children and let them know why they were being spanked just like my school did when I was little. Then you talk of parents losing temper and smacking kids on the streets, again this is about school corporal punishment. Being spanked does NOT show children they can hit others as stated below. I showed with historical fact that school shootings have increased over the last 40 years. Many schools were stopping spanking before the states changed the laws. Then you tried to make a false claim that crime is high in the 19 spanking states and low in the 31 non spanking. I showed the facts of low income inner city crime. Then you get stupid with human sacrifice, slavery, astrology, murder and assault. They believed it worked, people would rather slave than die, astrology holds truth, murder and assault are by weak minded people. Read this Some \"experts\" claim that spanking has no instructional value, teaches children aggression, is abusive, or harms children's emotional and psychological well-being . However, these are myths. Myth: Spanking has no instructional value. Reality: Some claim that spanking does not teach children how to behave. This is false. Suppose you spank your child for running into the street. Spanking is a punishment, and punishments stop behaviors. By spanking your child, you stop him from running into the street. So you have taught your child how to behave: you have taught him not to run into the street. But what if you spank your child for talking back. The critics would say, you teach your child not to talk back, but you have not taught her how she is supposed to talk to you. But you teach her how she is supposed to talk to you when you scold her before the spanking. Before spanking, you make sure your child understands what she did wrong and how you expect her to behave in the future. In this way, spanking does have instructional value. The critics might then ask why not just tell your child how she is to talk to you and skip the spanking. Unfortunately, telling children what to do is not always enough. Children often do not change their behavior unless the behavior has negative consequences--and spanking is a powerful negative consequence. Myth: Spanking teaches children to be aggressive. Reality: Some argue that if parents spank their child, the child will learn that hitting is OK, so the child will go out and hit other children. But this is absurd. I've never heard a child justify hitting another child by saying that it's OK because mom and dad hit me. What spanking teaches is that parents may swat their child on the bottom when the child misbehaves. It does not teach a child hitting another child is OK. Nor does it teach that hitting for a reason other than punishment is OK. Most children will see this. A child who is old enough to be spanked understand there are differences between him and mom and dad. Mom and dad can drive a car but he can't. Mom and Dad go to work but he goes to school. So he understands that mom and dad can do things liking spanking that he can't do. Moreover, parents can explicitly tell the child that their spanking him is different form his hitting another child. Myth: Spanking is abusive. Reality: Spanking is not abusive. First, abusive parents often don't love their children. They abuse their children because they regret having them, the children remind them of someone else, and so on. But for most parents, spanking is done out of love and care for the child. Second, abusive parents lash out at their children in anger, not caring if they injure the child or not. But parents that spank do not want to injure their children. Spankings are given to correct the child's behavior. Yes, spankings hurt, but they are done so as to cause no lasting damage. That is why spankings are given on the bottom, for the posterior does not contain any vital organs. Do some parents spank too hard and cause welts and bruises? Yes, and they have gone too far. They have crossed the line between punishment and abuse. But this merely shows that some parents misuse spanking, not that spanking is abusive. Properly done, spanking causes no lasting physical damage. Myth: Studies prove that spanking harms children's emotional and psychological well-being. Reality: Some researchers have reported correlations between receiving corporal punishment and behavioral and emotional problems later in life. However, these studies have several flaws. First, most are correlational. Correlational studies can tell us only that two things are related, but such studies do not tell us how the two things are related. Suppose we see there is a correlation between spanking and delinquency. A correlation only means that spanking and delinquency are related--it does not tell us how they are related. Correlational studies can not tell us what we really want to know: what causes what. It might be that children are delinquent because they were spanked. But it might also be that they were spanked because they were delinquent? A correlational study can not tell us which of these two possibilities is true. Therefore, such studies do not prove that spanking causes delinquency, anti-social behavior, depression or anything else because correlation studies can not prove what causes what. Second, many of these studies looked at corporal punishment, not just at spanking. And some studies had a very \"inclusive\" definition of corporal punishment. They defined corporal punishment not only as hitting on the bottom but also slapping in the face, hitting on the head, boxing the ears, and shaking, among other things. Some of the forms of corporal punishment included in these studies could be considered abusive such as hitting on the head or boxing the ears. So even if we could conclude from these studies that corporal punishment causes emotional and behavior problems, and we can\"t because the studies are correlational, but if we could, would it mean that all forms of corporal punishment cause emotional and behavioral problems or only the more severe, abusive forms like hitting on the head or boxing the ears? Larzelere1 found that when abusive forms of punishment were excluded from the definition of corporal punishment, researchers were more likely to find a beneficial outcome to using corporal punishment rather than a negative outcome. So abuse, not spanking, harms children\"s emotional and psychological well-being. We know that many children are spanked and turn out fine; they are not aggressive, delinquent, depressed or anti-social. Why? Simons3 found that what leads to aggression, delinquency, and poor psychological well-being is low parental involvement such as parents not loving or trusting their children, not knowing where their children go or who they are with, and not being consistent in discipline. Being spanked did not lead to aggression, delinquency, and poor psychological well-being. Parents that love their children and are involved in their lives may use spanking, but they will never use spanking in a way that harms their children. 1Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of parental use of non abusive or customary physical punishment. Pediatrics, 98(4), 824-828. 2See for example, Giles-Sims, J. et al. (1995). Child, maternal, and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations,44, 170-176. 3Simons, R. L. et al . (1994). Harsh corporal punishment versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment. Journal of marriage and the family, 56, 591-607. http://www.angelfire.com...", "qid": 4, "docid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7898683547973633}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment can ethically help save a child's future", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00039-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7890270352363586}, {"content": "Title: Physical Punishment. Content: As I understood you are agree with the Physical Punishment at 50% , you said that parents should use this kind of education with their childrens, but in other hand you are not agree with my idea that school could also use the physical punishment to educate the childrens. If you are agree with me at the point that the parents can use this kind of methods that means that you can see some positive point in physical punishment, and if you can see the good side of the physicall punishment at home , why can you not see it in the school? Its true that is not exactly the same , but when I said physicall punishment in school I mean like it was 30 years ago , there was physicall punishment but there was also some limits that the teacher have to respect.", "qid": 4, "docid": "e6fbb7b9-2019-04-18T15:17:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7880899310112}, {"content": "Title: My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment Content: Please do not accept unless you intend to invest effort and not forfeit. I look forward to an interesting discussion. You must've completed 3 debates to accept this and you must have a minimum of 2,500 ELO to vote on this. Full TopicOn balance, parental use of corporal punishment is beneficial for the child. Rules1. Pro accepts the sole BOP2. No forfeits3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No semantics or trolling7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's presents his CaseR2. Con presents his Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and CrystallizesThanks. .. .. .to whomever accepts; I eagerly look forward to a good debate!", "qid": 4, "docid": "7ce82ca6-2019-04-18T15:40:03Z-00009-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.785789966583252}, {"content": "Title: Should corporate punishment be allowed in schools or academies Content: Teachers in academies and schools use corporal punishments to change student's behaviour, but as soon as children get punished that way, the child will get mad and depressed. The child will start thinking that he is a bad person and a useless person. If they get punished like that too much they will become violent, and also they will become aggressive to their friends. Instead or punishing the teachers and parents should emphasis good behavior and applause them when they do something good, so they will feel better when they are prasied and will try better when their doing something positive. For example when a student is late for class the teacher should tell him or her to come a bit earlier next time. When teachers tell students to do something they will resist and maybe even ignore what teacher said if the teacher hits them instead of saying it in a good way. Some teachers hit them again if they don't listen. Then the student will try to quit the academy and if their parents are hitting them they might even decide to leave home.", "qid": 4, "docid": "b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7857717275619507}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment Is Wrong Content: I accept your challenge. I will prove that corporal punishment is the correct maneuver when it comes to disciplining children. I will also prove that other forms of punishment are defective and that corporal punishment is the best option when it comes to mounding a child for the future.", "qid": 4, "docid": "cb5262ae-2019-04-18T11:53:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7854788899421692}, {"content": "Title: Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment Content: First i'd like to start out with a definition. \"Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. \" Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again. Now, i will bring some evidence to support my arguments. An editor from childdisciplinewithlove. com states \"[Corporal Punishment] That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously. That's how you can prevent children from spoiling. I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me. It has deterrent effect as well. If you beat one child in front of other children, not only that child learns to behave, others also learn a lesson to behave. Children try and test your limits. Show them some physical punishment so that they know it very clearly that each mistake of theirs will attract some physical punishment. \u2022It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished. Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them. There is no point in talking to them regarding solving any of their behavior problem because they are young and have no understanding of the worldly wisdom. So it's better not to waste time on taching them through talking. Just show them the fear of doing something wrong and they will do everything right. History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages. \" If you look at his last points it states that not only the child being faced with the punishment will learn but other children in the classroom will learn. Thank You.", "qid": 4, "docid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7851507663726807}, {"content": "Title: My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment Content: In my family, we don't do punishment. I was never grounded, had my allowance stopped, or spanked. When issues of behavior came up, we sat around and discussed them. This is consistent with the morality of my family, and the type of community I grew up in, and I have every intention of raising my children in this same way, since it's my culture and I like it.Nevertheless, I'm not playing devil's advocate on this debate. I really do believe the resolution is right. It's not a strong belief, but on balance, all things considered, I come down on the side of the resolution rather than against it. I feel that my reasoning has a lot of parts to it, and it will be a challenge to lay out all the parts of it simply in a debate, so thank you to bsh1 for this opportunity to try it out.Parental ignorance theoryIn the nice, vaguely privileged world I grew up in, everyone goes to college and everyone agrees that corporal punishment is wrong. There are lots of reasons - the use of force on someone weaker is in itself abhorrent - and what lesson does it give children about power and relationships! - positive reinforcement is better than negative reinforcement, people should behave well not because they are afraid but because they are engaged with the consequences of moral behavior etc.And yet, most parents use corporal punishment. I am going to pause for a moment to lay out some evidence for this, because it's important.***************************************A study of parenting found that in 7 out of 9 countries, a large majority of parents had used corporal punishment in the previous month. Most parents in China, Kenya, Thailand, Colombia, Italy, Jordan, and The Philippines reported using corporal punishment. Just under half of US parents reported corporal punishment in the previous month, and only Swedish parents reported very low levels (keeping in mind that corporal punishment is illegal in Sweden, and so respondents may have felt constrained in answering the questions). (1)More than 70% of Americans agree that spanking children is an appropriate punishment (2).****************************************There are two ways to interpret this:A. On balance, corporal punishment is bad for children, but most parents around the world are ignorant/cruel and do it anyway. (Con's position)B. On balance, corporal punishment isn't bad for children. Parents know what they're doing. (Pro's position)I find it very difficult to accept position A because it runs contrary to something I believe to be true: that in general, people act in their own best interests and in the best interests of their children. Also, that people are more engaged in the problem of their own best interests than anyone else, and so are most likely to know what's best for them. Of course, we can all think of individual instances when people act against their own best interests, but here we are talking about global population trends. All around the world, the large majority of parents are using corporal punishment to raise their children. Con thinks they are misguided at best. I think that parents are biologically designed to care for their children, that in general they can't help acting in their children's best interests, that every society in the world recognizes parental expertise in raising their own children (if there are any exceptions I can't think of them). No better means of raising children has ever been found than trusting parents and supporting parents to do it. Therefore, I think we have to reject the theory that most parents around the world are wrong, while we are right.Which leaves us with interpretation B. Parents know what they are doing. But what about all the evidence about how bad corporal punishment is? What about all that stuff about it teaching aggression and the links to mental illness? I don't want to anticipate Con's arguments too much, but most research on corporal punishment comes from Western countries and it's done by college-educated middle-class types like me. The research is biased, and that makes a huge difference when it comes to interpreting the results. Authoritative vs Authoritarian Parenting Styles: How we got it wrongDiana Baumrind described four parenting styles in the 1960s, and the typology subsequently became very popular. There are four types, but for the current discussion only the first two are important:1. Authoritative Parenting: \"attempts to direct the child's activities but in a rational, issue-oriented manner...encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform\"2. Authoritarian Parenting: \"values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful measures to curb self-will at points where the child's actions or beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct. She believes in keeping the child in his place...\" (3) In the decades after this typology was described, research paper after research paper showed that of the types, the authoritative style was most closely linked to good outcomes for children, from happiness to results at school. For example on this site, The Positive Parenting Centre, (4) makes it clear that the authoritative type is the good one, it is described as \"a warm, nurturing, accepting manner\", which contrasts with the authoritarian type which is \"extremely strict\" with \"little or no input from the child\" and is associated with strict rules and punishments. On the site Parenting Science, the writer states that \"authoritative parenting is associated with the best child outcomes\" and this conclusion has been common (5).It has only been very recently that the truth has been revealed: authoritative parenting is indeed associated with the best outcomes but only in specific Western cultures. For example, a study in the US, Hong Kong and Australia showed that the authoritarian parenting style was associated with high academic achievement for children in Hong Kong and for those in Australia and the US whose parents did not have a college education. (6)This is worth repeating. Strict, rule-based, punishment focused parenting styles were linked to the best outcomes for non-Western children and for Western children whose parents didn't go to college.Whereas among the Western middle-classes where I grew up, this type of authoritarian parenting style is linked to poorer outcomes.As this study explains (7), parents from different countries and social groups relate to their children in different ways. In the western middle-classes, closeness between parent and child is a mediator in enforcing discipline, but this is not always the way that it's done elsewhere. Therefore, we cannot take conclusions about best parenting practices from our own culture and apply them universally.Corporal Punishment and OutcomesCorporal punishment is effective in improving child behavior in the short-term. Even opponents agree that this is true.(8)However, it is the long-term effects that opponents are worried about, including increased aggression, mental health problems and difficulty internalizing morality.Here's the thing. African Americans are three times more likely to endorse corporal punishment than are other Americans.(9) African American children are more likely to have \"mental problem\" status (10) and be arrested and coded as delinquents (11) than are other types of American children. So yes, you plug all that into a data analysis and you will get a correlation. Corporal punishment. Mental health problems (depression and anxiety mostly). Aggression. Failure to internalize those moral values.Could it be that black parents are simply more ignorant, or just worse than the rest of us? Could it be that a simple process of disciplining children could unleash such a range of terrible outcomes?Obviously not. It's just another example of how correlation mistaken for causation and mixed up with racially biased data collection. It's possible that not all black parents are gagging for their children to internalize a conforming morality. Maybe some parents want their children to develop a healthy disrespect for authority while realizing that breaking the rules can lead to harsh consequences because black people are six times more likely to go to prison than white people (12). Maybe there's more going on here.SummaryWe need to choose. Is it that:A. Parents who aren't white or who don't have a college education are just ignorant and bad; orB. All parents are doing their best in different circumstances, and when our theories are based too narrowly on our own circumstances, we can get it wrong.I don't think we can dismiss the the opinion of the majority of Americans and the actions of the majority of parents around the world as ignorance and cruelty. I don't think we can conclude that college-educated Westerners simply know better than everyone else about raising children, because we really don't.It goes against everything I was raised to believe, but I'm forced to conclude that on balance, when it occurs, parental use of corporal punishment is beneficial for the child.(1) http://downloads.hindawi.com...(2) http://fivethirtyeight.com...(3) http://www.devpsy.org...(4) http://www.the-positive-parenting-centre.com...(5) http://www.parentingscience.com...(6) http://www.jstor.org...(7) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(8) http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...(9) http://www.honors.ufl.edu... (10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (12) http://www.naacp.org...", "qid": 4, "docid": "7ce82ca6-2019-04-18T15:40:03Z-00008-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7838290333747864}, {"content": "Title: Spanking your children Content: Spanking children should be a last resort of discipline, but it is not necessarily a wrong thing to do. Aggressive forms of discipline have been used for years, and normally it is effective. When used appropriately, spanking can teach kids that not everyone in life is going to sit down to have a nice talk about what you did wrong. Children also learn that when you break a rule there are severe measures that go way beyond getting a stern talking to and less TV time. Not only that...forms of aggressive punishment methods are all around us. A few examples are the death penalty and torture in interrogation. Both use \"more violent\" methods as their last resort. Though not as sever spanking a child isn't as cruel and uncommon as many say it is.", "qid": 4, "docid": "868551d1-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.783278226852417}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: The rules that he established are acceptable enough, so I agree with them. Most of his definitions are fine for the debate as well, except my opposition to his definition of \"corporal punishment. \" I will also provide a definition of \"ought. \" Corporal Punishment: intentional infliction of physical pain as a method of changing behavior. Corporal punishment becomes abuse if it results in injury. (National Association of School Nurses)Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, especially when criticizing someone's actions; used to give or ask advice. Now, to my debate:Contention 1: Corporal punishment is not proper for child rearing. In order for a parent to fufill his/her full duty as a parent, the parent must provide the most effective use of discipline against a child's behavior in order to be of aid in both the short and long term. Although corporal punishment has been proven to be effective in the short term for at the very least most children, it is utterly useless in the long run and can even end up to be harmful for the child in question. The use of corporal punishment against a child, thus, is not the proper choice for parental rearing of a child and goes against a parent's duty and idealisms of correctness. Sub 1a. Corporal punishment is ineffective in the long-term. The primary intention of corporal punishment is to install discipline in the child and make him/her learn what is correct behavior. The main problem with corporal punishment is that it serves well to discipline children in the immediate short-term, but as a practice to discipline children, it is ineffective to achieving the means as to what the punishment itself was meant to be for. Scientific studies display this well. In E. T Gershoff's 2002 study on the effects of corporal punishment: \" She found that CP decreases internalization of moral rules. This is concerning in that parents are more likely to use corporal punishment when they believe the child is at fault for some misbehavior. Thus, using a method that decreases moral internalization to respond to a failure to adhere to internal rules the child should have known is likely to perpetuate the problem. \"Gershoff, E. T. Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579In the same study as well as others, Gershoff reports to us that the use of corporal punishment encourages a child's use of aggression: \"She found that CP is associated with increased aggression. This is especially troublesome, she notes, in that parents are more likely to use aggression to stop aggression. However, one study showed that use of corporal punishment to halt aggression increased risk for aggressive behaviors by 50%, regardless of whether the parent or the teacher rated the child\u2019s behavior. Use of aggression after being physically punished for aggressive behavior is likely to be seen as an escalation of misbehavior, which was also associated with greater use of corporal punishment. Thus, corporal punishment is likely to perpetuate the problem\". http://ace.ucr.edu...http://www.coe.int...http://www.nospank.net...http://www.neverhitachild.org...http://www.cyc-net.org...Sub 1b: Corporal punishment can cause physical and psychological harm. In addition to the general ineffectiveness of corporal punishment, the use of it thereof can lead to psychological harm and can go leeways into abuse as a result. These mental afflictions as a result from corporal punishment can result in alcohol abuse, adult psychological distress, and other negative effects in the future. This is not including the effect on the child's use of aggression to assert means. . http://www.questia.com...Also, the line between corporal punishment and abuse is very thin. Corporal punishment can end up resulting in injury as shown in several cases and studies, including the previous Gershoff 2002 study, where she reported the following: She found that CP is associated with increased adult abusive behavior. She reports studies have shown that 2/3s of abusive parent-child incidents begin as an effort to discipline the child and \u201cteach them a lesson. \u201d If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one\u2019s child may increase the risk of abuse for one\u2019s grandchildren. \". http://www.nospank.net...Sub 1c: There are effective alternatives to corporal punishment. Not only are there so many disadvantages to the use of corporal punishment, but there are also alternatives to the use of corporal punishment that are more effective than corporal punishment. This is mainly shown by the success of European countries that had outlawed corporal punishment and had reducing numbers in the amount of child abuse cases as well as reductions in public opinion where people believed that the use of corporal punishment is required for any child for effective parenting: . http://www.neverhitachild.org...Other experts report on the same thing:. http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://www.unicefusa.org...Contention 2: Corporal punishment is a violation of human rights. The argument that corporal punishment is a violation of human rights (defined by both European organizations as well as the UN with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is starting to take root, and these leading groups have made the argument that corporal punishment is indeed a violation the human rights of the child:\"Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) have progressively condemned corporal punishment, first in penal systems and schools and more recently in the home. Other decisions have also made clear that banning all corporal punishment does not breach family privacy or religious rights. The Court increasingly applies the standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in judgments related to children. \"\" Once visible, it is clear that the practice [of corporal punishment] directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence. \" -- United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child . http://www.coe.int...https://wcd.coe.int...Because corporal punishment can result in injury, the subjection of it to a child is a violation of a child's human rights defined by the Universal Declaration", "qid": 4, "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7832074761390686}, {"content": "Title: Spanking Content: I believe that while spanking should not be the default punishment, it IS* an effective way of punishing children that, when kept within limits, is perfectly acceptable. *The use of words being totally in caps during this debate will be to emphasize words, not to express yelling.", "qid": 4, "docid": "57c3acdb-2019-04-18T15:38:14Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7827766537666321}, {"content": "Title: Spanking In Schools Content: Spanking shouldn't be allowed in schools because it's the parents choice weather or not to spank their child. It should be banned from everywhere. An example is the girl from Texas who got spanked by a male administrator and had bruises on her bottom when she came home hours later. That is not acceptable! Spanking is not the best in general but definitely not in schools. Sources: cnn.com", "qid": 4, "docid": "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7820320725440979}, {"content": "Title: Spanking Content: Although spanking was a very modern and common method of punishment times have changed. Children have changed. If a child goes to school and says the words, \"My daddy/mommy hit me,\" children services are going to get involved. Some children will do so in spite. Other methods of punishment are available and have been found to work. I don't see as to why if there is other, less violent solutions we need spanking. You don't need to hit your child to teach them what they did was wrong.", "qid": 4, "docid": "57c3acbc-2019-04-18T16:49:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7817157506942749}, {"content": "Title: Should parents hit their children Content: Many cultures and people believe that hitting their children as a form of punishment is beneficial for the child. I'm not saying beat children I'm talking about how corporal punishment should be promoted in moderation. Corporal punishment sets boundaries for children and motivates them to do better, as stated by Okey Chigbo in a 2004 article. Harold Bennet, PhD, President and Dean of the Charles H. Manson Theological Seminary, stated, \"children need to understand boundaries and I think that children need to understand that there should be punishments... in direct proportion to the improper behavior that they might demonstrate.\"", "qid": 4, "docid": "88fb55b2-2019-04-18T11:33:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7813737392425537}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: It is dubious that corporal punishment helps discipline children.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00036-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7812308073043823}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment fosters criminality and delinquency.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00011-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7812134027481079}, {"content": "Title: other sanctions have no effect Content: It is all well and good those on the sidelines saying that giving children a small wrap on the knuckles is morally outrageous but they are not the ones who witness appalling behaviour in the classroom. If you ask the teachers, those on the front line of disruptive students, a recurring comment is that with corporal punishment off the agenda, there are no sanctions available to teachers for the most stubborn of terrors!", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00034-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7808594703674316}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment does not represent teacher failures", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00010-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7804529666900635}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7793188095092773}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7793188095092773}, {"content": "Title: Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school Content: Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "qid": 4, "docid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7793188095092773}, {"content": "Title: Corporal Punishment of Children Content: Children should be subject to corporal punishment because of many reasons. One reason being it will get your point across without being to forceful. A little physical interaction with your kid will help them know their right from wrong. If they had a bad experience doing something good or bad they will tend to do it less or not at all. So if they did something bad and you used a little physical interaction to show that their actions are not tolerated and will not be tolerated. It could be only beneficial as long as the physicality doesn't increase or get to violent. Or if the child isn't old enough to receive such punishment for their behavior. However I also feel the parent should be allowed to be able to discipline their child however they want as long as they aren't endangering the child's life. Or like previously stated if they are old enough to receive such discipline and not to much physicality.", "qid": 4, "docid": "9302c20c-2019-04-18T12:52:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7790156006813049}, {"content": "Title: It depends on how the actual punishement is administered Content: I agree. But most of the time the \"punisher\" does not know how to control himself so we have to keep the law in place. Majority rules. Also if corporal punishment were to be altered to not hurt a child, it would not be called corporal punishmen. It has no relation to why you should have corporal punishment the debate topic that we are discussing", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00047-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7788971066474915}, {"content": "Title: bad behaviour is on the increase in the class room Content: One in five teachers? That is the also the figure then of how many teachers need more training! The only reason why a minority of teachers want to see a reintroduction of corporal punishment is because they do not have any effective discipline methods under their belts. The answer? More training, not resorting to corporal punishment. Also remember that school is for learning and it is the teachers job if the students are doing poorly. Corporate Punishment is just and excuse for teachers to whip and hurt people", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00027-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7781676054000854}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment on children by thier parents. Content: WheezySquash8 voted in my poll that I should debate this topic. The poll's not over yet, so jump in if you want. There won't necessarily be 1 winner. http://www.debate.org... I am taking the position that corporal punishment is an effective and non-detrimental way of disciplining children, by their parents, as long as the reason for discipline is correct, punishment is proportionate, and no permanent physical harm is done. (Spanking with hand or switch, etc.) If the challenged does not wish to accept, this will turn open.", "qid": 4, "docid": "579727b-2019-04-18T16:09:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7772249579429626}, {"content": "Title: Spanking In Schools Content: Thank you for your rebuttal as well as your compliment. You are a very courteous individual--to the voters: please take this into account for the conduct vote. Before I write my argument, I must make a small amendment to my rebuttal that has no bearing on its integrity. I wrote \"capital punishment\" in the very first paragraph where I meant to write \"corporal punishment.\" If there was any confusion, I apologize. \"Spanking in schools has been eleminated [sic] in many states including Iowa where i live. Im [sic] neutral when it comes to spanking by parents, but im [sic] school? I think not.\" States disagree on many things. I'm glad you live in a state that is in line with your views. If your point is that \"the majority says so, and therefore it's right,\" I encourage you to look at history. People have universally agreed upon things that we would universally disagree with, such as slavery and using tobacco as medicine. Besides that, as shown by the source in my first argument, there are still plenty of states--over a third--that allow corporal punishment in schools. \"We teach our kids not to hit, but when we spank them we are hitting their bottoms.\" I am guessing the implication of this statement is that by spanking children, we are sending a confusing message to our children by doing what we tell them not to, or even being hypocritical. I agree with you in that as a society, we don't want our children to become violent for unjust reasons. However, I disagree that spanking is therefore a bad idea. In fact, that is one reason we spank children--to teach them that violence only leads to more pain, both for the perpetrator and the victim. However, we are in no way sending a confusing message to children or being hypocrites by spanking them; we also teach children not to kill people, and yet the majority of states still enact the death penalty [1]. We also detain people, shoot people, and even send others to be tortured [2] [3] . Granted, these are suspected terrorists and people from foreign countries, but my point still stands: we do not teach our children to be mean to others just because they are from other countries, nor do we teach them to treat people in this manner. I should point out here that even without the points I just made, your argument goes against corporal punishment in general and not specifically corporal punishment in schools. If parents teach their kids not to hit others but spank their children anyway, they are doing the same thing. For your argument to be sound, you would have to be against parents spanking their own children as well. This goes against your first argument, which states that parents should have the choice of whether to spank their children, as well as your second, in which you state that you are neutral on the matter. \"While you bring up a good point str chudies[sic] have shown that spanking causes problems later down the road.\" I wholeheartedly encourage you to show me these studies (I'm guessing that's what you meant) in your next argument, which is your last. I have sources that show that spanking works, too [4] [5]. One study by the APA, in fact, was inconclusive at best [6]. Even with sources, your point is not a strong one; the scientific community still disagrees on many things, and as I have shown, this one is still up inconclusive. Also, keep in mind that our beloved country, the United States, was built from the ground up by people who were spanked and rapped on the knuckles in school, and I would argue that they built something truly beautiful that the whole world has looked to for leadership and support. Would people who had problems \"later down the road,\" i.e. as adults, have done something this magnificent? I think not. Again, however, I must point out that the minute you present the studies you speak of, you are contradicting yourself once again. If spanking causes problems later down the road, why are you yourself okay with parents doing it? How does the background of the person doing the spanking make any difference for the child being spanked? The original argument you presented is specifically about spanking in schools, not about spanking as a method of discipline in general. \"Also, instead of a bend over and let me swat your butt, why not do a detention or a in school suspension.\" I have addressed this. I am not against other forms of punishment, but teachers have difficult jobs as it is; allowing corporal punishment gives them one more tool to make their jobs easier and to help students study in a focused environment [4]. Additionally, I have already pointed out that one benefit of spanking is that it prevents things like suspension and expelling, which goes on a student's permanent record. Let's be honest here; kids have no idea what they're doing. To make them live with their misdeeds for the rest of their lives in the form of a permanent record is only cruel, whereas if a quick spanking does the job, why not do that instead? \"How would you like it if someone that you barely know walks by sees your on your phone and says okay stick that butt in the air. I would be a little concerned.\" How would you like it if someone you barely know drives by, sees you going a little bit faster than other drivers, pulls you over, and makes you pay a $150 fine? People get punished all the time by people they do not know, i.e. the police. This is nothing new. Being punished by people \"you barely know,\" if you know them at all, is part of living in a civilized society. \"And with just a spankingby [sic] a parent the CPS gets all huffy puffy. Why dont [sic] they do that when a kid gets spanked in school? It just makes no sense at all.\" I agree; why the hypocrisy? CPS should lay off corporal punishment in general. I'm glad we could agree on that. Once again, I urge you to list your sources individually instead of putting up a large website for voters and me to search through. Thank you for your rebuttal. I look forward to your concluding remarks. Sources: [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://history1900s.about.com... [4] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com... [5] http://www.albany.edu... [6] http://www.apa.org...", "qid": 4, "docid": "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7767977714538574}, {"content": "Title: Children should be physically punished Content: The motion for this debate is whether children should be punished for their offence. I am taking \"For\" side. 2 rounds is for arguing and the last one is concluding arguments. All children misbehave as at the beginning they simply don't know what is good and what is bad. Discipline of children is essential part of bringing them up and their health development, it is as important as feeding them or clothing. It has to be both physical and mental. But many parents get confused about physical discipline and I do not get reasons to be afraid of it. 1. First of all, physical punishment implies spanking/slapping and making child do something (eating soup, for example). In my opinion, the misbehavior of children has become a problem of our time. Parents cannot deal with their own children anymore, they get nervous and ashamed of children's awful acting on people. Of course, there is always a possibility of mental discipline - talking and explaining things. But from my own experience, I can surely say that it actually doesn't always work well. Good if child understands you, which happens sometimes. But what about cases when instead of it he gets mad and hits you? Especially, in the public place and he cannot calm down. I think that the child has to realize who his parents are and what respect he should have. Spanking may work in this case. 2. \"Once burned, twice shy\". Getting hit once, there is a chance that he would understand that it is bad thing and he should avoid doing it. The child tries different things out of curiosity and there is always danger for his life. Talks don't work in this case - it can even provoke bigger interest and desire to try. One little spank can show him that he should never try it again.", "qid": 4, "docid": "cbc2753f-2019-04-18T16:59:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7767581343650818}, {"content": "Title: Spanking In Schools Content: First I feel the need to comment you on how convincing you are. Spanking in schools has been eleminated in many states including Iowa where i live. Im neutral when it comes to spanking by parents, but im school? I think not. We teach our kids not to hit, but when we spank them we are hitting their bottoms. While you bring up a good point str chudies have shown that spanking causes problems later down the road. Also, instead of a bend over and let me swat your butt, why not do a detention or a in school suspension. How would you like it if someone that you barely know walks by sees your on your phone and says okay stick that butt in the air. I would be a little concerned. And with just a spankingby a parent the CPS gets all huffy puffy. Why dont they do that when a kid gets spanked in school? It just makes no sense at all. Thanks for challenging me Sources: cnn.com", "qid": 4, "docid": "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7754334807395935}, {"content": "Title: Spanking Content: The point of my opening argument is that spanking is an effective way to punish children. Please note, though, that I do believe spanking has its limits. I do not believe in spanking as soon as a child disobeys. I also do not believe spanking should be done with a harsh tool, especially not a belt. Now onto my argument. Spanking is often a very effective way of punishment because the effects are IMMEDIATE. Unlike a grounding or a \"time-out\" you can not merely defy a corporal punishment. In fact, spanking can be used to teach as a part of discipline. Example: your two-year old son is hitting his older sister. He won't listen to your reprimands because he doesn't want to and doesn't see any valid reason two. If you demonstrate to him what hitting feels like, he will feel less inclined to hit his sister because he realizes it hurts. Even if this is not the case, he has a valid reason now not to continue. Spanking can be used as a helpful way to teach even more so if you show your love for you child after the punishment and show you just want to help them. If you follow this pattern, your child will be much less likely to be negatively affected by the punishment. There are plenty of real life examples of people who have benefited from spanking. My own grandpa was a \"wild child,\" so to speak. He told a story of how he was sent to a special school for kids who were called a \"wild child\". He was spanked till he bled, which would never even be allowed today, but he says he was thankful for the punishments in the long run. They straightened him out and he ended up graduating with the highest honors a student at that school could receive. So, what's your rebuttal?", "qid": 4, "docid": "57c3acdb-2019-04-18T15:38:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7750641703605652}, {"content": "Title: Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful. Content: I will be arguing that spanking/smacking children FOR disciplinary reasons is more beneficial to them than it is harmful. If you need clarifications please post your questions in the comments.", "qid": 4, "docid": "510d3995-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7745991349220276}, {"content": "Title: Physical Punishment Content: Punishment should not be given as physical assault is illegal and I do not believe teachers want to go to jail. Pro seems to give a number of guidelines to follow, but who will be there to monitor them? No one. Teachers are free to abuse it all they like. Maybe they had a bad day and decide to hit some kids. Who would be there to stop them? No one. How can we judge whether it's 'too violent'? We can't. It is also impossible to rationally deduct that physical punishment will directly lead to a child questioning all future decisions. Pro has given no reasoning or evidence for this.I will now provide some psychological evidence that beating a child is bad for their development.Physical punishments result in long term effects of depression, anxiety, substance abuse in later years, and a slew of other problems[1].They result in a higher incidence of health issues in adult life such as cardiovascular disease[2].Children who are hit are more likely to grow up to be aggressive[3].It simply teachers children to avoid getting caught rather than attacking the heart of the issue - not doing it at all[4].There is no evidence that physical punishment is beneficial[5].[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[5] http://www.cmaj.ca...;", "qid": 4, "docid": "624a3333-2019-04-18T16:30:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7741571664810181}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Better ways exist; corporal punishment is lazy way", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00016-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7739517688751221}, {"content": "Title: It is wrong and inappropriate. Content: So by having this atricle you are stating that parents can not punish their children or teachers can not punish their pupils for misbehaving and causing a disruptance in class rooms and at home? If we all were to follow this article and not punish our children by \"striking the fear of God into them\" as some say how are we supposed to punish the children? Children are already violent already, by not ceasing this to happen and using corporal punishment it will be come a \"living hell\" as my father says. I know for a fact cause I was a child at first that slaping a kids hand or grounding them does nothing to cease the problem but makes them more defiant towards rules. By doing this how are we supposed to prepare them for the real world because after you make a big mistake the cops are not going to smack you on the hand and put you in the corner. NO there will be much bigger concequences. So do you want a diciplined next generation or a misbehaving unlawful generation? You tell me... You do realize that most people who beat their children are doing it because it worked for them when their parents used to beat them as children? Also, what makes the U.N. transcendant and all-knowing. I agree with its sentiment, but it is largely mistaken if it thinks that corporal punishment is abuse. Abuse kills, corporal punishment does not.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00057-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7735233902931213}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: Corporal punishment is justifiable as a last resort", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7733913660049438}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment is a good tool for disciplining unruly children Content: Walter Williams. \"Making a Case for Corporal Punishment\". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: \"Regardless of what the experts preached, the undeniable fact is the 'uncivilized' practice of whipping children produced more civilized young people. Youngsters didn't direct foul language to, or use it in the presence of, teachers and other adults. In that 'uncivilized' era, assaulting a teacher or adult never would have crossed our minds. Today, foul language and assaults against teachers are routine in many schools. For some kinds of criminal behavior, I think we'd benefit from having punishment along the lines of Singapore's caning as a part of our judicial system.\"", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7733531594276428}, {"content": "Title: Spanking In Schools Content: Hi there, Grantholben! I look forward to having a spirited debate with you. Since capital punishment is already enacted in many states (Source 1) and you're looking to make the claim that those states should change their policies, the burden of proof is on you; I only need to refute each of your arguments, but I will also bring in a few of my own here and there to emphasize my point of view.The first argument you presented was that \"spanking shouldn't be allowed in schools because it's the parents [sic] choice weather [sic] or not to spank their child.\" While I agree that parents should have the final word on how their children are treated in many cases, it should be noted that society has a responsibility to ensure that each individual's rights are not infringed upon by others. If a man commits a mass murder, for example, it shouldn't be up to his parents to decide how to punish him; we have a legal system in place to ensure that others' rights are not infringed upon, and we as a society take care of the problem by entrusting his fate to others. The man would be sent to prison for life or possibly be executed, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the state he committed the crime in.Similarly, if a boy in a school is putting others in danger or disrupting the class in some way, the parents should not always be the final authority concerning how he is punished. In some cases, the teacher needs to punish the student to make sure the classroom doesn't fall into chaos. A teacher needs to do his or her job, and all of the other students have a right to education without interruption from the boy. In fact, if all else fails and a spanking is deemed the only way to convince the boy to listen to the teacher and learn, then it's a win-win-win: the teacher is able to teach; the other students in the class can learn in an ideal, disruption-free environment; and the boy can snap out of his disruptive behavior and study with the other students.Then, as an example of your first point that I just refuted, you brought up the example of \"a girl from Texas who got spanked\u2026and had bruises.\" You listed cnn.com as your reference. That being a rather large website, I believe we can agree that it would be somewhat unreasonable for me to have to comb through the website to find the exact information you intend to convey. However, I thought I'd take the time for you to find what I believe is your source, or at least, the same story. (Source 2) In the story, the mother is upset that her child was spanked at school, and I do sympathize with her, but you've presented a gross oversimplification.First, the mother was not upset that her child was spanked; she was upset that her child was spanked by a male instructor. The school policy was that \"females swatted females, and males swatted males.\" Had a female instructor spanked her with appropriate strength, this would not have been an issue, because 1.) it would have been in line with school policy, and 2.) it would have been with sufficient strength for the misdeed the girl committed (more on the \"misdeed\" later). Nowhere does the mother disagree with corporal punishment; in fact, she wants it enforced and controlled. \"Men are too big and strong to be hitting 96-pound girls,\" she says. As you stated earlier, parents have the choice of whether to spank their children, correct? This mother wants her child spanked, but she wants it done in an appropriate manner by a third party. She knowingly put her daughter in this school because it had the rules and environment that she deemed appropriate. You can't take away the mother's right to choose a school she believes is right for her daughter.Now, about the \"misdeed\" I mentioned earlier. The girl wasn't just minding her own business when the teacher walked up and spanked her; she was \"letting another student copy her work.\" In many schools, this can get a student expelled. Students should not be denied education, because that only leads to crime (Source 3), which, I believe, you'll agree is a bad thing. If a spanking can keep a student in school and allow her to understand her wrongdoings to avoid doing them again, there is no reason not to continue to do so in schools. Which is less acceptable to you--a child who becomes more likely to commit crimes and leads a terrible life because she was expelled from school, or a child who suffered a few bruises on her bottom but grows up with a full education and becomes successful in later years?Finally, your last sentence: \"Spanking is not the best in general but definitely not in schools.\" This wasn't entirely clear to me, but my best guess is that you intended to say that \"spanking is not the best form of punishment, and it therefore does not belong in schools.\" If this is the case, you are saying that spanking is an effective form of punishment to some degree, but it does not belong in schools. Spanking is not the best, but it does work somewhat. In that case, why take it away? Schools should have a variety of methods to encourage students to cooperate with teachers and learn the material; why limit them arbitrarily? Corporal punishment is fast and can be done on the spot. These conditions make it a better deterrent than anything that forces students to wait a few weeks before being punished. (Source 4) It's similar to why a dog should be punished for pooping in the house as soon as possible; it will have no idea what it is being punished for if you wait a week to do it. Do you like dogs? I love dogs, but if one needs to be punished, I wouldn't hesitate to. An unpunished dog bites, pees everywhere, and is generally unruly.Children won't forget like dogs do, but it does become more difficult for them to understand their misdeed if they are not punished as soon as they are caught. Any child psychologist or educator can tell you that in a few weeks, a child simply won't care about what happened after what seems like ages to their young minds. Therefore, spanking is a form of punishment and a deterrent that should not be taken away from schools as an option to discipline children.Your move.Sources:1 http://en.wikipedia.org...2 http://www.dailymail.co.uk...3 http://www.all4ed.org...4 \"Timing of Punishment as a Determinant of Response Inhibition,\" Child Development 34 (1963): 207-14", "qid": 4, "docid": "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7727261185646057}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children Content: I thank ScarletGhost for the challenge, and gladly accept. I will be taking the con position, defending the use of corporal punishment, as defined below, by parents. In debate, it is important to have definitions and rules to properly outline the position taken by the participants, and how the debate will be conducted. Since none were provided, I'd like to offer the following definitions and rules. DefinitionsCorporal punishment: Spanking on the rear, or smacking the hand or behind of a child. A non-abusive punishment used by parents, designed to correct harmful behaviors in children who refuse, or are not able to process, logical commands (i. e. Don't stick your fingers in a light socket). Children: Youths, ages 0-18. Child-rearing: Parenting; providing a nurturing and constructive environment that promotes growth and development in a child or children. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...RulesVideos may be used, provided that enough commentary is provided to explain the purpose, and relevance to the argument. Videos are not mandatory, and neither participant should be penalized for not using a video. The final round will be used for rebuttal and summation only. No new arguments will be introduced. A forfeit of any round equals a forfeit of the debate.", "qid": 4, "docid": "139da6c8-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7725703716278076}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment Content: Pro, thank you for your organized arguments.CounterA spanking does work.You stated that spanking children distracts them from the \"real goal\". You stated that the child would focus on the punishment and not on the reason they were punished. Then you took a leap and made the claim that they will not consider it bad behavior because they focused on the punishment. I think the first thing that must be clarified is the age of the children we are discussing. I will tell you this; when children under go corporal punishment, they MUST focus on the reason they are being punished because the child will always wonder what they could have done differently to avoid being punished. Also, take classical conditioning into count. Because the child recognizes a negative sanction to be in order every time a specific action will be performed, the child learns to avoid performing said action. You also stated that corporal punishment causes children to become desensitized to violence. I disagree, and here's why: If a child never experiences violence, he can never fully understand it and therefore becomes desensitized to it himself. If a child experiences violence, he recognizes it as negative and views it negatively. Ergo, the level of violence exposed to a child through spanking help to build awareness and character. Take a look at the difference in our generations. The older generation that was raised with corporal punishment show more respect for the individual and society as opposed to the child today who is disrespectful because he knows he can get away with it. That's the key here, getting away with it. If a child learns quick that a negative punishment will follow the breaking of a rule, the child will learn quickly to change his actions.I think we all can agree that nothing works better than a good old fashioned spanking.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7716640830039978}, {"content": "Title: For children, actions speak louder than words. Content: Children usually learn by observing role models and imitating them. Especially younger ones who do not fully understand the abstract moral concepts (empty words) behind the punishments, making them reliant to whoever the nearest role model is. Thus when you hit children very often they're at risk of thinking that morality only exists if you get caught/punished and if you're all grown up it's fine to hit smaller and powerless people. And corporal punishment does not work especially to those children who are too predisposed to violence and alienation, such as sociopaths. If anything you're just encouraging them on how to take their own personal grudges onto other people and justify them with empty words. I personally do not see a beneficial relation corporal punishment has with constructive parental modeling.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00071-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7713161706924438}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment can be regulated within orderly framework. Content: Corporal punishment must be used as part of a wider strategy and at the correct time: when other immediate discipline has failed; when the child understands their behaviour and has had an opportunity to explain it; and after an initial warning and opportunity for the child to repent. Crucially, the person delivering the punishment must not be angry at the time. This undermines much of the hysterical argument against corporal punishment.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7711889743804932}, {"content": "Title: It has been made illegal in so many countries for a reason. Content: Corporal Punishment has now been completely banned in 24 countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. Furthermore, there are numerous countries which are on their way to banning it such as Italy and Nepal, who have forbidden it by the courts but not by law as of yet. Corporal punishment is becoming widely discussed all over the world and the consideration to completely ban it is becoming a frequent query. Therefore, corporal punishment should not be reintroduced as evidently the fact that so many countries are against it portrays the negativity it brings and the banning of it in so many countries must be for a good reason. If there were any doubts all these countries would not have banned it and the UK would not have banned it in schools in the first place! To reinstate something which has already been thoroughly discussed years ago and of which the outcome was negative, would be absurd!", "qid": 4, "docid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00052-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7709823250770569}, {"content": "Title: Spanking your children Content: Spanking is NOT a form of discipline, rather a form of punishment and should not be implicated upon children as it is more harmful than beneficial. 1. It teaches children that violence is the proper method to get their way 2. It causes children to be fearful 3. It teaches children that it is okay to react out of anger, as well as aggressive behaviours The more appropriate means to discipline a child would be delivering a response as opposed to a reaction. Giving a child rationale regarding their wrong behaviours will teach the proper lesson that is originally intended to be taught. Being hit as a child could imply many negative and harmful messages to the child that will effect them into adulthood whether it is conscious or subconscious.", "qid": 4, "docid": "868551d1-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7706141471862793}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment of children Content: General statements in support of corporal punishment", "qid": 4, "docid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00037-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7698554396629333}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: My support for corporal punishment in school rests on a single premise. There may be times even if rare when the use of the strap or other implement is necessary and beneficial.", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7695692777633667}, {"content": "Title: corporal punishment Content: In my opinion, corporal punishment is brutal and too severe a disciplinary action. Corporal punishment can often be very traumatic to the person it is inflicted upon. So much so that a child subjected to corporal punishment more often than not grows up to abuse physically not only his own family but other acquaintances as well. Thankfully, this practice has been banned in several nations and is a punishable offence in a few others. There are more humane ways of admonishing a child. Take for example grounding him or her. This leaves space for the juvenile to ruminate over his or her bad behaviour and even offers a chance for reformation. However, if a child is beaten up in order to drill in some moral lesson, there is a high chance the innocent will fall back on its lesson and commit a similar offence, leading to a vicious cycle. In summary, corporal punishment is detrimental to a child's overall growth and can impair his/her self-esteem and cause lasting damage.", "qid": 4, "docid": "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7695313692092896}, {"content": "Title: Corporal punishment in schools. Content: Let me begin by saying that you have no evidence to support your claim. Your entire argument (despite how small it is) it is based entirely on an opinion. If we are spouting opinions I do not think hitting someone is necessary. I believe other punishments can be found for the child other than causing physical pain. \" even if rare\" If it is a punishment is with rare benefits, than you should weigh the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scared by corporal punishment experiences. http://centerforparentingeducation.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org......", "qid": 4, "docid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.769277811050415}, {"content": "Title: Judicial Corporal Punishment (e.g. caning) should be made illegal. Content: Corporal punishment is unjustifiable and amounts to child- abuse because it is unjustifiable and amounts to child abuse as it degrades the child and lowers their self esteem. It is illegal for a reason and increase the rate of crime and violence. Also it could have psychological effects on the children and also is wrong and inappropriate, while also harming children with genuine behavioural disorders or other disabilities .It brings fear and hardens the victims and for children actions speak louder then words.", "qid": 4, "docid": "3cb1c9ed-2019-04-18T15:44:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7689011096954346}]}
{"query": "Should social security be privatized?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Privatizing social security enables investment of savings Content: Alex Schibuola. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. November 16th, 2010: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00042-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8419693112373352}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security would improve economic growth", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8385907411575317}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8291460275650024}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security enables investment of savings", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00041-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8203758001327515}, {"content": "Title: Pensions should be privatised Content: Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea", "qid": 5, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8182330131530762}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will harm retirees", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8167619705200195}, {"content": "Title: Privatization is the least bad option. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. \"Privatizing social security the right way.\" Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: \"As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00069-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8151437044143677}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.", "qid": 5, "docid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8119529485702515}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00034-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8090035915374756}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00018-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8089808821678162}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"privatization would provide retirees with a much higher rate of return on their investments.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00052-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8073875308036804}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments. Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition\u2019s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would \u2013 and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00006-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8061853051185608}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00019-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8039489984512329}, {"content": "Title: Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline\u2014all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president\u2019s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00046-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.796974778175354}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing social security helps the poor.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00028-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.796853244304657}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"REASON #8: PRIVATE ACCOUNTS WOULD REQUIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers\u2014147 million in 1997. Many workers\u2019 accounts would be so small that they would be of no interest to profit-making firms. [...] the government would need to hire ten thousand highly trained workers just to oversee the accounts and answer questions from workers. In contrast, today\u2019s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 percent of annual revenues.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00065-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7958234548568726}, {"content": "Title: Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce. Content: \"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune: \"The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00067-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7948834896087646}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.", "qid": 5, "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.793559193611145}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?", "qid": 5, "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7925645709037781}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: As Daniel Webster once said, \"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.\" This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.", "qid": 5, "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7912225723266602}, {"content": "Title: Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds. Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"Diverting up to four percentage points of the payroll tax to create private accounts as the president has proposed would shorten significantly the time until the Trust Funds become depleted. In part, this is because funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The government would have to start borrowing from the private sector almost immediately to be able to meet commitments to retirees and near-retirees. As Figure 1 shows, the Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00050-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7872735261917114}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00062-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7872195243835449}, {"content": "Title: Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders. Content: \"LETTER: We should privatize Social Security.\" Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: \"Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00053-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7863203287124634}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will harm retirees Content: Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those \u2018baby boomers\u2019 who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.\u201d[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest \u2013it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00012-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.785358190536499}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00043-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7851904630661011}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "qid": 5, "docid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7851591110229492}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system Content: privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "qid": 5, "docid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7851591110229492}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security helps the poor. Content: Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7800382375717163}, {"content": "Title: raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do Content: even if you privatize social security and medicare, you still have to pay for it for current retirees and those nearing retirement. that would mean spending can't go down at the moment, your plan would only work in the future. and that's not even arguing that it's irresponsible to think people can invest their own money or somehow they'll get affordable healthcare without the government being involved. it's would be immoral and irresponsible to not pay for current retirees and close ones thus proving my resolution. it's easy to say cut unnecessary spending. it's another thing to show it in the numbers. the fact that you haven't shown any numbers makes me think you dont know much about the budget or spending.", "qid": 5, "docid": "5560f5d3-2019-04-18T12:56:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7751169204711914}, {"content": "Title: Privatization of Government Policies Content: We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this.", "qid": 5, "docid": "36e1731d-2019-04-18T18:29:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7726418375968933}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00026-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7666808366775513}, {"content": "Title: Social security should be privatized. Content: I'm glad we at least agree that social security has serious issues. It's always good to have common ground upon which to debate. I disagree that privatization has a shaky track record. It is government programs such as social security that have a shaky track record. Our entire economy is based on the merits of private enterprise, and it has worked for us thus far. Despite the relative youth of this country, we have managed to surpass all other nations in terms of economic productivity and wide-spread prosperity. I think it is rather inconsistent to say that, whereas privatization has proven successful in virtually every other area of our economy, that it would not be successful in providing retirement benefits for seniors. \"[In] Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work.\" I have no doubt that this is the case. However, I don't see that our system is much better. According to one website (which I have cited below due to the length of the URL) one third of U.S. retirees are forced to go back to work shortly after \"retiring,\" despite the 500 billion dollars collected in payrol taxes every year. At least Chile is getting its money's worth. \"Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution.\" I don't see how savings rates puts us into a higher risk bracket. Savings accounts are the second lowest risk investment type, preceeded only by cash itself. There would be virtually no risk involved. The cost of privatization is irrelevant. That cost will only grow the longer we wait to fix this problem. Our choice is not between privatization and non-privatization, it is between privatization now, which MAY cost 4.9 trillion (depending on how you go about it), or privatization later, after the system has collapsed and elderly people are left without an income. You wouldn't be replacing one bloated bureaucracy with another, you'd be eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and replacing it with a private system whose very survival depends on its ability to be efficient! It doesn't cost any more for a mutual fund manager to handle two billion dollars than it does to manage two million dollars. The additional administrative costs would arise with distribution of benefits. Since businesses, unlike the government, are trying to make money, they are forced to do things in the most efficient way possible. Because of this, the cost of distribution would be significantly less than under a government run system. Moreover, we would be introducing a powerful factor into retirement benefits: compound interest. If we were allowed to invest our own money for our own retirment, instead of pay for someone else's retirement by sending that money to the government, more people would retire in a much better financial situation than currently. If I were allowed to put 2,000 dollars per year into decent mutual fund (one that earns 10% interest after adjusting for administrative costs and inflation, which is not unrealistic) beginning at age 24 until I retire at sixty-five, I would end up with one million dollars, only $80,000 of which I had actually put in to the account! That constitutes a %1250 return on my investment. Contrast that with our current system in which you recieve an estimated 1.23% rate of return for two income households. If social security is nothing more than the crappy end of a larger investment portfolio, why have it at all? Yes, there would still be administrative costs for a private system, but at least we'd be getting something in return. Why send $200 dollars to the government every paycheck where it will acrue no interest when you could invest it and get at as much as 10% interest? In light of this, social security is indeed a joke. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so completely wasteful. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HGSGDdY0zq0J:www.ci.walla-walla.wa.us/vertical/Sites/%257B5C31B82F-5E63-4200-9CF4-237E5245E279%257D/uploads/%257B528FE4F0-356F-4DB6-A60E-6258691ACD6B%257D.DOC http://www.heritage.org...", "qid": 5, "docid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7666292190551758}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security would improve economic growth Content: Privatizing social security would enable investment of savings. Commentator Alex Schibuola argues that: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\"[1] As a result private accounts would also increase investments, jobs and wages. Michael Tanner of the think tank the Cato Institute argues: \"Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\"[2] Currently Social Security represents a net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Social Security, although key to the restructuring the of USA\u2019s social contract following the great depression, represents a bad deal for the post-war American economy. Moreover, this deal has gotten worse over time. 'Baby boomers' are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Young adults who came of age in the early 1990s and today's children are on course to lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. If OASI taxes were to be raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an on-going basis, baby boomers would forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. For those born later it would be 10 cents.[3] Change could be implemented gradually. Andrew Roth argues: \u201cWhile Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would probably stay in the current system [if Social Security were to be privatized], younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bail out politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have, so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.\u201d[4] This would make social security much more sustainable as there would no longer be the risk of the money being spent elsewhere. Put simply, privatizing Social Security would actually boost economic growth and lead to better-protected investments by beneficiaries, benefiting not only themselves but the nation at large. Thus Social Security should be privatized. [1] Schibuola, Alex. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. 16 November 2010. http://www.openmarket.org/2010/11/16/time-to-privatize-the-economics-of-... [2] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [3] Kotlikoff, Lawrence. \"Privatizing social security the right way\". Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. 3 June 3 1998. http://people.bu.edu/kotlikof/Ways&Means.pdf [4] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00007-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7655584812164307}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: To clearify as my opponent has asked, Priviatization shall be the ending of Federal Control in Social Security and a phase out to private control in a 10 year peroid. People with money curently in federal funds shall have this transfered to the compan the client chooes. My opponent is defending the Status Quo, Social Security as it is in this current moment.Contention 1: The Role of the GovernmentP1.The Government should only act to enforce the Imperatives of Perfect Duties.P2. Social Security does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce Social Security.\"\"Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to \u201cact only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form \u2018One mustnever (or always) \u03c6 to the fullest extent possible in C\u2019, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form \u2018One must sometimes and to some extent \u03c6 in C\u2019\" [1]According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society. These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities. As a matter of fact the Social Secutiry Program is actually the exact opposite of a Perfect Duty and is shown to be that of something that the Federal Government should protect against, or at least not do. I'll get more into this in a later contention.\u201cAny action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law\u201d [2]We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. [3] Kant also argues that Rights are not created by the establishment of government. [4] So this furthers that the Social Security Program is not a right for the people and thus it should not be preformed by the federal government, but instead run by a private company.The finial part of the argument here revolves around Distributive Justice. We can see that the there are two types of rights: Positive Rights and Negative Rights.Positive Rights- Duty to help others, like provide Social Security, Free internet, food stamps, welfare, etc...Negative Rights- Freedom of Speach, Press, property, etc... Freedom from Crime, violence, etc... [5]Nozick, Libertarian Ethics Philosopher, has shown that the federal government shoul only enforce negative rights. [6] The distributive justice is the distrabution of society's burdens and benefits. The Libertarian Principle argues for there being no positive Rights, but negative rights on the grounds that people will work the hardest and for the greatest possible soceity through their own means. This was even acknowledged by Alexis De Tocqueville who noted that the American individualism caused them to be self-entrapenurial and to work towards improvement for their own good and that it also helps society. [7] Though many may argue that this causes a division De Tocqueville saw that America was a Civil nation where they they were treated equally and was the only country that called the waiter \"Sir\" as if he was a knight. Contention 2: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [8] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [9] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [10] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [11] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 3: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [12] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, \"someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.\" This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [13]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by \"reaching into the cookie jar\" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [14] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon \"Aaaaand it's Gone.\" [15]Sources1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: \"Naturrecht Feyerabend\" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)3. (Johnson, Robert. \"Kant's Moral Philosophy.\" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)4. (http://www.follesdal.net...) 5. (The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand (1961)6. (http://ajjulius.net...) 7. (https://mollydodd.wordpress.com...) 8. ( Social Security Administration, \"Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries,\" ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)9. ( Board of Trustees, Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, \"The 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,\" ssa.gov, July 22, 2015) 10. ( http://www.ncpa.org...) 11. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, \"CPI Inflation Calculator,\" bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)12. (Michael Clingman et al., \"Internal Real Rates of Return under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers,\" ssa.gov, Dec. 2014) 13. Martin Feldstein, \"Private Accounts Can Save Social Security,\" wsj.com, May 2, 201114. (President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, \"Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans,\" ssa.gov, Dec. 21, 2001) 15. ( Michael Tanner, \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor,\" cato.org, July 26, 1996)", "qid": 5, "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7618510723114014}, {"content": "Title: The US should raise it's Debt Ceiling, with or without concessions Content: Thanks for the debate Double_R. My opponent was doing well until this last round, where he basically concedes all my arguments - all he does is repeat them back at me as questions. He never proves that privatizing Social Security would be bad, whereas I asserted that is the fair thing to do, since my generation won't get any of its benefits. Couple that with defense cuts (like removing troops from Germany, Italy, England, and Japan) and we could solve this problem without increasing the debt ceiling. He never proves that repudiating our debt would be bad. He never proves that China/Japan wouldn't just be forced to bail us out or forgive some of our debt. All he does is invoke my lack of a source, without bothering to attack my logic. But right now, I'll expand on both the source and logical warrant. First, this is a well known fact, that China holds too many T-bonds to dump them. Slate writes, \"Still, there's little sign that China will reduce its U. S. -debt investments, or slow its purchase of T-bonds; any sell-off would risk flooding the market, devaluing China's investments still further. \" . http://www.slate.com... Second, it just makes logical sense. If China holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury bonds, and they want to start selling, the problem is, they can't find enough buyers for all the trillions of dollars at once. So lets say they manage to sell a few hundred million. But as soon as investors hear that China is selling T-bonds, the value of the T-bonds plummets, meaning China's announcement of their intent to sell T-bonds destroys the value of their T-bonds. It's a simple supply issue. It's an ironic development that China bought so many T-bonds that they can't get rid of them, but the US should most definitely use this to our advantage, ESPECIALLY considering that our debt and overconsumption is responsible for a lot of China's recent growth. They should pay some of it back. My opponent argues that I'm being contradictory - arguing both for no increase in the debt ceiling and abolishing it. But in the world of debate, I can advocate that the judge vote for one or the other. If you don't buy my arguments regarding not increasing the debt ceiling, then vote to abolish it. My opponent agrees that this would be a negation of the resolution. If the debt ceiling is so annoying and keeps resulting in useless political bickering, when we've already spent the money anyways (since the budget is passed longer before the debt ceiling rise is debated), and if you buy my opponent's argument, that not raising the debt ceiling leads to the destruction of the US economy, then avoiding having this same fight the next year and the year after and the year after is better, so vote Con to repeal the debt ceiling entirely. It has more benefit than voting Pro, if you buy his case. But if not, then vote Con anyway, since if you want a debt ceiling to have any meaning, we have to actually enforce it for once. We raised the debt ceiling in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, twice in 2008, and are considering doing it again this year. As Rothbard noted, we just automatically increase it whenever the issue arises, which is why the debt ceiling has gone from $2.5 trillion to $14.8 trillion. My opponent's only real argument in his last round is an analogy about a credit card bill. But remember, if you hit your spending limit, the credit card company won't just increase the limit for you - that's not how a limit works. My opponent next invokes all the bad things that would happen - his sister not getting her check for serving in the military; grandma not getting her Medicare. First, note that we could solve the problem (which my opponent claims would require $738 billion in cuts) with JUST cuts to the military and Social Security. I never argue for shutting down the government or Medicare. Also, note all the other reasons I provide for why this would either not happen or would be good: 1) China could not dump T-bonds, so they'd just have to forgive the debt or bail us out 2) US could print money, causing inflation, which would cause the dollar to devalue relative to other currencies, making our exports more competitive 3) US could renounce the debt, allow the dollar to collapse, and use gold and silver as legal tender, avoiding the boom and bust cycle forevermore (my opponent asks which states are doing this now - Utah is . http://www.dailypaul.com...) 4) We could make the necessary cuts - the Deficit Reduction Committee gave us a huge list. 5) We could simplify the tax code (also recommended by the Deficit Reduction Committee), so we collect more taxes. The IRS fails to collect 20% of potential tax revenue. 6) The Republicans could just threaten to hold out on raising the debt ceiling (a real, credible threat). If the consequences really are as dire as my opponent says and the threat is credible, Obama would be forced to give in. But this still requires you to vote Con because we need to be serious about the threat to get the government to lock in future cuts. This is the only way to get cuts since otherwise politicians will just put them off for future generations. Notice my opponent leaves all of the above arguments unrefuted. He also never proves that the government is good. Maybe a government shutdown wouldn't be as bad as he says it is. As I said, if the government shut down, the private sector would take over the areas the government currently administers, but do them much more efficiently, generating jobs. And people not having to pay taxes anymore would massively stimulate the economy. My opponent doesn't impact anything, he just appeals to your gut with rhetorical questions (\"abolish Social Security? ?? \"). My opponent says \"the time\" to have taken a stand on the debt ceiling was during the Bush years, but first, we always blame everything on previous politicians to absolve the current politicians from taking any responsibility. Second, the debt ceiling was much much much lower before Bush took office; even if Bush had not increased our debt, we'd still be debating raising the debt ceiling right now to pay for Obama's $1.5 trillion deficit, even if the debt was instead at only $6 trillion. The point is, we didn't take a stand back then because \"the debt didn't seem that bad. \" We won't take a stand now because \"the economy hasn't improved enough. \" But this will be a long winter - our economy has recovered, while removing 6 million jobs structurally; businesses have achieved growth through outsourcing and computerizing tasks previously done by people. If we use that as justification to deficit spend $1.5 trillion each year, for the next 5-10 years, until things get better, then future generations are screwed. We are literally mortgaging our future, and the futures of our children. Every dollar that we deficit spend now is a significantly decreased quality of life in the future, since the bills will come due at some point, and that will be an extremely painful period. Even if I'm unemployed right now, that doesn't justify making my kid pay 90% of his income 30 years from now to pay for our enormous debt and entitlements. Anyways, the government hasn't passed a stimulus since 2009 - we're not even using the $1.5 trillion to generate jobs. We're just wasting money.", "qid": 5, "docid": "768ad5f4-2019-04-18T18:47:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7593652009963989}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security Content: Let us get back to the debate. Contention 1: Harming Retirees My opponent argues that Privitazation would harm the retirees, but this is fallacous. I have shown last round they will be given an oppertunity to do with it as they please as they will have full ownership of the money in their private accounts. [1] With the ending of the government monopoly on the issue they can chose to do a multitude of things from investing in the stock market to banking or from investing in things like existing Roth IRAs and 401K plans. We would have to realize that opening the market will allow a multitude of new businesses to rush in and take over helping the Senior Citizens and look out for their best interstests. Not to mention that you would be able to own your own accounts. Just as a Legal immirgrant was denied any sort of Social Security even though he was a registered US citizen and he paid taxes, but was dennied his SS benefits, but under privitization these options are open to anyone. [2] My opponent fears a stock market SS option, but that is a rediculious fear. We have seen that upon an investment you can see an anuall growth of 11% of your account showing a great deal of economic growth. That's just without a large investment if this plan is ennacted. [3] Let's do some generic math here to see the net benefit or loss from this. -The average stock grows 10% each year. [4] -Average dividend is 3%[5] -Inflation is about 3.2% [6] So mathematically we can expect to see an average of 9.8% growth in earnings each year while the individual under Social Security would be at 2.7-3.2%. Which after 42 years (from age 18-60) under this plan you'll get $711,000 vs. if you just stuck with the status quo Social Security you can get the maximum of $118,500. [7] Even if this cap is eliminated under this estimate under my opponent's system it will only rise to a whopping $126,000. Not to mention that this is just simply the average stock vs. SS max. Can you image if you get better than normal? You'd be a millionare. We can see that on the Solvency here and the balance of the impacts my plan outweighs my opponents. We can see that this would be a gradual thing that will be phased out of in 10 years. Last year Social Security ate up 26% of the US budget with $906 billion and this number is growing. Funding will simply come from the existing SS budget as the number will sink as the accounts are being privitized. [8] Contention 2: Privatization I know that my system hasn't been tried anywhere, but that doesn't mean that it would outright fail. How do you think we've gotten to the moon. With that I will move on to some of the examples that my opponent has brought up to show why he is incorrect and ommitting a great deal of the truth from you. The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control. You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Contention 3: Counter Plan I agree with my opponent that something here needs to be done, but his purposal is purposterous and will wreck the economy. We currently see that the tax rate is currently 6.20% for Social Security and Medicare is approximately 1.45%. We can see that the tax rate wouldn't go up by 0.7%, but we would see a jump to at least 9% in order to cover the Social Security Costs over the next 75 years. Economicst Emmanuel Saez and Jefferey Libberman have found that even if we eliminate the Tax Cap we can still see a 40% short fall of SSA statistics. [11] So even if Con's plan is enacted it wouldn't improve the situation, but actually make it worse. He also found that if any raise did occur then they actually found that poor women would actually have a negative earnings and their money that they would be pooring into the system would be worth a whole lot less then if it was implamented. Not only was it found that the nation would get less income from the taxation, but people in the long run tended to end up with less money on this plan than the SSA's by $1,000s at many times and begins to stagnate around those who make $60,000 and up. [12] We can actually see that one of the key things we have here is that those above the Tax Max make well less than those who pay into the system. It turns out that those over tend to make a whoping 5% over the tax limit while the rest make out richer in the end. We can also see that with the current federal tax bracket there is 45% tax rate for the top bracket. [13] After the increase at federal and state level which includes raising the tax rates to accomidate this we can see they will wind up with an overal 12% tax increase to the point to where they are tax higher than those in Scandinavia and we still wouldn't see Substantial solvency in the long run still leading to this counter-plan to be a failure. [14] Not to mention that this plan still doesn't solve for much of the issues with current Social Security Standings as not only is it worse, but we can see that there's still holes in it. We can still see that in the long run we will still see a Bridge Payer system here and with the US population growing older we can see that this issue will only continue to grow worse and the problem needs to be fixed now. Just as under Con's plan and the Status Quo, the US Federal Government can still use the SS funds to do whatever they want with it as they please and for many Americans it will just seem like another way more money is being squeezed out of Americans and our Senior Citizens still won't see a dime. [15] Not to mention if they die before they reach the age that they would be able to receive it, under Con's Plan just as the Status Quo, the funds would dissolve, but under my plan, as I have shown last round, will move to the clostest living relitive. Sources 1. (Michael D. Tanner, \"Is There a Right to Social Security? ,\" cato. org, Nov. 25, 1998) 2. (Social Security Administration, \"Social Security History: Supreme Court Case: Flemming vs. Nestor,\" ssa. gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015) 3. Aswath Damodaran, \"Annual Returns on Stock, Bonds and T-bill\u2019s: 1928 - Current,\" New York University Stern School of Business website, Jan. 5, 2015 4. (. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) 5. (. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...) 6. (. http://inflationdata.com...) 7. (. http://www.kiplinger.com...) 8. (Courtney Baird, \"Diving into the Deficit,\" Committee for Economic Development website, Nov. 6, 2014) 9. (. http://www.cato.org...) 10. (. http://www.texaspolicy.com...) 11. ( . http://eml.berkeley.edu...) 12. ( 1 Saez (2001) shows, when deriving the optimal non-linear marginal tax rate formula, that the same Laffer rate formula applies when considering a local marginal tax rate increase exactly as in our 90% of earnings)13. (. http://fee.org...) 14. ( Andrew G. Biggs, \u201cEntitlements: Not Just a Health Care Problem,\u201d AEI Retirement Policy Outlook (August 2008), www. aei. org/outlook/28443. See also Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (Washington, DC, June 2010), www. cbo. gov /doc. cfm? index=11579 (accessed March 8, 2011). 15. ( Michael Tanner, \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor,\" cato. org, July 26, 1996)26, 1996)", "qid": 5, "docid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7586861252784729}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Fiscal conservative candidates should embrace it. While Americans in retirement or approaching retirement would stay in the current system, younger workers should have the option to invest a portion of their money in financial assets other than U.S. Treasuries. These accounts would be the ultimate \"lock box\" - they would prevent politicians in Washington from raiding the Trust Fund. The truth is that taxpayers bailout politicians every year thanks to Social Security. Congress and the White House spend more money than they have so they steal money from Social Security to help pay for it. That needs to stop and there is no responsible way of doing that except with personal accounts.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00044-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7586105465888977}, {"content": "Title: this should be the outline for reforming social security Content: if social security isn't reformed in the next couple decades, everyone will be forced to take a twenty five percent cut. what should we do about it? if we take as a premise as most people do that we should salvage the program, you run into a basic math problem. we can either ration it, or we can raise revenue, or both. as far as the rationing side of things, we can either let grandma get her check reduced, or we can focus on those who make more than they need. why are we paying trump and the richest men in the world over thirty grand a year? if we have to ration, ration towards the top and work your way down. really we should prioritize cutting these excessive payments before we even consider raising any taxes. liberals like to say raise the wage cap on what is taxed for higher income. but this only solves the problem for a couple generations. nothing to sneeze at of course, and most people don't get their tax increased. but this is just throwing money at the issue, and not fundamentally or permanently reforming the program. we also rational as need be, and restructure the program. as far as restructuring, we can make the program more of an insurance program, such that you get money if you are poor or not well off, and taper off benefits to those who are rich. we could give them something, though, so that everyone receives some benefit and all are affected. they considered doing it as insurance when they created the program, but wanted everyone to be involved, understandably, so some of this can be kept too. as a last thought, there's also the more conservative ideas of privatizing social security. the major reservation i have there is mostly for the poor and not well off. if they had to rely on what they were able to get in the market with what they invest now, they wouldn't do all that well. social security does a better job than the market for these people, if you can tolerate a little redistribution, like most people can. as far as privatizing some of it, id be concerned about ensuring we have a guaranteed minimum that people receive regardless of the market. so maybe we could go with investing say half of your tax in accounts that are well regulated, and perhaps taxing the richest accounts if need be to ensure a proper redistribution. this has the potential to raise everyone's benefit and be a win for all. we'd again though want to ensure enough is kept as a minimum for those who are not well off. it's winter, but it must not be all that cold outside, cause those of my political persuasion are still willing to put our hands in other other people's pockets instead of keeping them where it's warm, in our own. ha", "qid": 5, "docid": "8270f66a-2019-04-18T11:46:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7569066286087036}, {"content": "Title: Private accounts can be transferred within family Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"These accounts would also be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. If you die, you can pass it along to your heirs. With the current system, you can't do that. You have no claim on that money even though you may have spent a lifetime paying payroll taxes.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00063-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7567213773727417}, {"content": "Title: Support for privatization is driven by misinformation. Content: Max Skidmore. \"Why Privatizing Social Security Is a Terrible Idea.\" History News Network. February 28th, 2005: \"There can be little doubt, at least among those who view the issue objectively, that it is purely iIdeology (or misinformation), not economics, that generates the enthusiasm for privatization.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00078-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7566916942596436}, {"content": "Title: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on Content: Private accounts would provide retirees with a higher rate of return on investments.[1] Privatization would give investment decisions to account holders. This does not mean that Social Security money for the under 55\u2019s would go to Wall Street.. This could be left to the individual's discretion. Potentially this could include government funds. But with government\u2019s record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, it seems unlikely that many people would join that choice.[2] As Andrew Roth argues, \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that [can be raided by] politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\"[3 Social Security privatization would actually help the economically marginalised in two ways. Firstly, by ending the harm social security currently does; Those at the poverty level need every cent just to survive. Even those in the lower-middle class don\u2019t money to put into a wealth-generating retirement account. They have to rely on social security income to pay the bills when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, current social security pay-outs are at or below the poverty level. The money earned in benefits based on a retiree\u2019s contributions during their working life is less than the return on a passbook savings account.[4] Secondly, these same groups would be amongst the biggest 'winners' from privatization. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. The current system contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are most likely to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.[5] Privatizing Social Security would improve individual liberty. Privatization would give all Americans the opportunity to participate in the economy through investments. Everyone would become capitalists and stock owners reducing the division of labour and capital and restoring the ownership that was the initial foundation of the American dream.[6] Moreover, privatized accounts would be transferable within families, which current Social Security accounts are not. These privatized accounts would be personal assets, much like a house or a 401k account. On death, privatised social security accounts could pass to an individual\u2019s heirs. With the current system, this cannot be done. Workers who have spent their lives paying withholding taxes are, in effect, denied a proprietary claim over money that, by rights, belongs to them.[7] This would make privatization a progressive move. Because the wealthy generally live longer than the poor, they receive a higher total of Social Security payments over the course of their lifetimes. This would be evened out if remaining benefits could be passed on.[8] Privatizing Social Security increases personal choice and gives people control over what they paid and thus are entitled to. Overall, therefore, privatizing Social Security would increase the amount of money that marginalised retirees receive and would give all retirees more freedom to invest and distribute social security payments. [1] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [2] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [3] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [4] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [5] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [6] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html [7] Roth, Andrew. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\". Club for Growth.21 September 21 2010. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110 [8] Tanner, Michael. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. 26 July 1996. http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp4.html", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00009-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7552181482315063}, {"content": "Title: Social Security should be optional and individuals should have the option to opt out. Content: Because my opponent did not submit an argument, I continue to advocate which I stated in the previous round. In closing, I am not against the idea of Social Security. I think that it was a necessary program in the era of the Great Depression and World War 2 to help lift America out of economic turmoil and aid struggling seniors. But since then, many more tools and methods have become available to save for retirement and build up a \"nest egg\". Some of these methods are much more effective than social security and provide the holder with a real tangoble asset which they can pass down to their spouse or children. I am not saying take away Social Security. It should still be left in place but it should be made optional for those who are savvy investors and savers and would feel that they can save more effectively using an alternative method to the social security system. I urge everyone to vote CON. Thank you!", "qid": 5, "docid": "efd6a8a8-2019-04-18T14:03:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7531156539916992}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.", "qid": 5, "docid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7511606216430664}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00009-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.749718189239502}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7496030330657959}, {"content": "Title: The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo Content: Social Security is not in crisis and there is no need for privatization. Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Proposition\u2019s dire prediction of the collapse of social security\u2019s financial situation is misleading. The Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through to 2037. Even after this it would still be able to pay 78%. Moreover, there are plenty of ways to reform Social Security to make it more fiscally sound without privatizing it, including simply raising taxes to fund it better.[1] Furthermore the problem that affects social security of falling numbers of contributors to each retiree will also affect private pensions, at least in the short to medium term, just in a different way. If all younger pensioners went over to just paying for their own future retirement who is to pay for current retirees or those who are shortly to retire. These people will still need to have their pensions paid for. They will not have time to save up a personal pension and so will be relying on current workers \u2013 but such workers will not want to pay more when they are explicitly just paying for someone else as they are already paying for themselves separately. [1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_...", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00010-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7479150295257568}, {"content": "Title: \"Universal Healthcare\" is just a euphemism for socialism. Content: To start, I'd like to say that I'm not the most ardent supporter of nationalized health care in the world, so much so that I don't declare a position in my debate.org profile, but this seems like it will be a pretty theoretical debate, so I decided to give it a shot! Whiplash, I do not think that for opposing a nationalized system of health care you're some monocle-wearing Mr. Burns-esque figure - your position is certainly logical and valid. I do wonder however, what you think of other services provided by the government. If we follow your logic, we should privatize all retirement plans, schools, and even roads. Not everyone reaps the same benefits from Social Security, not everyone sends their children to public schools, and not everyone travels on roads kept up with public funds. Do you believe all of these things should be privatized as well? If you label nationalized health care as socialism, you'll need to label those things as socialism as well. I understand that the title of this debate is hyperbolic, but there are elements of socialism in U.S. government already - implementing nationalized health care wouldn't make Lenin proud however, because it's still a very small portion of wealth being redistributed, if we want to use that term. I'll leave my argument there for now and see where it takes us - I've got some other arguments I'd like to bring up later though!", "qid": 5, "docid": "480492be-2019-04-18T20:02:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7454541921615601}, {"content": "Title: Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation: \"Reason #4: privatization has been a disappointment elsewhere.\": \"Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, \u201cmore than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.\u201d [read extended quote in argument page].", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00075-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7453945875167847}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: social security should be means tested against the rich a person making a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is in the ninety percentile of income. if we cut out benefits for the top ten percent, then, we'd be reducing the cost of social security by more than ten percent given theyd otherwise be getting much bigger than average payouts. cutting social security by ten fifteen or twenty percent would go a long way to balancing the budget. that is, if we cut the whole budget by thirteen percent, we'd balance the budget. i'm just arguing that social security houldn't be exempt. i'd rather not cut their benefits, but we need to find places to cut to balance the budget. please, tell me how you would address the fiscal situation without cutting benefits? or do you think everyone's benefits should be cut not just the rich? should we cut defense more? if you say we should privatize social security and medicare, you still have to show how you'd pay for current and near retirees. this will take decades to deal with. the current generation retiring has been borrowing aganst social security to pay for goverment and defense. it's only fair we focus on not lettin them pass the buck onto the next generation by cutting their benefits some.", "qid": 5, "docid": "38b0fe14-2019-04-18T12:54:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7452598810195923}, {"content": "Title: Private social security accounts are voluntary. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Democrats will say supporters of personal accounts will allow people's fragile retirement plans to be subjected to the whims of the stock market, but that's just more demagoguery. First, personal accounts would be voluntary. If you like the current system (the one that is raidable by politicians), you can stay put and be subjected to decreasingly low returns as Social Security goes bankrupt. But if you want your money protected from politicians and have the opportunity to invest in the same financial assets that politicians invest in their own retirement plans (most are well-diversified long term funds), then you should have that option.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00074-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7449241280555725}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatizing Social Security negatively impacts women", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00021-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7442866563796997}, {"content": "Title: Today's Social Security was a terrible idea Content: Arguments will start in round 2. Pro will argue that Social Security as it stands today should never have been implemented. Con will argue for the status quo. Things this debate should steer clear of:Purely emotional argumentsTalking points based on conjecture and not backed up with factual sourcesPersonal attacksThanks for accepting! Good Luck!", "qid": 5, "docid": "785830f5-2019-04-18T12:06:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7427048683166504}, {"content": "Title: Privatize Medicare Content: I will be debating in favor of privatizing Medicare. The first round is just for acceptance. I await my challenger!", "qid": 5, "docid": "2c462ef5-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7405979633331299}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: First off, I would like to point out that your theory is flawed. You state that if we cut out benefits for the top 10%, we would have 10% more money to give to the poor but you fail to realize that the Rich have been paying for social security their whole lives. Suddenly removing benefits for something these people had already paid for (Whether they need it or not) is Robbery, unchristian and Sure to make a Ruckus. Whether you are Christian or not, The Scriptures tell us that we have a right to Reap what we Sow, and though not all of the Founding fathers were Christian, this principle is what America was founded on. This being said, The System hardly gives any Benefits to the Rich, or the Middle class. An Average Citizen will get 2-3% Feedback from the System. In a Nutshell, A Life time of payment for a mere 2-3% Increase. Addressing your Second Paragraph, You will make just about the same amount Money by merely saving up for retirement, than you will being enrolled in social security. Our Populace has grown accustomed to the Government providing free services, and hand-outs, so much so that they do not realize they are getting a Raw deal. Privatized Rates are Traditionally higher than Government Rates, because Private companies have competition to keep the Prices down, and the Benefits up. In Contrast to the measly 2-3% of Social Security Feed-back, over the past century private stock has had on average an 8% feedback. Privatizing the system would certainly be a step in the right direction, as the Government could focus on things like Defense, Prosperity, and International freedom, instead of owing 7 Million of it's own citizens money. Facing the Cold Hard Facts, the Government is in debt to its own citizens and must take away funds from our safety and international standing, perhaps even hiking taxes (America already being one of the highest taxed nation in the World) on the next generation, who are ill-prepared to pay, as they themselves want a nice fat check from the government. The system of Social security is a century old idea that is failing to conform to modern needs. Capitalism, is Thousands of years old, has provided, and endured. Privatizing the system, as I have briefly discussed earlier, is a more stable, and profitable system for not just the Poor, or Rich, or Middle-Class, but for all Americans who put their fair share into it. Citations: . http://www.wsj.com...", "qid": 5, "docid": "38b0fe14-2019-04-18T12:54:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7398606538772583}, {"content": "Title: Public supports private social security accounts. Content: Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00076-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7376266717910767}, {"content": "Title: Abolish Social Security Content: Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the \"promise\" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.", "qid": 5, "docid": "8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7366207838058472}, {"content": "Title: Abolish Social Security Content: Unpromising, chaotic, and fraud. Social security fits this description exactly; therefore social security must be abolished. I take an affirmative stance to abolish Social security for the following contentions; Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. Under Social Security, lower and middle class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income, approximately 12 percent for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries with the \"promise\" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from them, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. They cannot count on Social Security for anything-except a massive drain on his income. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the system can even guarantee future retirees the equal amount that they had previously contributed to Social security, making this system inequitable. Fixing the Social security system is essentially impossible. The government has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935 yet, the system is still crippling. Proving my point further, that Social security should be abolished immediately. In 2002, there were 186 million workers in America and 190 million retired people. This was the beginning of the end of the Social security system. The workforce can no longer acquire the money necessary to give to the retirement population. The evidence continues to mount. According to newyorktimes.com, by 2010, while 41 million new workers enter the workforce, a staggering 76 million workers will enter retirement. This is an unfathomable amount and impossible for the social security system to reach a solution for how these retired people are going to get money. How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual-and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the individual of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to enjoy their most vital years, and less able to invest in themselves. If Social Security did not exist, individual workers could be free to use that 12 percent of their income as they choose making their ability to better their future incomparably greater. They could save for their retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or they could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. They might choose to work far past the age of 65 or choose to invest in their own productivity through additional education or starting a business. So the future of this individual's life is up to no one but themselves. This would encourage many Americans to work to earn money for a better future. To conclude my remarks, I urge my fellow debators to vote in affirmation.", "qid": 5, "docid": "8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7366207838058472}, {"content": "Title: Privatize Medicare Content: To make things clear, PRO has the BOP to demonstrate why privatization of medicare would be beneficial. I hold the negative proof to deny that any of his assertions are accurate to win this debate. So Pro's only argument is the last two sentences: If we were to privatize Medicare, the government will not have to spend any money on this at all. I believe the private sector almost always provides things more effectively and efficiently than the federal government. Society can take care of itself, it is just that we as a society expect the government to do it.The problem with Pro's argument is that he refuses to use any supporting details for his assertions. Seeing how Romney's campaign in 2011 delt with medicare privitaiztion, we have evidence proving that complete privatiztion will harm the poor and the elderly. For support, please look at these articles: http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; In summary, we have to realize that insurance companies are not healthcare practitioners. Insurance companies are businesses. Their main objective is to make money off of selling commodities. In this case, healthcare coverage. How would insurance companies make a profit? By selling better coverage at higher preminums. If we were to completely privatize medicare, then healthcare would be completely based off of social economic status. Which means, over 50%** of the population would be recieving little to no care when we take into consideration the cost of medical procedures. **The 50% is an estimation by considering that the average household income is 35K/year. Seeing how it costs 8 grand for an xray w/o insurance. 50% seems more than likely as a statistical number. http://en.wikipedia.org...;While it is true that complete privatiztion might reduce government spending, one has to realize the health tradeoff as a result. Please see previous pragraph. If one is more concerned with government debt, then one should consider killing off part of the population instead of letting the population suffer through inadeaquate care. If we consider both scenarios in form a utiltairian view, then my proposed strategy would be more efficient because it would elminate uncessary suffering. Your beliefs about the private sector is irrelevent when you cannot support your arguments with evidence.Why do we have a govenrment if society can take care of itself?", "qid": 5, "docid": "2c462ef5-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7354211807250977}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. should privatize health insurance. Content: Secondly, I would like to congratulate my opponent, @Greg4586, for reaching the finals. It has been a long run, and let\u2019s make this debate as memorable as possible. Framework: Con must argue that the U. S. should fully privatize health insurance. The resolution states that, \u201cThe U. S. should privatize Health Insurance. \u201d As long as there is public health insurance (medicaid, medicare), U. S. health insurance is not privatized. To fulfil my role in the debate, I must argue that privatization is a bad thing. This is sufficient to negate the truth of the resolution. A Market Driven System: A good health insurance is not based upon profit generation and stock improving, but the health care for the citizens of a nation. Privatization, by definition, means, \u201cThe transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is termed privatization. \u201d Dr. Shah states that, \u201c[T]he five largest health insurance companies--WellPoint, UnitedHealth, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna. .. earned over $3.3 billion in profits. .. It\u2019s no surprise these enormous earnings are not going towards improving access to health care for the families they cover. Instead, they go towards protecting the narrow self-interests of their stockholders, board members, and top executives. WellPoint alone spent $67 million on lobbying over the last 3 years and paid their CEO, Angela Braly, $13 million in 2010. They also spent $21.6 billion dollars of patient premiums to buy back its own stock from 2003 through 2010, pushing the price of the stock options their executives and board members own still higher. \u201d (1) The clear goal of corporations is to generate money and please the shareholders. Governments, however, do not have the same profit-seeking goals as corporations. When health insurance is turned over to private companies in full, health insurance payment becomes a series of rate hikes to increase the net worth of the company. As a result of profit-seeking, not everyone is able to afford health insurance. Note that the #1 leading cause of bankruptcy is an inability to afford medical bills. (2) People often have to change their entire way of life to acclimate to the costs of health insurance. According to Shah, \u201cA 2007 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that. ..10 percent changed their way of life to pay medical bills. .. an estimated 28 million adults reported they used up all their savings, 21 million incurred large credit card debt, and another 21 million were unable to pay for basic necessities. And yet sixty-one percent of those with medical debt or bill problems were insured at the time care was provided. \u201d (1) Public Health Insurance: The most successful healthcare systems in the world are not private systems. According to (3), of the top 50 health care systems in the world, only 10 are not universal systems that heavily involve government funding. The most success (France) is extremely public. What France has that we don\u2019t, is a system largely reliant on government funding, and an almost full reimbursement system on all medical expenses. Public health insurance works, considering the fact that the #1 rated system in the world is 77% public (4). Private Healthcare, as I have previously stated, relies heavily on payments from the insured. The main motives of corporations is to generate profit, even if it means forgoing quality. As the rates continue to increase (because it makes the company more money), a lesser percentage of the general populous can afford healthcare. When the rate of health insured citizens starts to go down, collateral damage is what follows. (5) Shows us that a total of 13% of the population is without health insurance. The result, is a stunning ranking of 42nd in world life expectancy (6). If you look at that source closely, Japan, who is ranked 3rd, has public health insurance. Also, our good friend France is ranked at 15th; their citizens live 2 years longer than ours do. There is no doubt that a correlation between the rate of the uninsured and the life expectancy of citizens in a country exists. Employment: Often in the employment field, companies sponsor a specific health insurance provider, and that is detrimental to the work satisfaction and performance of employees. This process is better known as \u201cJob Lock. \u201d Job Lock is pernicious to entrepreneurship and innovation. \u201cTo most health economists, \u201cjob lock,\u201d the idea that workers work more or face constraints in job mobility due to provision of work-related health insurance, is a real and important phenomenon. \u201d (7) When people are forced into working for a company because of the cost of private health insurance, it decreases their job satisfaction, and limits their potential in their career. At the workplace, especially in economically troubled areas, there might be employees who are not fully insured. When there is an outbreak of a contagious virus, uninsured employees could possibly spread it to other workers, and even people around them. Employees may not be able to perform at top capability because of a chronic illness or infectious virus because of their lack of medical attention. This all circles back around to the fact that private health insurance does not fully cover the population, and public health insurance does. What public health insurance does is negate Job Lock, because there is no Employer Sponsored Health Insurance, and there is no incentive to find cheaper health insurance of better quality. Public health insurance covers everyone in the nation, and there is no excessive expense aimed at the citizens. Cost > Effectiveness: Our country, 42nd in the world in life expectancy and 13% of our population uninsured, spent 2.8 trillion dollars on health insurance in 2012 (8), more than any country in the world. Private health insurance is not only forcing our country to spend more than any other country in health insurance, but it does not even work properly. This graph shows us that countries heavily dependent on government funding in health insurance are spending trillions less annually than the U. S. , which has mostly private health insurance. Therefore, privatized health insurance is not a viable option, and it is not worth spending on; 13% of our nation is without health insurance. Conclusion: I have fulfilled my role in the debate, and gained the eligibility to receive votes in my favor by providing reasons substantial enough to negate the truthfulness of the resolution. Thank you, once again, @1harderthanyouthink and @Greg4586. Vote Con! 1) . http://www.drsforamerica.org... 2) . http://www.cnbc.com... 3) . http://thepatientfactor.com... 4) . https://en.wikipedia.org... 5) . http://kff.org... 6) . https://www.cia.gov... 7) . http://theincidentaleconomist.com... 8) . http://www.chcf.org... 9) Chart: . https://epianalysis.files.wordpress.com...", "qid": 5, "docid": "8ab4602f-2019-04-18T14:21:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7354190349578857}, {"content": "Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: the following article says poor people depend on social security. pointing out that many do not need it is ridiculous in trying to prove it's an unnecesary program. the article also says the following. \"Currently, 36 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income\" if the average social security is 1300, and they rely on nienty percent of it, their income is only 139 without social security. plus all the people who get the minimum around seven hundred have no other sources, and this also includes the disabled, whom i know many personally, with that minimum number their only income. you can argue family should try to support them, but dont try to pretend people dont rely on it. and con is just wrong, the government made a promise. if the government passed a law to sell cars, and you paid twenty thousand for a new car, wouldn't you be pissed if they backed out? wouldn't it be a broken promise on their part? of course it would. maybe you and me can agree that we can cut a lot of it for higher income people, but even if you cut the program in half, you are merely balancing the budget at best, and not being able to pay for the budget when the deficit soon doubles as it's expected to do. and then there's medicare, privatizing that is akin to just taking poeple's healthcare away and letting them die. con offers highly immoral and irresposible ideas. hence it's the most responsible thing to do to raise taxes.", "qid": 5, "docid": "988cf27-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7351875901222229}, {"content": "Title: social security should b means tested against the rich Content: the rich are the ones who are engaging in theft. they borrow against social security their whole lives to fund the government, instead of paying for it themselves out of taxes, and leave the bill to the next generation. it's totally fair to charge the bill to the ones who created it by lessenig their benefits. it's not that i'm totally against lessening everyone's benefits, but when people are doing without a basic livelihood, it makes more sense to take from the excess than from people who are merely getting by. again talk about theft. if one person owned ninety percent of the land, and there are poor people who have no land, doesn't it make sense to take some of the excess instead of taking from the people just getting by? it's the moral thing to do. also con just ignored my points. if we privative it, how do we fund the current system for retirees and near retirees? if we want to balance the budget, how do we make a dent in it when spending for social security medicare defense interest account for ninety percent of the budget? especially without raising taxes as i assume you don't want to do? like most people, con just ignores the problem. like i said, it's not my first option to want to reduce their benefits. but we face serious financial problems. and it's the only fair and ethical way to do it.", "qid": 5, "docid": "38b0fe14-2019-04-18T12:54:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7335678339004517}, {"content": "Title: Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth Content: Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system. By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Pi\u00f1era has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00014-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7329258918762207}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7303235530853271}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: 1)Social Security and Payroll tax = *not* the same thing 2)So what if I am \"advocating Socialism?\" I'm defending my position in the debate. 3)You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of greed and human weakness, from even the most well-intentioned souls. 4)You have not really refuted my arguments, or shown how it is that if someone has no money or assets at all, then if Social Security disappears everything will be nice and rosy the next day. 5)If a person cannot work at all because of a disability or such, all of your arguments for abolishing Social Security become void as you have not talked of any kind of replacement system, except for the wonderfully mysterious (and evidently reverential) \"private sector.\" Right - leave it to them and they'll take care of it. 6)Not tangents, points; points which you did not answer. 7)You using the Heritage Organization as a source is quite amusing. A bunch of rich white guys - the most conservative people in the country - I'm sure they can tell the poor exactly how to fix all their own problems because it is so in their interest to do so. I'm sure they'll get around to it after they finish counting the interest on their offshore accounts and add Reagan to the Greek Pantheon. 8)Even by that ridiculous source's numbers of .3%, that's STILL quite a few people for the richest nation in the world. 9)If you provide a job for someone that cannot work, it isn't \"charity\" at all. If you provide someone with a dead-end job that will never get them out of poverty but keeps them from receiving benefits already available, it isn't charity either, it's another case of the haves exploiting the have-nots. 10)In real numbers, the price of goods and services never goes down, only up. 11)\"You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation.\" Only for the wealthy, who have enough money already that it doesn't matter - it must be nice to be able to live on interest. 12)\"Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on.\" And you talk about my tangents. What does this have to do with anything? Also, you have to be able to afford these things before you have them (which counts out most poor disabled people. Again, the companies didn't make these to be charitable - they made them to make profits for themselves. 13)\"People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country.\" Please wake up from Ayn Rand-cult fantasy-land. It was an interesting debate until you politicized it and began to write in the tone of a freshman. Just do one thing for me: don't ever fall on hard times or become paralyzed or poor - you would have to give up your current delusions and come to grips with reality. It might be too much for you. *shrug* Britt", "qid": 5, "docid": "8ce2d6ea-2019-04-18T19:49:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7280998826026917}, {"content": "Title: Our economic situation Content: Yes but not everything is. Like schools. More things need to be privately own. Like get rid of medicare and medicaid and we will save a bunch of money on that. And schools would be better if privately own in my opinion.", "qid": 5, "docid": "55cee4b7-2019-04-18T18:37:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7275396585464478}, {"content": "Title: Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory. Content: My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.", "qid": 5, "docid": "687ae770-2019-04-18T19:44:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7272166013717651}, {"content": "Title: Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory Content: My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.", "qid": 5, "docid": "f2dab09c-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7261727452278137}, {"content": "Title: Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely Content: Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation: \"Reason #5: The odds are against individuals investing successfully.\"]: \"Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone\u2019s accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But studies by Yale economist Robert J. Shiller and others have demonstrated that individual investors are far more likely to do worse than the market generally, even excluding the cost of commissions and administrative expenses. Indeed, research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market.\" [read extended quoted in argument page.]", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00056-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7261174917221069}, {"content": "Title: The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent Content: Social security is currently solvent and will be into the future due to its dedicated income stream that consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. This surplus will even grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, It is only after 2037 when there will begin to be a deficit.(11) Side opposition will concede that there is a long-run financing problem, but it is a problem of modest size. There would only need to be revenues equal to 0.54% of GDP to extend the life of the social security trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits. This is only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts.[1] Budget shortfalls- of the sort that side proposition\u2019s case is based on- Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman argues: \" has much more to do with tax cuts - cuts that Mr. Bush nonetheless insists on making permanent - than it does with Social Security. But since the politics of privatization depend on convincing the public that there is a Social Security crisis, the privatizers have done their best to invent one.\"[2] Krugman goes on to argue against the twisted logic of privatization: \u201cMy favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government\u2026 the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own. There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.\u201d[3] There are many other ways to improve and reform Social Security without privatizing it. Robert L. Clark, an economist at North Carolina State University who specializes in aging issues, formerly served as a chairman of a national panel on Social Security's financial status; he has said that future options for Social Security are clear: \"You either raise taxes or you cut benefits. There are lots of ways to do both.\" These alternatives are also backed by the American people. The American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements such as Social Security.[4] Therefore Social Security is not fundamentally unsound, and alternative reforms should be made without privatizations. [1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [3] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [4] Dick, Stephen. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. 19 November 2010. http://record-eagle.com/opinion/x877132458/Op-Ed-Yes-leave-Social-Securi...", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00017-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.724005401134491}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: This round I shall work on my Case and with the character restriction I will appoligies if I run out of room and have to cut a few things shortContention 1: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [1] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [2] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [3] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [4] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 2: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [5] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, \"someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.\" This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [6]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by \"reaching into the cookie jar\" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [7] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon \"Aaaaand it's Gone.\" [8]The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control.You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.\" [11] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [12] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [13]Sources1. ( Social Security Administration, \"Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries,\" ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://www.ncpa.org...) 4. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, \"CPI Inflation Calculator,\" bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": 5, "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7230774164199829}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer\u2019s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it\u2019s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro\u2019s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There\u2019s no denying there\u2019ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It\u2019s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro\u2019s cit.#3, the NCPA, \u201cThe NCPA\u2019s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control\u201d. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There\u2019s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro\u2019s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it\u2019s \u201cassumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,\u201dechoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That\u2019s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states \u201cSocial Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans\u201d then concludes \u201cscaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.\u201d Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it\u2019s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let\u2019s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don\u2019t look attractive considering \u00bd of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it\u2019ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro\u2019s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro\u2019s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush\u2019s plan, in office at the time, hence the title \u201cPresident\u2019s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.\u201dIt\u2019s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here\u2019s the catch, SS OASDI \u201cwould require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits\u201dWith his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there\u2019ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They\u2019ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro\u2019s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:\u201cThe first part is that people are mishandling their money\u2026\u201dJust a reminder, you brought this up \u201cPosted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.\u201d You have a plan? It\u2019s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It\u2019s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You\u2019ll do it in 10? Pro\u2019s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn\u2019t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro\u2019s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.\u201cThe biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.\u201d Pro\u2019s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro\u2019s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 5, "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7219275236129761}, {"content": "Title: Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services. Content: We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00059-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7213694453239441}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 5, "docid": "94920586-2019-04-18T13:00:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7205222845077515}, {"content": "Title: Social Security is beneficial to United States Citizens Content: Here are my contentions: 1-. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Think about it. Social Security promises its investors money, then gives it money from new investors. This requires more and more investors to contribute their money, making the problem steadily worse over time [1]. The problem is, even though we've realized that it's a Ponzi scheme, we aren't allowed to back out of it. The government will literally force us to contribute to its funds, as it punishes independent men who will con, not force, money from people. Any system that has to force people to contribute to it cannot be beneficial 2-. Social Security cannot sustain itself. When Social Security was first started, there was one retired senior for every 16 workers [2]. With both a steady increase in life expectancy and a steady decrease in the fertility rate over time, there's a retired senior for every 3.3 workers, and this number is only going to get progressively smaller. Eventually, every two workers will have to support one retired senior, which hardly seems possible given how much money these seniors demand from the system. Taxes will have to go up dramatically, and nobody wants that. That would hardly be beneficial. Sure, we could borrow the money, but the national debt is verging on collapse as it is; social security will quicken the fall. Either we'll be far overtaxed as we begin to work, or the government will break its promise to new retirees and refuse to pay them, despite the fact that they paid into the system in the first place. Neither of these inevitable scenarios look promising at all. 1 . Social security gives money to seniors. Sure, seniors get money after they retire, but that's only because they paid money before they retired - and chances are they aren't getting as much back as they put in, given the time value of money [3]. The U. S. government is taking the money to use for itself, then returning about an equal amount later, essentially robbing the workers of the time value of that money. If workers want a safety net for retirement, they can, and do, have savings accounts in the bank, and meet with financial advisors to ensure that they have enough money for retirement. The government is a laughable and dangerous replacement for a financial advisor. 2 . Social security helps the disabled and those whose relatives have died. Yes, but this helps them with the same tax dollars that it robbed from them, so they overall still lose money. Besides, few families that actually receive these benefits would literally die without them. In conclusion, while social security may benefit a few, it overall sets up the rest of the country to a collapsing system that's sure to cause economic pain. With that, I leave the debate to my opponent, and request that he begin to properly source his claims. [1] . http://www.americanthinker.com... [2] . http://www.socialsecurityreform.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 5, "docid": "a0517b87-2019-04-18T18:58:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.720349907875061}, {"content": "Title: Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized Content: Rules: No kritiks or semanticsBoP sharedContention: Privatization of Social Security Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB) would be disastrous due to risk, the need to raise taxes and its contribution to the national debt.http://www.youtube.com...Risk: Looking at past recessions, stock market crashes and changing monetary policy in just the last 30 years proves there\u2019s risk involved in changing Social Security RIB to a Private Plan (PP). A person can lose initial investment as well as gains in the markets. The early 1980\u2019s recession was due to monetary policy [1]. In August 1987 markets began to slide, by Oct. 19th, Black Monday, the market took a 22.5% loss in one day; measured total fall of 36.7% [2]. In 1990-92 there was the S&L crisis with a Fed bail out [3]. The DOT com bubble burst of the 90\u2019s is another example [4, 5]. Lastly, the more recent 2008 housing and financial crash where the stock market fell 2400 points in a week [6]. At each occurrence those with mature investments ready to retire took a big hit. Waves of unemployment resulted with decreased or halted contributions, and sometimes liquidation of retirement assets was enacted to stay afloat. In the last crash, those within 10 years, or broaching retirement loss 20% of their retirement investment with little or no time to recoup losses. Either way, that money is lost never to return; recoup means to get to a previously held level [7]. If you retire during an economic down turn you may not have sufficient funds to last. The risk defeats the purpose of the social security safety net. Under Funding Current Insurance Liabilities: Shifting funds to individual accounts, a PP, would take away funds from the current millions of spouses, dependent children of the deceased, as well as the disabled [8]. Furthermore, current influx of funds supports the now retired. How would the government fund current RIB payments of the near future and presently retired? A PP would only apply to those coming into the work force anew. All those currently working and contributing to the traditional RIB would be a part of the old system for decades to come. The Social Security RIB is estimated to take 75 years for complete solvency if privatization is enacted [14]. No one has a crystal ball on the changing tide of the economy, the government or the will of the people over that span of time. For a PP to be implemented the Gov would need to decrease current payouts and borrow to cover current liabilities with the diversion of taxes going to individual accounts [17], also raise payroll taxes [11]. Currently a portion, approximately 1 out of 5 SS dollars, goes into the SS Trust Fund to pay future benefits [9]. If current money goes into individual accounts contributions to the Trust Fund will cease and its present balance will be depleted far more quickly that the expected 2058 [10, 15]. A.) Net Loss: To fund current and near future payments government borrowing and cut in services will not be enough. A raise in SS taxes would be needed. Monies will go into PPs for the future and the tax increase will support the current pool as well as subsidize low income workers contributing to PPs to ensure minimum retirement income [14 p.27]. Privatization will have the payer contributing to both ends rather than the current pay-as-you formula. The increase in tax against balance in private accounts could produce a negative gain effect [13]. Government borrowing for transition cost, which is estimated to be 10 trillion, will contribute greatly to the already ballooning national debt [14 p.29]. Various proposals have been made on how privatization would be structured, either by a centralized government entity or open market competition. I\u2019ll examine the lesser of two evils in this round.Issues with Centralized Privatization: A centralized government plan would certainly decrease some of the administrative and broker\u2019s fee associated in typical investment market purchases, but who will decide what the options for privatized accounts will be? Financial institutions will have political influence in Washington [15, 16]. Considering the S&L debacle of the early 90\u2019s, the financial industry\u2019s complicity in the 2008 crash and following bail out at tax payer expense, they can\u2019t be trusted to act in our best interest. The lure of all working Americans contributing to private accounts where profits that can be made is too tempting. To say a reoccurrence of a stock market or financial institution crash and bail out will not occur again is a fallacy; history has bore this out [14]. Not only will we, the tax payer, be bailing out the financial sector again, loose all or most of what is in our PPs but, also have to pay to replenish the system for it to continue.1. 1. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu...2. 2. http://www.stockpickssystem.com...3. 3. http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu....4. 4. http://www.investors.com...5. 5. http://www.thebubblebubble.com...6. 6. http://money.usnews.com...7. 7. https://www.ebri.org...8. 8. http://www.disabilitysecrets.com...9. 9. https://en.wikipedia.org...10. 10. http://www.npr.org...11. 11. http://www.nytimes.com...12. 12. http://www.ncpssm.org...13. 13. http://www.fedsmith.com...14. 14. http://www.actuary.org...15. 15. http://business.time.com...16. 16. http://www.ourfuture.org... 17. 17. http://www.brookings.edu...", "qid": 5, "docid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7196282148361206}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Content: This is the rebuttal round, and I will give them now. Rebuttals: \"First, Social Security discriminates against the poor and the middle class. Workers are required to pay 1.45% of their wages towards the Social Security fund when wages are below the wage base. As of 2016, the Social Security Wage Base is $118,500. \" Social Security requires taxes. Workers are going to pay taxes. I don't see a problem with the taxes, because it does have benefits for the elderly. It allows the elderly to live a stable life, and enjoy the rest of their years. Ponzi Scheme-How is it a Ponzi Scheme? Young investors will also acquire these benefits once they become old. The system will never collapse. The only way it will collapse is if American wealth starts to deter. \"54 million people were receiving benefits, while 157 million people were paying it. \" -Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. -Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security. -Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. If my opponent cuts social security, than 47% of unmarried persons will have a cut of 90% of their income. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I will defend my attacks on the pension plan in the next round.", "qid": 5, "docid": "36edccb7-2019-04-18T13:24:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7187306880950928}, {"content": "Title: Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries. Content: Lawrence Kotlikoff. \"Privatizing social security the right way.\" Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: \"Social Security represents a bad deal for postwar Americans. Moreover, the deal has gotten worse over time. Baby boomers are projected to lose roughly 5 cents of every dollar they earn to the OASI program in taxes net of benefits. Generation X=ers and today=s children will lose over 7 cents of every dollar they earn in net taxes. These losses assume no adjustment to Social Security=s taxes or benefits. But, as indicated above, major adjustments are inevitable unless the system is privatized. If OASI taxes are raised immediately by the amount needed to pay for OASI benefits on an ongoing basis, baby boomers will forfeit 6 cents of every dollar they earn in net OASI taxes. Those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn.\"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00045-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7185335159301758}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00023-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7174695730209351}, {"content": "Title: \"spending on poor\" as primary cause of federal government spending problems is a misconcep Content: con confuses the the use of the world \"welfare\". welfare generically might mean social security and such.... but it mostly refers to hand outs to parents with kids, and it is usually limited to a few years. even if we took the generic use of the word, con misses the point. as i said in the last post, social security, medicare etc are paid by pay roll taxes and are so far self sustaining. this is not \"spending on the poor\" as is the point of the thread, but spending on everyone's future when they are at retirement age. also, if con wants to argue we should reform 'entitlements' by all means, as we can make significant strides in our fiscal health if we do, and it is necessary. but this is not the thread to do it. we are focusing on 'spending on the poor', and con has clearly missed the point.", "qid": 5, "docid": "3ec07a00-2019-04-18T15:57:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7174601554870605}, {"content": "Title: The means testing of social security benefits. Content: I argue against the motion of \"In the current economic climate paying social security benefit to those who not need it is an expensive luxury the country cannot afford. It is far better to target this support to low income families who need it most. \"", "qid": 5, "docid": "62ac1cd7-2019-04-18T16:11:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.716467022895813}, {"content": "Title: Social Security tax cap should be eliminated Content: I completely disagree with this. I beleive that we should have a system that allows social security to be used in a decent manner, such as better applications. Without this tax, the entire system would collapse, leaving many disabled without a source of income. Even though most people pay this tax, these same people pay for the roads we drive on, the education we, and our family, received. In addition to this, many people who have paid the tax will be unruly against the government due to the unfairness of inequality in taxation between generations.", "qid": 5, "docid": "94e0bca1-2019-04-18T18:41:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7159666419029236}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Private social security accounts are voluntary.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7157123684883118}, {"content": "Title: Government Presence in the Pensions Sector Reduces Quality of Pension Services Content: Crowding out is not the same as blocking or preventing private companies to provide pension. The fact that the public provision of pension is preferred over private; even though as the proposition has articulated that option is available goes to prove that the perceived quality of government pensions is greater than that of private. This rather weak argument that pension should be privatized on the sole basis that Private providers cannot 'handle the competition' provided by Public providers needs to be revised extensively. [[Mishkin&Eakins(also cited earlier, same book different page) pg584]] Stock market failure in 2000(Specifically falling stock prices in the 2000-2002 period) wised people up to the problems with privatization. 70%+ private pension plan assets are based in the rather unreliable stock market. \"The biggest obstacle to privatization is that funds diverted into private accounts will not be available to pay current retiree's benefits.This exacerbates the problem rather than solving it.\" analysts suggest the cost of a fully-privatized pension plan would be unaffordable(whereabouts 100 billion U.S.D) People retiring today will only receive a 2.2% return and a 30-yr-old employee will literally lose money in absolute terms upon retirement. Insurance companies are being crowded out by Private pension funds. Both institutions assume risk for their customers in exchange for a fee called a premium. The premium is lower for private pension funds.Public pension plans are preferred over both insurance and private pension funds, for the reason that they do not call for any such fee in exchange for no risk at all. Lower cost and greater security seem to be the dependable impetus to people's preference/choice.", "qid": 5, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00014-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7154556512832642}, {"content": "Title: Education in the United States. Content: Resolved:All education in the United States should be privatized. My argument will be arguing that public education in the United States should remain public. Both sides will hold BoP. First Round will be for acceptance. Any questions shall be asked in the comment section.", "qid": 5, "docid": "a9c5c25b-2019-04-18T18:14:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7140743136405945}, {"content": "Title: tax increases r inevitable and will be the most responsible thing to do. Content: so it looks like con deosn't even want to fund social security and medicare for current and near retirees? that's just irresponsible. a large percent of people rely solely on those funds, and we made a promise to them that we'd follow through. con would leave people destitute and break a promise.", "qid": 5, "docid": "988cf27-2019-04-18T12:54:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7134400606155396}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: Social Security provides government assistance for Seniors and other people unable to work. While this is certainly a noble goal, Social Security has had the opposite effect from what its well-intentioned sponsors wanted it to have because it must be funded with the payroll tax or go bankrupt. Consequently, abolishing Social Security would lead to much more desirable results. Few taxes have harmed poor people more than the payroll tax. The payroll tax is roughly a 12.4% tax on a worker's wages. An employer withholds 6.2% of the employee's wages, and then the employer matches that amount before giving it to Uncle Sam to pay for Social Security. The wage base for the social security tax is $97,500 for the year 2007. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000. After Washington receives the money, checks are printed out and distributed directly to retired people. Contrary to popular belief, none of the money is saved in an account for the individual. In fact, the rest of the money is spent on government programs, which is why Al Gore suggested creating a \"lock box\" to prevent the payroll taxes from being used for other purposes. Had Al Gore explained what he meant by a \"lock box\" he would not have been embarrassed on Saturday Night Live. Then again, I wonder if Al Gore even understood what he was talking about at the time. Amazingly, government bureaucrats wonder why people who pay these payroll taxes for their entire lives do not have a large savings when they retire, and then rely on their Social Security checks. Hypothetically, if a private investment firm asked you to pay 12.4% of your income to them for your entire life, and then only gave you less than a 10% return, you would fire the firm and the Securities and Exchange Commission would prosecute the crooks for creating an illegal Ponzi scheme. Still, people seem to accept being cheated by their own government. The common liberal myth is that workers only pay 6.2% for payroll taxes. That is not true. By forcing an employer to pay 6.2% as well, the employee bears the burden for both taxes. The reason why the employee pays for both taxes is because the employer could care less whether the 6.2% went to the government or the employee, but it needs to get paid no matter what. Before hiring a worker, an employer must consider how much it will cost for payroll taxes, among other expenses. Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government. Moreover, if there were no payroll tax, the employer could hire more workers. Overall, the employees always lose because the money would go to the employee in some form or another if the employer were not required to pay the tax. This is also why \"taxing the rich\" hurts the poor just as much. Eventually, when people give all of their earned money away to the government, and have none for themselves, future poverty will be created in this Country. It is just a never-ending cycle, and has not shown to benefit the poor; it has made them dependent on Government.", "qid": 5, "docid": "8ce2d6ea-2019-04-18T19:49:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7131587266921997}, {"content": "Title: Socializing some industries will/can/do improve the economy and society. Content: Rebuttal: Let me define what I'm going against: I am debating against NOT socializing industries. That doesn't mean I'm debating about completely privatizing an industry or industries. First of all, my opponent has to define his/her bill. Does he/she believe that the prison industry, the insurance industry and the education industry must be completely socialized- eradicating every privatized company that exist in each industry he/she mentions? What terms are you associating with this bill? Would you be willing to support a semi-privatized system? Be specific. 1.a/b/c) Firstly, let me define what I mean by flexibility. One major developments have forced policy makers to reconsider the option of private prisons management. Prison Crowding. From 1980-1994, the increase of inmates was \"200 percent to nearly 1.7 million\" (Pratt et al.). The reliance on incarceration has resulted in a demand for prison space and the public sector cannot match in supply. The public sector depends on the private sector in almost every state in the US to some extent in correctional services. Also, the competitive marketplace motivates the private prisons to perform efficiently, the said concept hosted by the Public Choice Theory. http://archive.epinet.org... 2.a) The contender makes a point stating the role of privatized health insurance, being that of, and I quote, \"[for]health services such as boob jobs\" but he/she fails to acknowledge that \"boob jobs\" aren't the only concern when it comes to specialized medical problems. I'm pretty sure chiropractic or psychological treatments are deemed necessary. Limiting private health cares role to cosmetic surgery is silly. There are many other problems out there that aren't covered by health care. Doctors that co-exist in a socialist system aren't paid as much (limited hours of work) which is shown in their lack of willingness to work with patients in regards to their availability and this fact adds to the long list of waiting patients. http://www.milliondollarjourney.com... b) the length of line ups is significantly less than the length of line ups in public health. -Private Room: The preferences of a patient need to be taken into consideration. If the patient can pay for the private health care, why not? Again, I need you to specify to what level you wish to socialize and industry. If all services include current private services, were to be socialized, then taxes would be paid for things like \"boob\" jobs for other people. c) My opponent is wrong when he/she says that there are no benefits in private health care when in reality, people with jobs do get benefits from their workplace. 3.a) In my opponents refutation, he/she claims that, and I quote \"...that data shows that public universities are less expensive even though they provide a better education and better job prospects.\" No where in his/her sources did I see anything that would back up this statement. It is a choice someone has to practice their post secondary education in a for-profit school. Socializing the educational industry isn't going to please the very many applicants that wish to get into private schools, especially that are world renowned. As for expenses go, the choice to go to a private school was that of the student and therefore he/she must face the monetary challenges that come with this. If my opponent can prove with statistics that public provides far better education, as he/she claims, then the above quote can be legitimized but seeing as how my opponent fails to do so, this claim is baseless. Other: I live in Canada and therefore live in a socialized system where a lot is covered other than dental, optical, homeopathic, physical rehabilitation, psychological and mental care etc. I am actually supportive for socialization but for debate purposes, I am going against it in all terms. Although, the waiting lines here in Canada are very long, especially for organ donation (transplants) which is covered by the government. Oh by the way, I'm a girl so I'd prefer it if you would refer to me accordingly. Thank you.", "qid": 5, "docid": "37474bf7-2019-04-18T18:36:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7120989561080933}, {"content": "Title: Abolish Social Security Content: You started off your argument with the following contentions: \"Contention 1; Social security has no prospect for America, Contention 2; America now and in the future will not be able to sustain the needs of the Social security system, and Contention 3; Individual workers should be able to invest their own retirement money. \" First off, you're right, social security will not advance us as a country. However, neither is it necessarily a bad thing. Many people, this might come off as rude, are stupid. They don't know how to invest, so if left to their own devices, as you suggested, they would end up on the streets after retirement. Social Security was started for this reason. Second, You said that America will not be able to support it. This is not necessarily true. While more people will be retiring than employing, you have to take into account that you are referring to the baby boom generation, where fewer kids were born. Unless we have another generation like that, Social Security could be sustained, so long as people actually start to get jobs. The system for Social Security is sound, the problem is the people. Without it, people would complain that the government isn't helping them if they aren't working, but but with it, no one works, they retire early or something, if people got jobs and kept them, and didn't retire at a young age, then we could sustain it. The problem is when people aren't keeping their jobs for a long time, or when they retire early. Third, you said that people should be able to invest their own money. I would like to point out that Social Security is not mandatory, as stated in Wikipedia: \"Obtaining a Social Security number for a child who is not working is voluntary. Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program. \" So if you desire, you can go invest elsewhere, it isn't necessary to be a part of the program, most people just choose to be. You said that the money is not invested or saved at all, but in Wikipedia, it says: \"When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U. S. Government bonds\". So there is money saved, not all of it is immediately spent. And you're right, it can't be fixed, because like I said, the system is sound. it's the people who retire early, and possibly how much is being given out that is the problem. Now be honest. If you were given (for example) an extra twenty thousand dollars per year due to no Social Security, would you invest it? For you maybe yes, maybe no. I would. But a lot of people wouldn't. They would spend it. Then they would retire and have no money, and complain that the government isn't helping them out after their retirement.", "qid": 5, "docid": "8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7119672298431396}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Content: Hence, the debate will only consist of three rounds: 1st Round (Round 2) - main argument 2nd Round (Round 3) - rebuttals and criticisms of main argument 3rd Round (Round 4) - conclusion This is a basic debate about Social Security in general. For the purposes of the debate, we will use the following description to define Social Security (from Wikipedia): In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs. Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the two Social Security Trust Funds. With a few exceptions, all salaried income, up to an amount specifically determined by law (see tax rate table below), is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. All income over said amount is not taxed. In 2016, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $118,500. With few exceptions, all legal residents working in the United States now have an individual Social Security number. Indeed, nearly all working (and many non-working) residents since Social Security's 1935 inception have had a Social Security number because it is required to do a wide range of things, e. g. paying the IRS and getting a job. In 2015, Social Security expenditures totaled $750.5 billion for OASI and $146.6 billion for DI. Income derived from Social Security is currently estimated to reduce the poverty rate for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10% The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just west of Baltimore. I will mainly be arguing against Social Security as it stands today, meaning I favor having the law repealed and replaced and will present alternate programs and methods to prepare for retirement which I feel are better than Social Security. My opponent will defend Social Security and argue that Social Security, as it stands today, is the best method for workers to financially prepare for retirement than an alternative method. Good Luck!", "qid": 5, "docid": "36edccd6-2019-04-18T12:31:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7113029360771179}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 5, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00032-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7111591100692749}, {"content": "Title: privatize the USA's social security schemes Content: Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on", "qid": 5, "docid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.710389256477356}, {"content": "Title: Personal Retirement Accounts should replace Entitlements Content: Thanks for accepting. As per say the resolution, I will advance the notion that personal accounts should be used for personal retirement security rather than government entitlement programs. C1: Personal Accounts Generate Higher Returns Social Security has an annual rate of return of 1.23%. [1] The S&P 500 has about a 7% CAGR after administrative costs are taken in. [2] This is the average, so it includes both the horrible years like 2008 and the great years like 1998. Assuming that the person had the average household income of $43,000 [3], worked for 35 years and had a retirement lasting 12 years, we get drastically different results regarding the two choices. \u00a7 Social Security (12.4% payroll tax), provides a retirement balance of = $234,330, or $1,627.30 a month. \u00a7 Personal Account (12.4% rate) provides a retirement balance of = $788,674.57, or $5,476.91 a month. As we can see, personal accounts invested fully in the S&P 500 that yield just the average return of this index result with a fabulously high value, that would provide excellent retirement security. Since Social Security has such a low rate of return, people who invested in the stock market could easily invest lower percentages of their income while getting a higher return for their retirement. For example, using the income used earlier, one could invest only 4% of their income in the stock market, and still have a higher retirement balance, while having over 8% higher take home pay (before including Medicare payroll savings). To conclude, personal accounts invested in the S&P or other securities would create much higher balances for a secure retirement compared to Social Security. C2: Improves the Economy Having a huge infusion of wealth into the stock market makes the value of stocks go higher. This generates greater capital for businesses, which allows them to make critical investments in America through business expansion, wealth accumulation, investing in capital goods, or by increasing R&D. When businesses are allowed to use their wealth to pursue their self interest, society is better off with improved economic growth. Payroll taxes discourage hiring. By eliminating these taxes, you likewise get more hiring and employment. In fact, some studies have pointed out an increase of more than 10% more jobs in the long run, by cutting payroll taxes by 10 points, or more than 3% more jobs in the short run. Assuming that individuals set aside 8% of their income, using the transitive property, this means job creation of more 11.5 million new jobs from a conservative estimate. [4] (this includes the elimination of Medicare payroll taxes.) Economic growth leads to lower unemployment and higher wages, and thus a greater standard of living for society as a whole. Also, Social Security and Medicare together have unfunded liabilities in excess of $121.5 trillion dollars, or more than $1 million per taxpayer. This is devastating, purely diasastrous to the economy. It's purely a message of economic devastation. [5] C4: Economic Liberty ----- Freedom By letting the individual have their own personal account, they are free to choose how they use their money, not acting under government coercion. This economic freedom leads to improved personal wellbeing \u2014 and people would have greater take home pay. Personal responsibility would make sure that often-times the money is used prudently and is fit for individual needs. Personal accounts guarantee economic freedom, you are free to choose how you use your money. Wealth accumulated in personal accounts could be passed onto their kin after their death, allowing families to have greater economic security. ----- Tax Relief Payroll taxes are regressive taxes, and specifically harm the poor. The 15.85% of income that the poor pay in payroll taxes alone kills job creation and harms them particularly negatively by reducing their income. In fact, for some ethnic minorities they get back less in benefits more than they pay in. [1] For the average household income, income would rise by $3,375.5, after assuming they set aside 8% for retirement. C5: Historically Safe Investments The 7% CAGR (compounded annual growth rate) for the S&P 500 is the average. This includes both the great years like 1998 and the bad years like 2008. It's the average. Since these stocks are remarkably safe over time, they are safer here than having government mess with it. Politicians have taken hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay for things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other projects. With this huge inflow of wealth to the U.S. government, it is likely to be squandered and used for other things. This reduces retirement security for regular Americans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Health Care in Retirement For secure health care during retirement, health insurance retirement accounts (HIRAs) are good options to use. Let's say workers put 2% into their personal account. These funds are invested as to how the worker chooses. We will assume that the return of 7% is used again. After 65, funds are annuitizied, securities are liquidated, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs. The aspect of liquidating assets is completely voluntary. Assuming $43,000 annually; (43,000 x 0.02 = $860) Total = 860 x [1.0736 - 1] - 860 [.07] = $ 127,205.58, or $10,600 a year. As we can see, seniors will have health retirement security they need if this proposal was adopted by voluntary individuals. These funds would optimally supplement their health savings account, which would provide health care security to those in retirement. Conclusion Individuals should be able to have personal accounts to replace entitlements. People will have secure retirement, with high rates of return generated by the stock market. In fact, using just the average return from the S&P 500 would show that personal accounts would dramatically increase wealth for retirees, improve their security, while creating broad prosperity for Americans who are free to choose to invest and save their money where they wish. Without entitlements, we would have a more limited government, with a lower public debt. Personal responsibility would replace Washington's transfers of wealth, that harm the poor by robbing them of large chunks of their income. Ultimately, personal accounts ensure retirement security, and enhances and protects economic liberty. Job creation, and increased investment from businesses and individuals alike makes the economy grow, generating over 11.5 milllion new jobs while improving living standards, and increasing take home pay. Limited government reduces coercion, and a growing economy helps America flourish. It's fair that you own your money because you earned it. You have the liberty to choose how much, and where you invest your money. You have the responsibility for yourself, and to make sure you have a good retirement balance. You have the opportunity to make yourself wealthy in your retirement and help your kids. If you had a stock that had a negative return, or didn't outpace inflation, you would dump it. Then why don't we dump our entitlement programs? Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.getamericaworking.org... [5] http://usdebtclock.org...", "qid": 5, "docid": "7e8da3c5-2019-04-18T18:02:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7092914581298828}, {"content": "Title: Pensions for Government Employees and Social Security should be abolished... Content: While this is my first debate, I see it is customary to start with definitions: A pension is an arrangement to provide people with an income when they are no longer earning a regular income from employment. In the US, government employees are among the last to receive pensions. Social Security in the US covers a number of social welfare and insurance policies, but since my opponent has attached it to a debate about pensions, I will define it as the social security retirement benefits, which function similar to pensions. If my opponent will be so kind as to respond that he agrees or disagrees with my definitions. Because this debate is about two programs, while similar in function, are of enormously different consequence, I will divide my argument against abolishing them into two parts. Social Security- No one can work forever. Those in jobs that require manual labor will eventually be unable to physically perform them, while in other positions, those of advancing age will find it difficult to compete in areas such as energy and salary. Also while age discrimination is reproachful, it does exist and is virtually impossible to enforce against- leaving employees of a certain age at a disadvantage for finding and keeping jobs. Retirement is a part of life and, for most, a pleasant one. Since the phase out of pensions millions of Americans rely on social security as their primary (often sole) source of income after retiring(1). While some workers enroll in 401k programs and other retirement savings accounts, this is not an option for everyone. Notably- non-working widows or widowers and those with expenses that meet or surpass their income. Additionally, many people are short-sighted, or simply bad with money. While this is not an attractive trait, social security legally requires these people to save. Abolishing social security would push these people into welfare or disability programs once they were beyond an age where they could feasibly work. This would be need to be funded by responsible taxpayers, penalizing those who thought ahead. Social security is notorious for being \"borrowed from\" by politicians who want to fund other programs and aren't interested in problems that will arise after their term limit. However, rather than abolish the victim of this action as well as other government mismanagement, the solution should be to elect more competent officials. Pensions- Though not necessary for basic survival, pensions are a benefit that rewards loyalty and service. While the private sector no longer has the luxury of pensions, the sour grapes of the private sector should not stop those working for the government from receiving pensions. To explain using a over the top analogy: If it was private sector policy to set their employees on fire when they made mistakes and government workers were not subject to this treatment, where should the correction be made? The private sector, of course. The lack of pensions in the private sector are a component of the downturn in employee treatment that should not be reflected anywhere. That is the basis of my case at the moment. It's not particularly extensive because I honestly can't think of many reasons anyone would want to do away with pensions and social security. However, my opponent may have reasons I've yet to think of. I await his reply. ___________________________________ (1) . http://seniorjournal.com... . http://www.emergingminds.org...", "qid": 5, "docid": "d65f184-2019-04-18T19:01:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7091057896614075}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: It is hysterical that you advocate Social Security, yet want to ignore the only means to pay for it (The payroll tax), which I have sufficiently demonstrated is devastating to everyone. I'm sorry; you must defend the payroll tax if you advocate Social Security, and sadly you chose an indefensible position. In short, you lose the argument unless you can defend the payroll tax, which you have conceded you cannot. Yes, we could get rid of the payroll tax, and just install a \"much more\" progressive tax than we have, but that is just advocating socialism. It is advocating socialism because you would have to come up with another $500+ billion from the people who already contribute $804+ Billion to the government coffers. Even if you are going to squabble over the exact value that it would cost, you are still advocating the most massive redistribution of wealth program that America has ever seen. Furthermore, if you think jobs are going overseas, watch what happens when the government takes all the money from the people who create the jobs, goods, and services that make our society work. I find it wonderful that I have pushed you all the way in a corner having to defend socialism just to get social security to work. You are hanging yourself with your own words, and I have just torn your argument to shreds. In order to get around your failing argument, you assert that you must only prove reasonable doubt that I am wrong. While I have more than established reasonable doubt, you certainly have much more of a burden if you advocate a policy that uses coercion and violence to take money from working people and then places them in a situation where they need the money back when they retire. You cannot get around the weakness of your arguments by claiming you owe less of a burden. Strangely, you appear to believe that Social Security is not hurting most of the people who receive Social Security benefits. This is wrong; it hurts everyone even if some do not need it to get by. It hurts everyone because everyone is better off when people are able to keep and control their own money. Individuals always know how to spend their own money better than government bureaucrats in Washington. Even those who do not have money to give to the government will be better off from the lower cost of living, which I already outlined above. Jobs are also created when the people have control over their own money, thereby putting money in the pockets of the poor. Amazingly, without finishing your argument, you go off on major tangents. I will begrudgingly address some of these tangents because your arguments are so weak that I win whether or not I address them: \"This must be why there are no homeless people in the U.S. today. I'm sure adding more to be cared for by \"misc.\" will turn out well. I mean, Americans are so caring and charitable!\" First, according to recent government statistics less that .3% of Americans have ever been considered homeless (http://www.heritage.org...), meaning that most get off of it either by themselves, or by help from charities. Your problem is that you think charity must be intentionally sacrificial; this is a fallacy. By providing a person with a job, you help that person much more than charity, and the economy is helped as well. But, you cannot hire more people if you do not have control of your own money. Are you really advocating a \"More Progressive\" tax? Moreover, as I indicated before: There is nothing charitable about putting a gun to someone's head to coerce them to give their money to Washington to pay for government programs. You claim that I should take that up with the government, which is just a way to avoid addressing the reality of how the Social Security system works. But, back to your nonsensical argument about keeping the payroll tax for yourself over giving it to the worker. EITHER WAY, IT STILL HELPS SOCIETY AND THE POOR! It allows you to lower prices of goods and services, because that extra savings becomes a profit for you, or you can spend the money somewhere else, thereby providing jobs for others. But, you can also undercut your competitors by paying your workers more, which is just as likely as any of the other choices because beating your competitors can bring you more profit in the long-run. You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation. I don't know who taught you this fallacy? But, an economy under a free-market capitalist system grows, is not static, and transactions of goods and services are freely exchanged. Consequently, we wouldn't need to \"give, give, give\" as much if the government abolished its programs like social security that destroy the economic growth that creates jobs. The private sector even has a profit incentive to help the disabled. Why? Because, when there is a demand for something, the private sector seeks to fill it. Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on. Still, with unbelievable ignorance, you think that it is good that the people at the top pay all the taxes. I hate to break it to you, but the economic gap is the most meaningless statistic. People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country. This is true even while the wealthy accumulate wealth. \"The Rich Get Richer, While the Poor Become Better off as Well.\" These are percentages of POOR households in the US that own each of these: 97% color T.V. (25% big screen) 73% Microwave 73% own a car (30% own two or more) 78% DVD or VCR 59% Stereo 55% 2 or more tv's 65% clothes washer 76% air conditioning 56% clothes dryer 63% Cable or Satelite TV Only 2% OF THE POOREST AMERICANS had bouts with hunger. 99% of POOR avoid eviction. (http://www.heritage.org...) Your statement about the massive gaps between the rich and poor is Marxist babble, and is simply not how the world works. The following Countries have less of an economic gap than the United States: North Korea, Cuba, China, the Old Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These Countries have a greater economic gap than all the countries above, yet the poor in these Countries are better off: United States, England, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong (I know this is a quasi-Country). In fact, the greatest correlation between how well the poor are doing economically in a country is the amount of capitalism in that Country. Overall, you wanted to advocate Social Security, without having to address the abject harms of the payroll tax. In an attempt to get around this fact, you claim that we can scrap the payroll tax for socialism. This is not a Strawman argument I am making, nor is it a distortion of your argument. This is exactly what your policy advocates. If you want to take back all the arguments you previously made, and start all over, I would advise you to do so. Since I will have no ability to respond to anything you say after this round, you may actually stand a chance. Otherwise, I will just accept my win.", "qid": 5, "docid": "8ce2d6ea-2019-04-18T19:49:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7083849906921387}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Content: Social Security..... In my defence of the case I shall be talking about how social security should be changed as well, however I will be arguing why it should not be changed right at this moment.", "qid": 5, "docid": "36edccd6-2019-04-18T12:31:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7082324028015137}, {"content": "Title: senior citizens should not and cannot be exposed to such naked risk on moral grounds Content: Senior citizens take the fall: 'A retirement fund that relies on the stock market is simply not a secure benefit...is a sacred compact between the Federal Government and senior citizens.'-[[http://books.google.com/books?id=eaCIX6d3Y5YC&pg=PA4870&lpg=PA4870&dq=pension+funds+privatisation+senior+citizens+take+the+fall&source=bl&ots=7w1L71RHkY&sig=mPDLR2fnKPvY4rsgrAiKw2SytwM&hl=en&ei=p0JrTLqENYiEvAPS8tH1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false]] 'twas argued in this particular congressional hearing that most senile Americans only have the option of risky privatized securities and therefore privatization is the answer. However we feel that makes no sense; If a child starves that does not entail that all children should starve. We should rather offer safer, more reliable funds to old largely incapacitated people rather than privatize all pensions. The vote at the end of this was fairly close; mainly because the President was not very clear on his exact objective. Obama Personal accounts does not solve the issue...I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally It is understood however that Privatizing securities puts older citizens at the risk of being left with no pension by being 'forced out'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)#force-out when it comes to 401 K plans; by not reading the small print in do it yourself retirement schemes and on the whole the public is not rife qualified to handle our own finances and old people need the extra-help. When you are senile the last thing you need is to find out that you don't have retirement pension because you were forced into fishing through financial jargon at a younger age and missed the bottom-line.Insurance policies can also get canceled.The only reliable retirement fund then becomes public/government pension. The removal of that will leave people out on a limb at old-age.An age when we should be sitting comfortably living on definite retirement/old-age funds/benefit.", "qid": 5, "docid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00024-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.708109438419342}, {"content": "Title: Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished Content: Before I proceed with any further arguments, let me say that I was unaware of any \"overall thesis,\" besides you being for the Topic sentence and me being against it. Nowhere in your opening argument did I read the words: \"...[T]he payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place!\" This is not what the debate is about; if it is, your Topic of Debate should have been \"The payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place, therefore the payroll tax and social security should be abolished.\" But that is not what you wrote. My position is that Social Security does not hurt the poor and elderly, and should therefore not be abolished. I am only arguing about the payroll tax to counter your arguments in Round 1; you evidently want the entire debate to be on the payroll tax alone. What it comes down to is that you must prove that Social Security hurts the poor and the elderly, and that it should be abolished for these reasons. I must provide a reasonable doubt that this is not the case. \"Briefly, before I address your points, let me mention that you wasted much of your argument claiming that the Social Security system will not go bankrupt. This was nothing but filler because I agree with you! However, it will not go bankrupt so long as it is funded by the payroll tax, like a pyramid structure where the youthful bottom continues to fund the aging top.\" -Ok... I am not debating whether or not Social Security will go bankrupt, I am debating whether it is bad for the poor and elderly, and should be abolished. \"You even brought up the fact that Alan Greenspan suggested increasing the payroll tax to ensure that it stays funded. Yes, this will certainly reach its purpose of funding a terrible system. Nevertheless, none of your lengthy sources used to buttress your response do the slightest to hurt my overall thesis that the payroll tax creates the need for people to be on social security in the first place!\" -See the first paragraph. There *is no overall thesis* except for the topic we are debating. All else is secondary. \"First of all, just because they are on social security, does not mean that they need social security. Many well-to-do people reach the age of 65 and get social security checks.\" -Good. Then Social Security isn't hurting them. \"Why are people who are able to save responsibly for retirement still being paid taxpayer-funded checks? Why are they receiving taxpayer money if they have money saved for retirement?\" -They are not being hurt by Social Security, so this point is really irrelevant, but the answer would be because they paid into the program: I assume from some of your statements that you would want your money (or at least as much as possible) back from the government that you gave it to. \"Moreover, the total number of people who do not need social security is much greater than the tables on page 23 because money that people saved over the years is not considered \"income.\"\" -Excellent. Then you get them off of it, and perhaps more money would be available to give to those who do need it, or, alternatively, use the surplus to cut back the payroll tax. \"...It is really simple: You take the money away that they could save, and they have no savings.\" -See my proposal of making the payroll tax, and for that matter *all* taxes, more progressive. I agree the poor should not be taxed in this way. \"The fact of the matter is that if you removed social security entirely, the total number of people dependent on the system would decrease simply because they would have 12% more income than they started with.\" -Allow me to translate into an actual matter-of-fact: If you removed SS entirely, the total number of people dependent on the system would decrease simply because *there would be no system to be dependent on anymore* And if you're already on Social Security or Disability, you would not have 12% more than you started with because if you have no income you are starting from nothing. \"The remainder of people would be cared for by friends, family, or foundations that would ensure better care for the elderly than our government.\" -This must be why there are no homeless people in the U.S. today. I'm sure adding more to be cared for by \"misc.\" will turn out well. I mean, Americans are so caring and charitable! \"1) I stated that, \"Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government.\" You asserted that this was \"highly unlikely.\" Let me say this really slowly. If you had a choice to either give $6.20 to the government or $6.00 to your employee, who would you pay? (Jeopardy Music)\" -I stand by my assertion that this is highly unlikely. And on your rebuttal: False dichotomy and an appeal to consequences fallacy. It is not a question of who I would rather pay *between the two if I had a choice* because your original argument said only \"if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government;\" choice is not an option. But to answer your question, I rather keep it if I didn't have to pay it to the government. On the second fallacy, it doesn't matter if you believe that employers will just give this extra 6.2% to their employees - your belief has little to do with the truth-value of your statement. \"If you pay your employee $100 an hour and 6.2% has to go toward paying the government, you lose $6.20 per hour. But, if you have that extra $6.20, you can do one of six things:\" -Only the first of your six options applies directly to *the* (not an) employee that was previously there - this is the only way that the employee is financially impacted in a direct sense, the sense that counts. -The question wasn't rhetorical, nor was it meant to be - otherwise why on earth would you answer it? \"...Forced compassion via violence and coercion is not a noble goal no matter who the money is going toward.\" -I'm not exactly crazy about the government, but it has its uses. Because I'm sure we'd all just give, give, give for all the things that are provided by the government if there were no taxes. As for your point in the sentence preceding the one I quoted there, talk to the government, not me:) \"...[T]o address your concern about the disabled, and children, most of these people are better taken care of by new technology and the private sector than government bureaucracy.\" -This is simply laughable, but I only have limited space: it's more likely that the \"private sector\" will screw them over in a worse way than the government did. See above. \"But, THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. In fact, they pay all the taxes in this Country already. According to the IRS the top 50% of all tax payers payed nearly 97% of all taxes. The bottom 50% barely paid any! In fact, from 1986 till now, the top 1%'s share of the tax burden has risen from 25% to 37%. The top 1% of wage earners pay 37% of the taxes! During this same time period, the burden shared by the bottom 50% shrunk in half from 6.5% to 3.3%.\" -GOOD. Considering that the top 1% of households control nearly 35% of the wealth in the U.S., the top 10% control over 71%, and the bottom 40% control 0.2%, this is still not good enough. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu... \"The top 50% paid $804 billion.\" -And rightly so. See above. I suggest you start making points about why Social Security in-and-of itself, not the payroll tax, hurts the poor and the elderly. The same goes for why Social Security, not the payroll tax, should be abolished. History has not fared kindly toward great massive gaps between the poor and middle classes and the bourgeoisie. Unless, of course, you like heads in baskets:)", "qid": 5, "docid": "8ce2d6ea-2019-04-18T19:49:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7080379724502563}, {"content": "Title: Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security. Content: Stephen Dick. \"Op-Ed: Yes, leave Social Security alone.\" CNHI News Service. November 19th, 2010: \"the American people, despite voting for Republicans, have said over and over in polls that they would pay more in taxes to save entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare. With Republicans back in power, when it comes time to cut spending, they'll be looking at Social Security until the American people tell them to back off. \"", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00077-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7078815698623657}, {"content": "Title: Privatizing social security Content: Public supports private social security accounts.", "qid": 5, "docid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7065714001655579}, {"content": "Title: privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently Content: Wouldn't it be better if we privatize CHUGGON?", "qid": 5, "docid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7064802050590515}]}
{"query": "Is a college education worth it?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals", "qid": 6, "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8802109956741333}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It is worth it to go to college, and I will explain why it is worth it in the second round of the debate. Yes, I will post arguments using mathematical sense. Sincerely, Dr. Maniac", "qid": 6, "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8043187856674194}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: Accepted. I will be arguing that the benefits of a college education outweigh the costs. I hope this is a great debate! :p Go!", "qid": 6, "docid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7932327389717102}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7654454708099365}, {"content": "Title: This house believes that college is redundant for further studies Content: As you all know, college is an important milestone in life. Personally, I think that a college degree is worth pursuing regardless of an individual's career goals. First off, Candidates can explore new specialisation fields and experiment around to find their passion. This can actually help students to save money as well- If they are aware of their specialisations in a field of their choice, there is no need to take multiple courses in university. Instead, they can just directly choose to study in their field of choice. Which leads us to the next point. It serves an advantage. When students go to college, they may be unsure of what field to specialise in. however, as students grow older, they may develop sudden interests in medicine, law, economics and etc. When they finally decide what do they want to specialise in, they have a college degree to help them get into schools of their choice. Thirdly, college gives second chances. for those students who didn't do very well in high school, college is a perfect opportunity to earn back the grades they think they deserve. For all education levels above college, they tend to weigh your college degree higher than your high school degree. My fourth point is that college helps us build a strong foundation for future studies. It gives you the basic knowledge you will need for future studies. Students can gain advanced knowledge in the fields that they are interested in and can have a general understanding of the other subjects. It also helps students to exercise their critical thinking skills and make sensible choices as well as help them to express themselves through writing and speech. Another point I would like to use to oppose to the opinion that college is redundant for further studies is that it helps students increase their chance of admission into schools of their choice. Imagine that you are checking 2 resumes from 2 applicants. They both have the same amount of experience, but one applicant gained a higher college degree that the other. Which one would you choose as a new intake? I believe that all of us will choose the student with the higher education background. However, in real life, students are compared with thousands os applicants, so they must have some academic achievements that make them appeal to the university that they are applying for so that they will choose the student as their intake. Last but not least, college prepares students for university life. Students learn to deal with the hardships in life in college. It makes the student strong and practical enough to deal with the hardships that they are going to face in the future. Students learn to adapt to new situations and new environments in college just as they would do in graduate school or university. Overall, I would like to conclude that college is in fact not redundant for further studies but it plays an important role in a student's education. Thank you.", "qid": 6, "docid": "19e647b-2019-04-18T11:51:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.757744312286377}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to \"Actually, College is Very Much Worth It\" by Andrew J. Rotherham \"College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans.\" College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.751483678817749}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college.", "qid": 6, "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7464902400970459}, {"content": "Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: The amenities and tools that universities offer their students to gain higher education, including the excellent standard of university professors, are priceless. Consequently, an increase in tuition fees would definitely still be worth attending university for as there is no other institution that can give such high quality facilities, teaching, help and advice in addition to a highly regarded qualification (a degree). Such a qualification as a degree could potentially allow for huge salaries and pay packages in the long-run, making the tuitions fees paid to the university which had made all that possible, seem insignificant.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00012-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7404395341873169}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning \"half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. \"According to Wall Street Journal,\"Paying for college never is easy, but it\"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can\"t afford a college education. That\"s wrong. Most of them can.\" Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7386634349822998}, {"content": "Title: College is worth it Content: I accept your challenge, under the pretense that we can qualify which college experiences we are debating about, i.e., I will argue that a number of specific majors/fields of study are not worth the time and money, if one is hoping to gain employment through them, while I will conceed that other types, such as trade schools, are more worthwhile in today's economy.", "qid": 6, "docid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7354887127876282}, {"content": "Title: College Should be free Content: College is way too expensive for normal people who just want a higher education. In this debate, I wish to have a logical discussion with another person to discuss if this is a good idea or not. I look forward to the debate", "qid": 6, "docid": "a6d08b-2019-04-18T11:06:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.734911322593689}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that \"...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt \" and maybe no job in sight\". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.", "qid": 6, "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7316482067108154}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second \"rebuttal\" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: \"I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available\" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says \"studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't\". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So", "qid": 6, "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7309876084327698}, {"content": "Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, \"The greatest investment is yourself.\" Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated \"Information is the currency of democracy.\" If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates.", "qid": 6, "docid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7302101850509644}, {"content": "Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or \"career\". In order to get a \"career\" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .", "qid": 6, "docid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7257447838783264}, {"content": "Title: College education is not necessary to become successful Content: College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.", "qid": 6, "docid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7256518602371216}, {"content": "Title: It is a small price to pay for the quality of education given. Content: Whilst it cannot be disputed that most universities guarantee an outstanding education, it would definitely not be worth \u00a320,000 per year! That amount of money could considerably add to an \"average\" salary making it worth the same as a \"high\" salary but without obtaining a degree and wasting 3/4 years of your life! Furthermore, although the quality of education may be worth paying for, the quantity of education does not justify such an increase. Many students are given less than 15 hours of lectures per week so should they really be paying such a huge amount for an education that they rarely receive?", "qid": 6, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00011-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7228342890739441}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no \"averaging\" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: \"College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children\u2014in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, \u201crunning back home.\u201d That hurts us all.\" Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. \"More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree.\" Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are \"learning to live on your own gradually and constructively.\" I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that \"you're also getting an education,\" but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your \"network,\" which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it.", "qid": 6, "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7224972248077393}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.", "qid": 6, "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7195849418640137}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7192462682723999}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: =Monetary Benefits= My opponent tries to comb through my argument and pick through it but the bottom line is, though he disagrees with the extent of my claims made, that there still is a monetary benefit for college educated people. He claims there is ONLY a difference of over $275,000. That's still a lot; a salary boost of thousands a year. In the end, though we have varying studies (and there are literally dozens of college income and average income studies and numbers out there) the bottom line, concluded by both of us, is that there is a long term monetary benefit to attending college. Even the low number given by my opponent is pretty high, and if we average the two the benefit is even higher. Through it all my opponent failed to refute the claim that there is a monetary benefit to attending college which only helps to add weight to our case going forward when combined with other points.=Social Benefits= My opponent claims that 12 years of public schooling and some start up job positions can replace the benefits given by a college experience. However, this is simply not the case. He claims \"real world\" experiences are better than college experiences. However, while learning how to live on your own gradually and constructively in college you're also getting an education. Instead of flinging 18 year olds into a dingy apartment right away, college eases young adults into this transition making it easier on them. Also, my opponent claims \"job experience\" will give them more connections than college will. This is simply an unpractical claim to make. The jobs 18 year old high school graduates will be hourly wage jobs to start almost guaranteed. They'll have to work their way up to a management position in the 4-6 years they could be in college. College students however are usually hired for higher positions automatically and will forgo the wage jobs. Another thing, colleges have Career resource centers which specialize in helping college students get jobs. The UF center for example, gives out thousands of jobs a year to college students. [1] Also, they claim that many jobs are not advertised and are only reached through school and professional connections. Up to 80% of jobs never reach the \"job market\" via advertising. College students will have these connections via professors, internships and the resource center on campus. Non college students are barred from all this.=Opportunities=My opponent claims 54% of students have a chance of dropping out and 20% will drop out. Almost 100% of these drop outs occur within the first year of college meaning the damage financially and to their time will only be the extent of a year. They will owe 1/4th that of traditional 4 year students. The risk is not as high as my opponent claims. On year of tuition will be about $5k not the full extent of a student loan. Also, again, the experience and status of being college educated is always there. Even if you have to start out poorly, you will always have that status which will help you advance long term. People without college educations will always hit a barrier when on the rise. People without college educations will always be barred from positions requiring an education. This is huge. The opportunities presented by a college education are forever. Not having a degree will close these doors to you and they will never be opened. =Problems with Pro-College Studies=\"because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago\" This helps to reiterate my point that college degree benefits are more long term than my opponent wants to acknowledge. Even 20-30 years later these college graduates will get jobs and according to multiple studies will be making some amount more than their non degree holding counterparts. My opponents claims about the recession are misleading. The recession caused EVERYONE'S unemployment numbers to rise. It did not affect any one group more or less than another. Of course, if unemployment is above 8% college graduates will be affected by this. =Causation Versus Correlation=My opponent makes a rather weak claim here about causation. He claims people who go to college would be successful anyways and therefore college studies are not as straight and true as they appear. However, it doesn't change the common denominator in all these studies which is a college education. People geared towards success do tend to go to college as my opponent points out. Why? Because college gives benefits. If college benefits did not outweigh the costs then these success driven people would not attempt to attend college. They attend college because of the tangible benefits to be gained.If these college eligible people would earn more regardless of college; why attend? Because college is obviously more beneficial than not. Or else they'd continue without it and earn more anyways. College enhances these skills and benefits. =Chance of Benefits=I said before, college benefits last a lifetime. The degree will always be with you, so chance of success is exponentially greater throughout their lifetime than a non degree holding person. Also, as I mentioned before, the drop outs occur almost exclusively in the first year of college so the damage done is only a year's worth. College loans for one year, not four etc.The chance of benefits and success are exponentially greater for a college degree holder than a non college degree hold over a lifetime due to the ability to be exposed to college educated positions etc.=Conclusion=* College monetary benefit is present and confirmed by my opponent* Opportunities for jobs are exponentially greater than non degree holding people* Most high level people (CEO's, politicians etc) all have college degrees* If college didn't offer benefit's so many success geared people would rely on themselves and forgo collegeThe benefits of college outweigh the costs.[1] http://www.crc.ufl.edu...", "qid": 6, "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7182053327560425}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.", "qid": 6, "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7164367437362671}, {"content": "Title: The costs of college outweigh the benefits Content: colleges are playing with our money and giving us nothing but a kind of education that makes us inelligible in the job market.the increasing number of unemployment shows us that the market do not think that our college degree does have some value.if our employer don't think our degrees are valuable and fire us for that reason, our degrees really don't have ny value.therefore college education has no benefit at all.", "qid": 6, "docid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7160794138908386}, {"content": "Title: Publicly tax paid post-secondary/college education in the U.S. Content: My case A college degree is only so valuable as the market decides it to be, and that is determined by the scarcity of the degree in the market. In applying for a job, the employer sees my resume, and sees that I went to college. This is valuable because it shows that I have taken the initiative to further my knowledge past the standard of education, which is currently high school, to go to college. However, what my opponent is advocating for is changing the standard of education to college education, instead of high school. When a college education is free to the student, future employers will expect their applicants to have a college education, rather than just a high school education, because really, what is the student\u2019s excuse at this point? This has a few impacts. One impact is that it drastically increases the amount of people going to college, thus increasing the costs for all taxpayers as tuition and student numbers go up, another is that it devalues the degree, thus making graduate school necessary for future high-earning employability, and finally, that it is making people who really shouldn't have to pay for someone's college education pay for it. College admittance overload When college is \"free\" to attend for the student, this means quite clearly that we are going to get a huge increase in the amount of people attending college. We\u2019re going to get teens, college dropouts, people who never attended, etc. all flooding the system, because now it is no longer a monetary investment for them to have the education that is publicly perceived as essential to being successful in life. One might say, \u201cWho cares? Now we have a more educated society.\u201d Well, the taxpayer, and hopefully the students, cares. It is predicted that, by 2018, 60% of job openings will require a college education (1). And that\u2019s just based on the status quo of how accessible a college education is. If one were to take into account the massive inflow of students that would come from taxpayer provided college education, we could expect that number to go significantly higher as college becomes the new standard of education, thus making a college degree approach pointlessness. Skyrocketing prices, decreased quality, or both? Now, my opponent would like you, the judge, to believe that government could somehow magically control cost without decreasing the quality of the education. But as I have shown above, the colleges are going to have significantly more students than they are going to be accustomed to, and the only way they would be able to adequately provide for them is if they were to increase costs. That being said, my opponent wants to plan controls into college spending levels. But if the college can\u2019t raise prices to be paid by the taxpayers, then the college won\u2019t be able to provide a high quality education to all of its students. But if my opponent revokes the cost control portion of his plan, then we are going to have skyrocketing prices to be paid by taxpayers that will be there for a skyrocketing amount of students. Essentially, with taxpayer-funded college, you\u2019re going to have an ever-increasing tax burden to be paid for by everyone as more people go to college. If price controls don\u2019t exist, then that price is going to be increased many-fold and will be increasing at a rate faster than ever before. If price controls do exist, then the taxpayers will be paying for an education that will be sub-par. What my opponent is proposing is a lose-lose system. Why should a person be forced to pay for someone else\u2019s kid to go to college? At the core of my opponent\u2019s plan, taxpayers would pay for college. However, it would seem ridiculous to force a parent to pay for another parent\u2019s child to go to college, or to force someone who doesn\u2019t even have kids to pay for that cost. This is also fundamentally unfair to parents who have already paid for their kid's college, and who now need to pay again, for, as I've shown, little to no clear benefit. So why should a person be forced to pay for someone else\u2019s kid? This is not a rhetorical question; I expect an answer from my opponent. If he can\u2019t adequately answer it, then he loses the debate. If he can, then he still needs to refute all of my other points, or I win. And now to take these points together What my opponent is proposing is a system where the taxpayer provides for college education to increase accessibility. However, what we see is that this would increase accessibility to the point where the college degree would be hugely devalued in the job market, thus making it so students would need to go to graduate school to get the high earning job formerly promised by a college degree (which repeats the problem of accessibility and price that my opponent is trying to solve for in the first place), which would make it take even longer for people to become productive members of our economy and would come at a huge cost to the taxpayer, which is everyone. Controls on how much colleges spend would inevitably decrease the quality of the post-secondary education (while still increasing price to taxpayers as people flood the system) and to not control the spending would mean an even higher rate of tax increases to the people of our country. And this would all be paid for by people who really shouldn\u2019t have to be paying for it. So now to refute my opponent\u2019s points. High costs can be negated by heightening corporate taxes These heightened corporate taxes would just be indirectly taxing the people. This is because, when a corporation expects to earn X dollars per year, and their taxes are increased, they just raise the prices of their goods and services so they still earn X dollars per year. The same people who are paying taxes are paying these costs, so heightening corporate taxes creates zero solvency. \u201cAs the wages of those who take advantage of this goes up, society as a whole also will make more money- Leading to everyone eventually benefiting.\u201d This is making a pretty big assumption that wages would go up. Everybody has more of their income taken away trying to pay for college through taxes, and additionally, the college degree would be devalued, as I have shown above. The value of a college degree is relative to how scarce it is in the market, and when most people have college degrees, that value goes away. \u201cOver about a ten year period, the cost to invest will go down and the country will still continue to show improvements in wages and lower poverty rates.\u201d This is a huge claim, and my opponent has not provided any evidence to support this, logical or empirical. Until he has provided evidence, I ask that the judges not take this bare assertion into account. But even so, we have no reason to buy that point based on the fact that the college education would be devalued in the market. Conclusion So to conclude this round, the judges have no reason to vote for Pro. The positive impacts of his case are based on the assumption that a college education would increase the value of the students in the job market, which is simply false given the fact that the value of the degree would go away. So this means that he would be pointlessly and drastically increasing taxes for no clear or evidence supported benefit. In my case, I have shown that publicly provided college/post-secondary education would exacerbate the problems we have with education drastically, by increasing costs, decreasing quality, decreasing the education\u2019s value, and forcing the payment on people who shouldn\u2019t have to pay for someone else\u2019s kid. Thank you for reading, I urge a vote for my side. Sources: 1. http://www.reviewjournal.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "b9fe573f-2019-04-18T16:11:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7155251502990723}, {"content": "Title: is school truly needed Content: I'm just going to make a couple opening statements: 1) My opponent clearly hasn't been paying enough attention during school to know whether it will benefit him for the future or not. This debate could very possibly have anywhere between 100 and 10,000 spelling and grammar mistakes all on my opponent's side. 2) The reason education is needed is for preparation for college, which is the best way to guarantee yourself a job. People with a bachelor degree at least find it easier to find a job, and they earn more money. People who took classes that would teach them things beneficial to their future field of practice. I'll break out the Jonbonbon's Encyclopedia of Education 2nd Edition next round for some supporting evidence of my opening statements.", "qid": 6, "docid": "6360634a-2019-04-18T16:39:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7149540185928345}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: I am arguing that the costs of a college education do outweigh the benefits.", "qid": 6, "docid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7143197655677795}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my \"Benefits\" section, shows one of the issues: \"The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. \" My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my \"benefits\" section: \"Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. \"At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions \"job connections. \" In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. \"Fear of failing\" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if \"the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? \" The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote \"individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor\u2019s degrees\" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. \"That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. \"The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against \"opportunities,\" yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing.", "qid": 6, "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7139447331428528}, {"content": "Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: RE: What one will earn with a college degree is almost double the amount of money that a high school graduate will earn. I don\u2019t doubt these statistics and agree that it is probably true one with a college degree earns more than the amount a high school graduate can earn. It is beneficial for society as a whole to earn a college degree rather than without. However, in the context of this debate it is important not only to ensure that millennials are not being exploited by college degrees, but that they are using them in alignment with their core values/ ambitions, for higher education to be worth it for them. Therefore, the fact that one can earn more than a high school graduate is only a good thing for millennials given that: P1: Millennials aim to utilise university to generate the most income The millennial generation can be characterised as being \u2018interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns\u2019, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that \u2018money is the best measure of success\u2019, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2). Hence, if most the millennial generation are not pursuing high income earnings directly this point is not enough alone to argue the worth of a college degree for millennials. RE: College education easily indicates to employers of higher-skilled jobs that you are qualified. \u2018there is no way that employers validate that you have knowledge enough for the field they employ in.\u2019 P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college \u2013 so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) \u2018this (college debt) is not exactly a problem that needs to be solved by getting rid of college education or necessarily reforming it, but it could be solved by making colleges tuition free and paid for by taxes.\u2019 I agree with the latter, but disagree in the former as I believe the fact that con agrees this issue can be solved by making college tuition free reinforces my point that college education needs reform (I would say the total eradication of fees is considered serious reform) P3: There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don\u2019t even have to go to law school \u2013 you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years \u2013 you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. Abraham Lincoln himself says \u2018if you are absolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself the thing is more than half done\u2026it is a small matter whether you read with any one or not; I did not read with anyone...Always bear in mind your own resolution to succeed is more important than anything\u2019 (4) P4: A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified \u2013 experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). RE: College education helps you go into a career you really want I admire those who know what they want in a career and go after it. I agree that a college education may help you reach there \u2013 having a college education is perfectly fine here. Especially if you know you want to be a teacher, doctor, engineer etc. What I have a problem with is many young people do not know what they truly want. We are characterised as the \u2018indecisive generation\u2019 because we have so many more options than previous generations available to us. By 2010 nearly 60% of employed millennials had already switched their career at least once. Whilst the possibility exists that some people equated a \u2018career change\u2019 with a \u2018job change\u2019, it could also mean that millennials are considering alternatives and many options when it comes to finding a career pathway either due to personal preferences or societal pressures (rapidly transforming jobs etc. as elaborated in A1, P3). (3) Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. Hence, reform is necessary to allow students to experiment and experience practical work culture etc. instead of allowing vulnerable youth to pursue something they are not interested in/do not know much about under the pressure from their parents etc. RE: RE: University education today fosters a grade-oriented, disengaged, depressed culture that fails to prepare students for real life. \u2018In other words, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population.\u2019 There is a simple observational error. My opponent has compared a statistic I used (anxiety or depression affection 13% U/G and 15.6% P/G) (6) that was recorded in 2005 with results that were measured in 2015 (6.7% of the general population affected by depression). Additionally, whilst the statistic used in regards to anxiety affecting the general population being 18.1% is verified, 1) This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) 2) There is a problem with the method of calculation. According to con\u2019s calculations, an accurate representation would be 18.1% of the general population in 2005 have an anxiety disorder + 5.4% of general population in 2005 with a depressive disorder(7)=23.5% affected. Therefore as 23.5% is greater than 13% and 15.6%, anxiety and depression is lower among college students than the general population. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected. This is higher than the average anxiety or depression disorders existent in the general population, and hence you can argue that anxiety or depression is higher among college students than the general population. This is an example of why this form of comparison is not very good. It is better to quote research involving direct comparison between college students and non-college students. Final Remarks I\u2019m sorry I could not add additional arguments to this debate. Although the bit about college education increasing inequality might be considered one, I\u2019ve mostly only included rebuttals this round due to time constraints as I\u2019m currently travelling. Thanks for your response con, I look forward to continuing this debate! Sources: 1) https://www.brookings.edu... 2) https://www.brookings.edu... 3) http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... 4) https://priceonomics.com... 5) http://www.nbcnews.com... 6) https://www.researchgate.net...... 7) https://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": 6, "docid": "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.713522732257843}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.", "qid": 6, "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7124869227409363}, {"content": "Title: Better to wait to see if MBA is necessary. Content: While many people advocate for getting higher education sooner rather than later, this is not necessary. It is better to wait to see if the degree proves necessary. If it does, go get it. If not, then you are better off not having the debt.", "qid": 6, "docid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00133-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7104809284210205}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponent states 2 main points that: 1. American citizens can't afford a college education. 2. It doesn't guarantee a good job. However, I believe that college should be required as: 1. Universities offer better returns if you invest. 2. The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. 1. Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford (and formerly Harvard) economist who specializes in educational issues, states that \"the value of the education has actually been increasing faster than the tuition. She calculates that at the most selective colleges, the amount spent on each student has grown at an average annual rate of 13% from 1967 to 2007, reaching about $92,000. Over the same period, tuition at the selective schools grew at an average annual rate of 6%. The difference is made up by increasing charitable contributions from alumni and others. The investment, says Ms. Hoxby, is well worth the money spent. Even accounting for charitable contributions, she notes, studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't. The studies suggest that the return on investment in education at a selective school is similar to the long-term return on stocks. \"Since the mid-1990s, the average (inflation-adjusted) wages of college graduates have skyrocketed, increasing by 18 percent\" as of 2004, a recent study found. In contrast, wages of high school dropouts rose at about half that rate -- 10 percent -- over the same period. The Census Bureau in 2004 calculated that the average college graduate earns $27,800 more per year, adjusted for inflation, than the average high school graduate. That adds up to more than $1 million over a lifetime As you can see, and have probably already heard, a college education does lead to better wages for the majority of people who attend and graduate, therefore college does in fact offer better returns. 2. The number of scholarships are increasing, and community colleges are always an option. The University of Minnesota Scholarship Drive seeks to increase by 2,250 the number of students who are helped through privately funded scholarships. The goal is to raise $150 million, making it the largest scholarship fund raising effort ever undertaken by the university. Currently, 4,500 students receive scholarships funded through private gifts to the university. Indiana State University has increased the number of Presidents Scholarships to 20 for 2009-10, up from 15 in previous years, and has created a new University Honors Scholarship that will be awarded to 80 incoming freshmen. The Presidents Scholarships award is the most prestigious award at the Indiana State University, and increasing it to 20 is a massive amount, as it provides students with $15,000 dollars a year. The University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg will be offering approximately 75 more scholarships to incoming freshmen this fall as part of an effort to help students in tough economic times and maintain enrollment totals. Community college costs just a fraction of the total price tag for public or private four-year residential colleges. If you're short on cash and don't have the test scores to win a merit scholarship, community college can save you thousands. But don't make your decision based entirely on money -- many four-year colleges offer excellent financial aid for those with serious need. . http://blogs.wsj.com... . http://www.nasfaa.org... . http://www.giving.umn.edu... . http://www.pittsburghlive.com... . http://collegeapps.about.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.709905743598938}, {"content": "Title: The High Tuition Rates of Universities in the United States are Unjustifiable Content: Value is subjective. I might think a Starbucks peppermint mocha latte is worth $5, and my opponent might not. To me, the cost might be justified; my opponent might think differently - it depends on our values and what utility we think the product provides either to us as individuals, or to the community/globe as part of a larger transaction. In this debate, I will explain why the tuition rate of college is on the rise, and why that's justifiable to people (in general). First, let's take a look at supply and demand. I think we all know that if something is in high supply and low demand, the cost will be lower, and if something is in low supply but high demand, the cost will be higher. Henry suggests we look at the tuition hike between 1980 and now. In 1980, only 17% of the American population over 25 had earned a degree [2]. Today, 40% of people 25-34 (not including people over 34!) have earned a degree [3]. That's more than double, and doesn't even count a significant portion of the population. Moreover, postbaccalaureate enrollment has risen about 80% between 1985 and now [4]. With such a growing demand and a supply that is simply not on pace, price hikes can be expected. Next, we should consider why so many more people are seeking a degree than in the past. In addition to a shift in the job market, we also need to acknowledge that politicians (and society) have encouraged this notion that everyone deserves and should have access to a college education. The government has made it significantly easier for people to obtain loans and other funding for college, private, federal or otherwise. As such, colleges know they can increase the cost of tuition and not have to worry about inhibiting demand. Even if people can't afford to pay for it, they know the government will assist them either directly (FAFSA, loans, etc.) or via legislation that makes it easier to obtain loans from private banks. If everyone had to figure out a way to pay for college themselves, tuition would go down to facilitate competition and remain a lucrative investment for students. On that note, my opponent suggests that attending college is about accessing the \"database\" of knowledge regarding the accomplishments of the human race. I beg to differ. Everyone has different aspirations and goals for their college experience, but overall attendance is about an investment in your career. Learning is super awesome, but in an age of information, ignorance is a choice and we do not need to attend a 4 year higher learning institution in order to expand our knowledge. I've learned more from engaging on this website than I have in my 4 years in college. We have access to the internet, books, and an institutionalized education at least until grade 12. Some people don't learn anything in college at all. What college provides (and one reason why the cost is so high) is a piece of paper upon completion of a certain amount of time/credits that demonstrates you have successfully finished a curriculum that some employers feel make you more qualified to hold certain positions. If I want to be a doctor, does it matter that I cannot recite Shakespearean sonnets? No, even though knowing those sonnets might make me more cultured and well-read. I can learn those sonnets on my own. What people want to know is that if I intend on being a doctor, that I was trained in a particular area of study and demonstrated a certain level of competence in a particular field. That's essentially the purpose of college, technically speaking (and the life lessons, bong rips, chugging funnels, etc. is just a bonus). Another thing to note is that like employers, colleges are now competing for talent. Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education notes, \"Now we're competing in a global economy, so if you want to get the best scientists, the best engineers, you're literally competing with universities and employers from around the globe.\" Professors are not always people in Education, but experienced professionals who lend their expertise to universities... for a price. Depending on the skill and value of their staff, universities have to compensate their educators accordingly. It's about which school will offer the best teachers the most lucrative monetary incentives, and students will have to pay for that. I'd also like to point out that tuition is not by any means limited to covering the expense of attending class. For one thing, most colleges provide health insurance plans to their students - and we all know how expensive health insurance can be. They also provide counseling services, tutoring services, career opportunity services, advisers of all kinds (academic and otherwise) and more. In addition, colleges now compete by bragging about their state-of-the-art recreational facilities and other amenities, such as innumerable WiFi hot spots, access to computer labs and all of the technology within (not to mention the employees who help run those labs and make repairs), gourmet food and dining services, and more! Colleges also pay for landscaping, have massive bills for electricity, water and other necessities, janitorial services, and basically a massive staff. As the size and population of colleges increase, so do the number of people that have to be employed to accommodate that growth. Colleges keep expanding. It's imperative to take into account while we consider paying for all of these goods and services that we cannot compare dollar for dollar the cost of tuition in the past vs. the cost today. In addition to the factors I have already mentioned, inflation is a given. A few closing points... For high-knowledge careers that require an extensive education (doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scientists, etc.), it makes sense to invest in college. The return they will get in salary will make it favorable on a cost-benefit analysis compared with not attending college and choosing a low-skill job instead, which won't pay as much. Therefore, for many people the cost of college is justified. Postsecondary education opens the door to higher-paying jobs that are not available to people with fewer skills [5]. Finally, perhaps the tuition hike is not as mind boggling as my opponent implies. Even as sticker prices climb, student aid has gone up dramatically. For students in private schools, the aid increases just about cancel out tuition increases of the past five years [6]. We also need to consider that people's income has also increased (as a whole) since the 1980s, going back to the inflation point. The most important factor to note here is that despite what I think or my opponent thinks, it's what overall consumers (attendees) think about the cost of tuition. Apparently with all factors considered: the return on investment, the luxuries and amenities, the value of a collegiate education and the college experience in general make the tuition cost worthwhile. As such, it is justified. To re-cap... 1. College is in high demand while the supply remains limited 2. Government backs access to college, so tuition hikes don't inhibit demand 3. Universities have to compete for talent to make their college more reputable 4. The cost of amenities and other services is high; tuition covers more than your time in class 5. Inflation dramatizes the cost 6. The return on investment for attending college still makes it a worthwhile endeavor for many [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://education.stateuniversity.com... [3] http://finance.yahoo.com... [4] http://nces.ed.gov... [5] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.npr.org...", "qid": 6, "docid": "1fbb46b4-2019-04-18T18:01:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.709319531917572}, {"content": "Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: University education is an investment.", "qid": 6, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00013-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7080656290054321}, {"content": "Title: Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job. Content: The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "88cfaec7-2019-04-18T19:17:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7075673341751099}, {"content": "Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: ++++++++ Refutations ++++++++ \"We live in a very 'status' society where a university degree is considered 'top of the line' and a college diploma is considered 'a step down. '\" [Not according to my first contention which states that colleges and universities are only different in name. My opponent has dome nothing to address this point and it therefore stands. A college degree is a college degree and the prestige is not garnered from going to a university. The prestige is garnered from going to an institute of higher education that has a well known name. This could be one with the title university or any other synonymous title. ] ~~~ \"Furthermore, she asserts that university bound students don't necessarily even need to go to university because without a four year degree they would still make the same amount of money and be as successful because they have already developed a strong work ethic and other related traits. \" [I watched the video provided in your link and it does not address going to a university. It argues that you do necessarily need a college education to do well. This goes against your original arguments and is in fact evidence that supports my position. This debate is not whether a college education is useful, it is about whether or not colleges are more useful than universities. ] ~~~ In conclusion my opponent has neglected to defend himself against my rebuttals and even contradicted himself on at least two occasions. I stick to my original contention that a university is different than a college in name only and this point has not been refuted.", "qid": 6, "docid": "56ad9029-2019-04-18T19:14:15Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7064451575279236}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article,\" The Economic Policy Institute\", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, \"For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)\". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment.", "qid": 6, "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7057067155838013}, {"content": "Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: I will attempt to refute the resolution that compared to college, universities aren't useful. ----------- Refutations ----------- \". .. college teaches you how to screw in a light bulb, while university teaches you the history of one. \" [This analogy is very broad and for the most part incorrect. What you learn at a college or university depends not on that institution but what any specific person is studying at that institution. For instance, if I wanted to get a degree in auto mechanics that was offered at a university would you argue that this degree would teach me nothing about repairing cars and would only teach me about the history of automobiles? ] ~~~ \"University isn't practical, its theoretical. It doesn't set you up with a career, it sets you up with a hobby. I think the ideal university student is that of a person 50+ because one can develop a new interest or fascination that they can than gain self-satisfaction, where in earlier life, they really couldn't. \" [Harvard University is one of, if not the, best law school in the United States. Getting a degree in law from here virtually guarantees that you will be sought after for employment by numerous law firms. Also, the idea that a younger person can not gain self satisfaction through a university is absurd. ] ~~~ \"With early life, a nineteen year old university student is worried about everything but gaining self- satisfaction. They are worried about passing the upcoming test, remembering the study group on Tuesday and buying beer on Friday. \" [I ask my opponent to explain his view that passing a test would not make a person satisfied with themselves. Studying is merely a means used to gain that satisfaction. I also ask my opponent to explain his view that buying beer for a party is a worrisome activity. ] ~~~ My Contention: University is a title used to describe an institute of higher education and is synonymous with the words College, Institute (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Academy (United States Military Academy), Union (Cooper Union), Conservatory (New England Conservatory), and School (Juilliard School). All of the above institutions are considered colleges and simply because a place has a different title does not mean it offers a dissimilar educational experience. As an example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a great place to get a degree in engineering, but so is the University of Michigan [1]. A title only changes how one refers to a thing in this instance, not the style of teaching. Sources: [1] . http://www.graduateshotline.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "56ad9029-2019-04-18T19:14:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7050882577896118}, {"content": "Title: Ending Education Subsidies Content: First off, any books cited by Pro cannot be taken seriously. I don't have the books available and without an online reference, that can be checked by the voters, voter are not to consider Pro's books a reliable source. Every source that Pro cites, I am contesting as invalid. Therefore, voters please only consider Pro's sources valid if you have personally gone to the library and verified Pro's sources.CONTENTIONSC1) College is required for successPro concedes that college is required for success. He says that it should not. He argues for an ideal scenario rather than the actual one. The essence of the debate is the Pro is saying that the government should end subsidies in education. He has the burden of proof to show why. How does he show this? By saying that college should not result in higher incomes. It doesn't matter if Pro thinks that. It is not true. He admits that it is not true. Ending educational subsidies will not make it so. I am not arguing about whether college should or should not result in higher incomes but rather that it does.C2) College is unaffordable to the majority of studentsCollege, which my opponent admits is a path to success and higher income cannot be afforded by the majority of students. My opponent concedes this point as well.C3) Unsubsidized loans do not fill the needPro does not address this contention. A dropped contention in a debate is considered to be conceded. Conclusion: Education should be subsidized.With all the premises true, the conclusion holds true as well.Summary of my casePro has conceded my entire case. The rebuttal that he provides merely voices his opinion that college should not lead to higher income and a successful career which is not the case. Pro's only standing argument now is that there should be less college education because it costs a lot and doesn't increase productivity. I agree that it costs a lot but argue that college is in fact beneficial. This is the reason I am defending subsidies. So, now the only point of disagreement is whether college is beneficial. If I can prove that it is, then I win the debate since my opponent has agreed with every other point that I made. My rebuttal to Pro's case below will prove this point.PRO'S CASER1) Human CapitalI must admit that Pro had an unorthodox way of arguing the resolution. His main argument for why education should not be subsidized is that education is not beneficial at all. So, let's get to the arguments that Pro makes in order to back up his claim.Pro's main argument seems to be that there is no transfer of skills, i.e. Calculus won't help you in a job that has nothing to do with Calculus. However, if your job does involve Calculus, then it will help you in your job. That part is fairly straightforward. Pro's entire argument on this point comes down to the point that college students should not take breadth courses since it doesn't \"teach them how to think\" and they won't use those skills in their job. I don't claim that a sociology major taking classes in Algebra \"teaches them how to think.\" It merely provides them with knowledge of Algebra so that after graduation, the college students ends up well-rounded and knowledgeable in a wide variety of fields. In the future, if their job requires Algebra, they would be able to perform it. If they want to change careers or decide after graduation to persue a career that does require a fundamental knowledge of Math, it benefits them that way too. This is the reason why schools and to some extent colleges have basic requirements for graduation which often involve taking breadth classes. Pro is essentially arguing for vocational education which is not beneficial precisely because of the points I mentioned above: lack of options if you change your mind.Pro's next argument here is that classes that aren't exactly the same as your job are useless to your job. To back this up, he cites a study where students were made to do word problems. When the word was changed, Pro claims there was no evidence of transfer. This is completely unrelated to college classes. Classes are intended to provide knowledge of the subject matter, not specific transferable skills. This knowledge is used on the job. For example, someone who wants to be a Sociologist or psychologist must learn how to interact with people and understand human nature. This makes them more knowledgeable about the subject and better able to use this knowledge on the job. They don't need to do exact problems that they are doing on the job but need to learn the general content.Here is another example. If a student wants to be a web designer, they need to learn how to write HTML. They can learn this in college. After they graduate, the pages they might have to design may not be the exact same pages that they did for homework in college. However, without a fundamental understanding of HTML, they can't design web pages. Pro's source is absolutely irrelevant and have flawed methodology. I read the link he provided in round 1 (Detterman). In page 2, the author gives examples of how skills are not transferred. Essentially, the people conducting the study taught a mentally retarded women to give the correct amount of change to a cashier when she bought something. They then made her try it in the real world where she failed. From there they jumped to the conclusion that skills are not transferable.R2) SignallingPro's first paragraph argues that college students are smarter than high school students. I argued that college students are smarter and harder working because they go to college so obviously, we agree that college students are smarter and harder working, the question is why.In his second paragraph, Pro argues that this is not the case since general transfer of learning doesn't exist. However, all Pro has argued for so far was an isolated word problem which did not affect how students responded to different word problems. My argument is that college makes students more knowledgeable (has nothing to do with Pro's study) and it helps them meet deadlines and promotes hard work. Pro would have students working right away but if a job requires a degree in Sociology, how will the students get the required knowledge that is gained by a degree in Sociology?R3) Useful Education Pro says that for degrees like Sociology, investing money in it is not worth the cost. However, as I pointed out, the ideal scenario is that everyone goes to college. The government should be encouraging this. The way to do that is by offering subsidies.Comments on Voting:I usually don't make comments on voting but in this case, it is imperative that I make these comments while Pro still has the chance to respond to them.Conduct: If Pro wanted to argue that skills are not transferable, he should have made a resolution as such. I may or may not have accepted. However, he makes a resolution that educational subsidies should end. This while technically correct wastes his opponent's time debating something that may not be what they intended to debate. My intention for instance was to debate the benefits of subsidies, not argue about transferability of skills. However, I did take the time to argue it and negated Pro's arguments while providing better ones. Sources: Pro cites books. So, the reader is left wondering which page the studies are mentioned. The fact that Pro cited books should be enough to penalize him for sources since books cannot be verified. Only one of the claims he made is backed up by a study that can be accessed online.", "qid": 6, "docid": "16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7044249773025513}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: BenefitsAs the majority of this debate will come down to weighing costs versus benefits, we first must know the benefits of a college education. \"Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years, and excluding those graduates with advanced degrees, calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. \" (. http://www.insidehighered.com...) (his actual report can be downloaded here: . http://chronicle.com...)Monetary Costs\"This year, according to the College Board, average published in-state tuition and fee plus room/board charges exceed $17,000 at four-year public institutions. \" (. http://www.cnn.com...) At four year private institutions, this number is roughly $11,500 annually. (in the Charles Miller report). Students are forced finance these costs with large loans, resulting in a student loan debt of tens of thousands of dollars by graduation. \"Two-thirds of bachelor\u2019s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt. \" (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The effect of this debt goes far beyond decreasing the lifetime earnings of a college graduate. Collegeboard now reports that the average age by which student loan debt is paid back stands at 33. (. http://www.soundmindinvesting.com...). This greatly limits what can be done by graduates within the first 11 years of their working life. \"College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children\u2014in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, \u201crunning back home. \u201d That hurts us all. \" (. http://chronicle.com...) Opportunity CostTo show that opportunity cost outweighs the monetary benefits of a college education, one must show that there is a better way to spend the money which can not be achieved by going to college. This can be done fairly easily with investing potential. Using the average savings rates, cost of college tuition, student loan interest rates, and investment returns, an individual who invests their college fund instead of spending it will earn $1.3 million by the age of 65. A typical four year college graduate \"will have less than a third of that. \" (. http://www.nypost.com...) There are other, similar methods of investment, all of which will result in more money than a college education. Another form of opportunity cost is the 4-6 years of lost job experience while attending college. With more and more job opportunities opening for those without college degrees, the 4-6 years of additional training and chances for promotion may very well outweigh the $279,893 monetary benefit of college. This job experience can also be gained while investing in the previous scenario. Shrinking Benefits of a College EducationRecent graduates, which excludes graduates over the age of 25 who where able to find a job before the economic downturn, now have roughly the same unemployment rate as non-degree holders. \"Over the past year, for example, the unemployment rate for college grads under age 25 has averaged 9.2 percent, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier and 5.8 percent in the first year of the recession that began in December 2007. That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. It also suggests that many employed recent grads may be doing work that doesn\u2019t require a college degree. \" (. http://www.nytimes.com...) The majority of college graduates that do find a job are often underemployed, working as waiters food-service helpers. \"More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree, the Associated Press reported this weekend. .. According to the Census, the number of Americans under the age of 25 with at least a bachelor's degree has grown 38 percent since 2000. Not nearly enough jobs have been created to accommodate them, which has resulted in falling wages for young college graduates in the past decade, as well as the employment problems we're now seeing. \" (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With food preparation and service receiving the largest job growth between 2000 and 2010, the job opportunities for non-degree holders are only increasing. In fact, \"among the top 10 with respect to actual job growth, 3 will require a postsecondary degree and only 1 will require a BA. \" (. http://www.educationalpolicy.org...) The Risks of Attending CollegeThe risk one takes while attaining their college degree is the most important cost to be considered in this debate. These two risks, defaulting on student loan debt and dropping out, go hand in hand. In the United States, only 46% of all students who started college managed to complete it. \"The \"Pathways to Prosperity\" study by the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2011 shows that just 56 percent of college students complete four-year degrees within six years. \" (. http://www.reuters.com...) College dropouts are forced to pay back their debt, but without the benefits of receiving a college degree. Dropouts gain a very minimal increase in wages, and spend years of their lives with nothing to show for it except debt. Default rates are also abysmally high. 19.2% of \"borrowers who graduated with a certificate from a for-profit, less-than-four-year institution\" defaulted on their student loans. (. http://www.educationsector.org...) \"A recent study by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that for every borrower who defaults, at least two more fall behind in payments. The study found that only 37 percent of borrowers who started repaying their student loans in 2005 were able to pay them back fully and on time. \" (. http://www.nytimes.com...) Student debt overall has now reached over $1 trillion, more than credit card debt. (. http://www.theatlantic.com...) With student loans unable to be forgiven through bankruptcy, and with defaulting resulting in tax refunds being offset and wages being garnished, a college education is a high-risk, low-benefit investment.", "qid": 6, "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7023548483848572}, {"content": "Title: encourage fewer people to go to university Content: University education gives people something to aim for", "qid": 6, "docid": "1d8d4ff1-2019-04-15T20:24:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7013894319534302}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: Higher education is required for all but the most basic of jobs (Contention 4)You're probably wondering why I'm trying to make this point. Obviously college benefits the individual even more if it's required to get a halfway-decent job, right? That's exactly the point. But what happens to the rest of the population without a degree? They're left behind to \"feed off the table scraps\".In the book Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, Anthony T. Kronman, a professor of law at Yale Law School, said: \"All but the most unskilled forms of labor are increasingly based on knowledge of a kind that can be acquired only in school, and in supplying that knowledge America's colleges and universities provide a tremendous service to the individuals who come to them to learn a trade of profession\"[1]. There is no denying the benefit to the individual when he or she receives a college education, but those who do not are limited to all but the most basic of jobs. In defense of my contentionsContention 1) College does not benefit the majorityMy opponent states that the people who do not attend college should not factor into this debate because the resolution doesn't apply to them. This was true, until I brought up my fourth contention. Now, those who do not go to college must be included in this debate as a group of individuals who are suffering the consequences of not going to college. If we are forced to include the individuals who do not attend college, we are now left with a resulting 62.6% of high school graduates who have not benefited - but have actually been impacted negatively - by a college education.Contention 2) College contributes to the already growing income gapGiven my response to my opponent's objection to my first Contention, my opponent's response to my second is also void. Yes, college graduates make more money, and their income has been proven to increase over time compared to the income of blue-collar workers. This is exactly what my point was trying to get across. If the wages of higher educated jobs are increasing faster than the wages of lower education jobs, then that is an income gap that is increasing.Contention 3) College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care systemMy opponent seemed to misunderstand this contention. Yes, it's true that med-school students have to pay more than regular college students, and yes, they are part of the minority. But I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that health care prices in the United States are so high BECAUSE med school students have to pay so much towards their educations. It takes an average of 11 years to fully pay off the debt that one acquires through med school, and it is for this reason that the costs of health care in the United States is so high. And seeing as the cost of health care affects everyone, this is an obvious detriment for the majority of the U.S populace.Responding to my opponent's contention:College students make more moneyI agree. The arguments in my fourth contention apply here as well. What about the students that do not attend college? What about the students that can not attend college? It's simple, they are forced to make less than their higher-educated counterparts. So again, I acknowledge the benefits to the individual, but that is insignificant compared to the detriments to the majority.I urge an affirmative vote.Citations:1. http://books.google.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7007690668106079}, {"content": "Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: There are many reasons why people choose to go to a University first, rather than a Community College. Rebuttal: \"By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.\" Yes, the financial cost is remarkably lower. But, a vast majority of Community Colleges only offer a 2 year degree program. That is only worth an Associates Degree. With this being said, if you wanted to work harder towards a Bachelor's degree, you'd have to move to a University, or find a four year Community College to transfer to. Even then, that is IF the class is transferable. It's not necessarily less money either. When transferring into a University, most colleges charge full price for every class you still needed to take. Therefore, you're getting a somewhat better deal, but not much. If you're going to live on campus, that's even more. It's better in cases of class size, but the education value is much better at a University. Resources: 1. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org... 2. http://www.collegeconfidential.com... 3. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...", "qid": 6, "docid": "844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7004406452178955}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.", "qid": 6, "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7004115581512451}, {"content": "Title: Tuition Fees Should Be Increased Content: A degree will become more valuable.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.699701189994812}, {"content": "Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: Before I begin addressing the contentions, I\u2019d like to point out some issues associated with the way my opponent has set up this debate. First of all, because my opponent has not set any specifications for the term \u201ccollege\u201d, I\u2019m going to assume that he\u2019s referring to post secondary education in the United States. Additionally, we must also place a distinction between the inherent and extrinsic costs of college. For example, we can still have colleges without student loans; it is simply the government\u2019s choice whether or not to distribute them. Ergo, student loans are not an inherent cost of a college education; they are simply extrinsic costs that should not be associated with the \u201ccost\u201d of maintaining a college, making my opponent\u2019s second contention a moot point. We must also draw a distinction between private and public colleges, as they are funded differently and receive different kinds of subsidies, which I will address in the contentions. ===THE CASE=== Do individuals benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent\u2019s case hinges on the belief that college education does not necessarily lead to a career or a decent salary. To prove his point, he posts a bunch of unsourced statistics: \u201cCollege graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn\u2019t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education\u201d. The first problem with this argument is that the statistics he uses to back it up are biased and inconclusive. Obviously some majors are more likely to yield careers than other majors. To put this skewed statistic in perspective, only 4.2% of university graduates are unemployed six months after graduating if we account all majors [1]. Additionally, whether the job they land requires a college education is irrelevant, because a college degree is still an important credential which helps secure employment (even if I were looking for a cashier, I\u2019d rather higher a cashier with a diploma than one without). The second problem with this argument is that it needs some relative statistics to put the information presented in perspective. This relativity is essential because without it, we don\u2019t know whether the high unemployment rates are the result of an inefficient college education or just a frail economy, and when we look at the employment rates for America as a whole, what we find is that high school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed when compared to college graduates. We can safely conclude that despite side proposition\u2019s misleading statistics, college graduates do have a significantly higher employment rate because of their investment in a post secondary education. This idea of relativity brings me to my constructive argument. The fact is that when we tally up unemployment rates, the degree you major in, the number of years it takes to major and everything, what we find is that the individual with a bachelor\u2019s degree earns, on average, almost 1 million dollars more than the individual with only a high school diploma [2]. I\u2019d gladly invest $20,000 \u2013 $30,000 for a million dollar return. Monetarily speaking, from the individual standpoint, college is an efficient investment and much more beneficial than costly. Additionally, one must not forget the experience of college, which, to many students, is priceless. Skipping college would mean missing out on college means missing valuable education, networking, and social opportunities (such as college parties). So unlike what my opponent suggests, the average college graduate will most likely not \u201calways be in debt\u201d. What\u2019s more likely is that you\u2019ll go to college, have a great time, and land a career that\u2019ll net you almost a million dollars more than your high school graduate neighbors. Because of the reasons that I have stated, college is clearly beneficial from an individual standpoint. Does the government/society benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent\u2019s argument here is essentially just pointing out how the government has to subsidize colleges, and that the subsidies can go into other much needed investments. This argument falls because my opponent does not state how much money goes into the college subsidies (like saying there is a cost, without saying how much the cost is), and because college subsidies need to be broken down to the cost of college per se and extraneous costs. This needs to be broken down further into subsidies for private and public colleges. When subsidizing public colleges, the government needs to fund the entire cost of building and maintaining the college. I accept that this is a cost of a college education, but I\u2019d just like to point out that the tuition costs of public colleges goes back to government coffers. When subsidizing private colleges, the government basically does three things. The first thing that the government does to subsidize private colleges is offer students financial aid. I have already explained why student loans should be dismissed, as they are not a direct cost of college. Even if my opponent can somehow prove that they are, the point about the inefficiency of providing student loans falls because government loans/subsidies per student have been falling due to increasing attendance rates, and tuition has still never been higher. The government also gives grants for research teams. However, these grants cannot fully be considered subsidies because we are essentially buying information, which is something we benefit from. Lastly, the government gives tax breaks to private colleges. If we disregard financial aid, private colleges are basically a self sustaining, mutually beneficial industry, that does not have a cost. Finally, I\u2019d like to point out that post secondary education is often cited as the most powerful contributor to social mobility, something that society and individuals benefit from. ===CONCLUSION=== I was a little confused when constructing my arguments because of some of my opponent\u2019s arguments. His last to arguments really seem to be about abolishing college subsidies and redirecting it to investments in things such as infrastructure, which I actually agree with. However, as I have explained, these are not inherent costs of a college education; they are simply inefficient ways that the government handles its money. My opponent seems to agree with me that the benefits of college per se outweighs it\u2019s cost, and that it\u2019s just the inefficient way the government approaches it that is the problem. Therefore, the resolution is negated because the benefits of a college education outweigh its cost; the only problem is the misappropriation of government funds. I thank the readers and hand the debate back to my opponent. ===SOURCES=== [1] . http://www.economist.com...[2] . http://www.lorainccc.edu...", "qid": 6, "docid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6992844939231873}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is financially not worth it Content: We are debating whether or not it makes economic sense to go to college, in other words whether or not college will create a net-income gain or a net-income loss. Arguments should be based in statistics and mathematics and not in strict opinion.", "qid": 6, "docid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6991183757781982}, {"content": "Title: Using Taxes for \"Free\" Higher Education in the US Content: The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, \"The power to tax is the power to destroy.\" 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?", "qid": 6, "docid": "a96d2cbd-2019-04-18T13:46:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6990611553192139}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: Increasingly in the past couple years, people have seem to forgotten the immense value of a college education, more specifically a four year degree. However a four-year degree(full-time) is more valuable now than ever. In a time of unbelievable competition in the job market, something has to be done to separate the best from the average. A four year degree shows not only knowledge in a specific discipline but also shows that one had the commitment to get the degree over a period of time. In the choice between a person with a four year degree and a lesser education, the person in the four-year degree tends to win due to the credibility of crendtials and knowledge. A four year college degree also gives an immense amount of options, compared to a two year degree which allows trade specialization. A four year degree allows trade speicalization of a two year, but also a lot more options that the other may not have available. A lot of the best paying workers start with a four year degree. In a dynamic world having options is invaluable and if you want real options of four year degree is the way to go. A full time education/ a four year degree often causes debt but so does any college education, however schooling for any comfortable life style costs money. The existence of grants and scholarships help offset much of this cost. Studies show that a full time student make more money faster than a part time student. According to Erica Loop who published an article called, \"What Benefits Are There for Being a Full-Time College Student Over a Part-Time Student?\" states that \"A full-time student is more likely to receive the full amount of the grant than a part-time student is\". It is more common for people with 4 year degrees make substaneously more than those with a Associates so people with a higher education degree have more of a capability to pay it off. Also some student may be discourage by the amount of time in order to be successful and loose focus.", "qid": 6, "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6984973549842834}, {"content": "Title: The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits Content: First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define \u2018costs\u2019 We would like to define \u2018costs\u2019 as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government\u2019s money we\u2019ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today\u2019s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today\u2019s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don\u2019t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone\u2019s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn\u2019t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn\u2019t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that \"Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?\" asked Van Horn. \"While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority.\" This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates\u2019 loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.\u201cIt's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up\u201d - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.", "qid": 6, "docid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6961024403572083}, {"content": "Title: Going to college is worth Content: Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha", "qid": 6, "docid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6949054002761841}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6943293213844299}, {"content": "Title: A College Degree Is No Longer Enough Content: I would like to debate on whether or not having a college degree is enough to get a job in today's society. Please do not accept the debate if you do not mean to actually debate. Thank you.", "qid": 6, "docid": "d2ac41b2-2019-04-18T16:22:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6941149234771729}, {"content": "Title: Should All Students go to college Content: Yes all students should go to college because everyone deserves to have a great education which will lead to many positive choices in life. A student will have a variety of good opportunities to choose from, instead of having to take a job just to have a paycheck.", "qid": 6, "docid": "3ee73521-2019-04-18T17:53:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6917898654937744}, {"content": "Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: Thanks for a friendly, educated debate. It was my first, but won't be my last. I do agree there are some benefits of online college, in certain situations. If you can not afford traditional college, and can't get the scholarships and programs I mentioned above, then online college is a very viable option. I don't entirely agree with your last point. What kind of opportunities? If you mean being able to pick a particular major without having to go to a select choice of colleges, then yes, I agree. Online college does not offer the social opportunities and athletic opportunities traditional college can offer. Certain jobs will look to see how confident you are working alone and with others. Traditional college is a life experience, that will really shape the way you look at the world. Thanks for debate, voters please vote.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c5b8d1f0-2019-04-18T15:28:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6898667812347412}, {"content": "Title: Affordable education Content: As this is the final round the pro will be going over what still stands in this debate as well as weighing the impacts. First extend the pro case, the con concedes it and did nothing to refute it, the pro has shown that an affordable and accessible form of education is the best way to solve for the issues the con argues. This is important because we will be impacting the con arguments as advantages to the pro. Next, we look to the con arguments and see that the con has consistently taken the middle ground in this debate and has no real impacts coming from the con side. Finally, we will look to each argument from the past response and impact these for the pro side: 1. Because school is affordable the diploma is depreciated. The pro has already responded to how this is not the case. In the pro case we show that because we view education as a commodity and because we focus on optimizing productivity (or the value of a student in the pro case), we have a consistent frame of thought because of it. Go to college or you\"ll do nothing with your life. The pro however takes this argument from the con and shows that if we shift away from the learner mentality and more to a study mentality we see the education itself, not just the diploma, gain back the value it once had. -Students are only there for a diploma. This falls back under the pro argument for the previous point. Students go for the diploma because that is what they are conditioned to do. Students even overlook diplomas in areas of work that they like for the more \"productive\" diplomas. The pro takes away this stigma and has students study what they want with no outside pressures. We create a true educational environment unlike the con. The more affordable and accessible the education system the better. 2. The con does not make education inaccessible, we want better quality. The con position in the debate about affordable education is that affordable education fails and should not be implemented the pro is the opposite, we want more affordable and accessible, thus by definition you make school less accessible. Even if you didn\"t make school inaccessible by making it less affordable, the quality argument coming from the con is extremely biopolitical. The only way that the con sees bettering quality is by determining who is valuable enough to the larger body to get a higher education. This puts those who don\"t meet the cons standards at a clear disadvantage in life. Because the con does nothing to remove the negative stigmas over other learning institutions as well as labor heavy jobs, we see those deemed not worthy fall into those categories and in turn live lives they didn\"t particularly want. The pro however removes these stigmas and allows everyone to study what they want by shifting away from the status quo and to a new form of education that allows all to be truly equal in their educational endeavors. -If you study you will do well. This is exactly what the pro is arguing. Study is the purest form of education rather then the unaffordable version of the status quo the con presents. Instead on focusing for paying for an education and comparing who went where who learned what, we see that in the pro world students only care about pursuing knowledge because it\"s affordable and accessible, all they must do is study. The con world we see that studying is deemed as only a step to true learning while the pro shows that studying is where you truly educate yourself, the example in the pro case being Agamben\"s view on Bartleby. 3. We focus on to many other things than quality of education. The pro will concede that we do focus on reforms that ultimately fail but that only proves the pro case further. Otto Nuerath\"s boat is the best example I can give when it comes to fixing the education system. Reforms only plug up the holes in the boat until land where we can rebuild, but this system never hits land so we can reconstruct, we just keep plugging up the holes. The pro studier society is how we reconstruct, we move away from the boat we had and we have built a new one of better quality, to fix the problems with the old. The only true bettering of quality is happening on the pro side. 4. Change is needed and the con is how we do it. The cons way of changing is to exclude those who are not deemed worthy by the con\"s system. The pro takes the opposite approach we try to fix the system, we don\"t exclude we include to have more voices and opinions on problems in the world. We ignore what others deem productive or valuable and we study what we deem important. Through the pro world we fix all the issues of quality and depreciation through not exclusion, but inclusion. Affordable and accessible education is the only way we will see each other prosper instead of deeming who is valuable and who is not by what they learn or what they want to learn. In this debate we saw that the con offered up arguments against the current system and that only through making school less affordable and deeming who is worthy of university learning will we see any quality change. The pro has shown that all these arguments on quality and depreciation will be changed for the better is we reject the system now and make it more affordable and accessible while avoiding the biopolitical tones of the pro case, inclusion is the best approach for education, studying without judgement and achieving our true impotential is how we fix what is wrong with this system.", "qid": 6, "docid": "ba1e6729-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6886475682258606}, {"content": "Title: State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state Content: 1) Teaching IndependenceIm not denying that colleges dont teach independence, I was challenging your statement that \"College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent\" by arguing the main purpose of college is to teach people careers, not to be a 4 hour sleep-away camp....\"It is an all-around experience that everyone should get to have.\"College isn't a ride at Disney, its a privilege! College is a decision that an individual makes to undergo 4 more years of school to specialize in a career of your choice. College is an investment and a commitment, its not a right that everyone deserves and should be given a free shot at. 2) In State Recruiting\" I stated that only the tuition would be free\"Um, Bullsh*t, This whole debate has been about free education, free college, no expenses, free free free.... \"With all of these expenses put together, the schools would have enough funding to be run properly.\"A) Tuition still makes up the bulk of most college expenses so if you make that free then you still are putting a massive financial burden on schools, oh wait, on taxpayers...B) Cutting Tuition and nothing else would still prevent people from being able to apply to college since it wouldnt be \"free\" anymoreC) So the one thing you want to cut from colleges to help people afford an education........... Is the cost to finance the education........... Do you see how that might be a little counter productive?That being said, the massive number of primarily in-state recruiting among schools would place a massive burden on college's quality of bettering individuals. So under free college, or free tuition (whichever the Pro is going for now) both the taxpayers and the students would be taking a hit. 3) Students dont always make it. The Pro admits that many people would not be able to make it through college through separation anxiety, poor work ethic, bad grades, etc. but the Pro tries to show this isnt a problem is by saying that \"For some people, yes college is too hard and they end up dropping out. And if this be the case, that person would pay the government the money that the tuition was for the time they spent at college\"So college tuition would be completely free, but if they fail they have to PAY FOR IT? That would send families of unfortunate souls straight into debt they would never be able to get out of! Imagine if honest kids just couldnt make ends meet and now he had to live the rest of his life knowing he single handedly put his entire family into debt because of his mistakes..... \"This would give the person a reason to keep their grades up and work hard\" Its also a good reason to kill themselves or their whole families if they fail. Threatening to throw people under a guillotine doesnt guarantee performance, it sparks fear in them that they would have their whole lives in college. imagine if you knew that one bad grade could determine if your family gets to stay in the middle class or becomes part of a statistic for poverty level that you yourself caused....4) Education and the Economy The Pro keeps saying how if college is free it will give us an edge over China, and rather than tear into that argument Ill re-state my point that there are other ways we can improve education that does not involve forcing tax payers to spend an enormous amount of money on taxes on something that is a privilege, not a right. - 1 - Increasing funding into high schools, which are already paid for by taxpayers, would be a good start because the reason education is lagging isnt just from students not having a chance, Americans are flat out dumber than most other students, and so the problem of increasing brains may lie in high school, not college. - 2 - One of the biggest problems American education has is that it has to integrate more than other European or Asian school programs do. America has a hell of an immigration issue where people from all over the WORLD with different backgrounds and different native tongues have to be integrated into the school system. - 3 - We should be looking how to make education more effective and get a better result for the same cost instead of just through money at the problem like a buffoon...It could even cause problems in the system - 4 - Colleges might not strive to get better if now they only have to raise acceptance rates to get oodles of government/taxpayer funds - 5 - Tuition rates are always rising, and if the government is funding ALL of it, then tuition rates might keep increasing and it would affect taxpayers and the government debt alike, its not guaranteed that tuition rates would stay at a fixed rate, and if the government tried to make it that way there would be war between colleges and the government over funding, something that we simply could not afford, literally. - 6 - Lets face it, taxpayers would be PISSEDThere are healthier alternatives to raising education without recklessly pumping billions of dollars into the already flawed system, education should be made more effective not just bigger. 5) Unequal opportunityThe point of the example was that schools may give out-of-state applications a bigger value than in-state applications if funding was suddenly cut off. The out of state applicant would pay money directly to the school, whereas the in school applicant would have money go through the government first, and that could raise a boatload of issues if the government decided to use those funds for other programs....With out of state applicants, money is guaranteed, for in state applications, that is not the case, and that could give colleges a hell of a reason to focus on out of state recruiting and forgo in state recruiting..6) TaxesHell yea taxes would be increased, it could be argued that taxes would have to be raised to over 60% and american families already fight tooth and nail to keep taxes low there is no telling what people would do if their tax rate doubled or tripled to fund education for someone who might not even make it. Even if the college was prestigious or not the cost of adding up all the current tuitions from every university and every college and every community college and every prep school and everything else in between divided by the number of people who actually pay taxes would drive the middle class into the ground.State colleges (or state tuition, i dont even know what it is anymore) should not be made free. It will raise taxes to extortionate levels, its a really poorly conceived way to gain an edge over other countries, there are far better ways we could be improving education, PEOPLE OFTEN DONT MAKE IT, Colleges may be forced to give lower qualities of education to cope with the loss of funding, the government may end up using the funds designated for colleges on other programs, students may major in stuff that isnt even useful, And most importantly......College isnt a right, it is a privilege, and American families shouldnt be forced to pay 60% to give high school graduates a chance at college if its not even guaranteed that those same people will make it or if the government or even if colleges, people, and the government alike are fighting constantly over who gets how much funding and who has to pay for it...", "qid": 6, "docid": "28b3999f-2019-04-18T18:29:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6886326670646667}, {"content": "Title: Bachelor's Degree Content: Hi everyone! So here come my first debate! In my society, especially my college, my classmates argue that bachelor's degree is not so important for people who study IT and majors that related to computer. They suggest people to complete their associated degree and go out for work as soon as possible! Do you guys think this is right? For me, education is important and with knowledge, people can make something new! But when people from my class argue about \"work experiences\", they said it is far more important!!! I disagree with this! Although we see some 10% people who have dropped out and success in life like Bill Gate, Steve Jobs,... I think they learned and educated themselves in different ways! They never treat education as unimportant! So how do you think about this? For IT, is bachelor or master degree important! My stand is \"Yes\" and I don't think go to work early is a good way that my teachers always said! I think people should prepare enough knowledge and skills to work!", "qid": 6, "docid": "b7eb456a-2019-04-18T12:35:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6877080202102661}, {"content": "Title: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits Content: =Monetary Benefit=The average cost of college tuition for a State school is roughly $15,000 a year for a 4 year program. [1] This averages out to $60,000 total in college costs after 4 years. The average salary for someone with just a high school diploma is $23,000 a year. [2] The average salary for someone with a Bachelor's degree is $45,500 a year. [2]With a college education you're making $22,000 a year more than if you didn't go to college.If we average this out, say you get out of college at age 22 and you work until age 65. That's 43 years of work. Say you're unemployed or injured for (a generous) 5 of these years. That's 38 years of work. Over these 38 years a college graduate will make $890,000 MORE than his counterpart that did not go to college.Subtract out the $60k for college costs and you've still got a net profit of $830k that you would not have made if you didn't go to college at all. =Social Benefit=There is a huge social benefit to going to college. Not only do you make lifelong friends and connections, you learn to live on your own. You have to feed yourself, go to class, work, pay your bills, do your laundry etc without your parents help. Those who leave (or don't leave) at 18 will have the penalty of not having the beneficial college transition into life. After college, students are usually prepared and willing to go out and live and work on their own, completely independent. While social benefit doesn't have a numeric value attached to it, it is extremely valuable. You can't replace the \"college experience\" with work experience. The friendships, job connections, skills and social transition are all invaluable and give those who finish college a huge boost over those who did not. =Opporitunities= My opponent keeps claiming that college is \"too risky\" and that many people shouldn't even try. But if you don't go to college at all, if you don't try for fear of failing etc then you'll forever shut out the opporitunities that a college education can bring you.Many jobs REQUIRE a college education. If you don't have one, you'll forever be barred from applying for them. Even if you don't get a job right out of college you'll always be able to apply for college degree jobs. Those who don't attend high school will never be able to apply for these, ever. My opponent claims the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? It is silly to forever shut out ample future opporitunities for better employment, better pay and greater experiences due to the fear of failing. Even if it doesn't pay off immidiately after you graduate, you'll always have the degree and the experience to use for the rest of your life. \" Individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor\u2019s degrees.\" [3] You're more likely to be unemployed...always, without a college degree. \"Statistics project that 75 percent of future positions are expected to require at least some type of certification or licensure, and professions that require a bachelor\u2019s degree are projected to grow nearly twice as fast as the national average, making a college degree a good investment.\" [3]All of these positions are forever barred to you without a college education. That severely limits your opporitunity of employment and careers. =Conclusion=* There are tangible and large monetary advantages for those with college degrees vs. those without.* College has social value and provides you skills and experiences that are valuable throughout life.* A college degree is a permenant asset and a long term plus. You'll always have it. * College degrees open up and hold far more opporitunities than just a diploma. * The costs of a college education are easily outweighed by the abundant benefits. [1] http://nces.ed.gov...[2] http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu...[3] http://www.back2college.com...;", "qid": 6, "docid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6867368221282959}, {"content": "Title: MBA Content: Making money is better than paying tuition.", "qid": 6, "docid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00039-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6864984035491943}, {"content": "Title: Colleges/Universities Content: Should colleges/universities cost less money?", "qid": 6, "docid": "e2c8913f-2019-04-18T15:40:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6849677562713623}, {"content": "Title: College, Why bother.. Content: \"College, Why bother...\" First off, I would like to get some truths down pat. In university or college, where the end result is a degree whether a diploma, bachelor, masters or PHD. The reasons for going is because of an education, what you're being taught on the other hand depends on how well or badly the subject in question is in the area of taboo or not. It depends on how much relevance the teachings has on the impact on the country. I know in china, north korea and heavily extreme Islamic followers will all brainwash their students to do what they want them to. But when being taught a subject like theology and biology (my two fields). there is structure and order. There is no political views when doing these two subjects in particular. Even when doing tech work, my father is a computer technician and he is quite good. If he was taught single minded clutter, he wouldn't be very good. I think a big issue is we are assuming people aren't questioning and just absorbing, that is the opposite of what we are taught in science. We are taught to stand up and question, to attack the opposition with logic and reason, to show faults in their defence. I have gained a lot more insight since I have started my courses and for the better, I am a lot stronger in who I am, I am a lot more grounded and understanding seeing the evidence or at least reason from two different sides. I have become humble and decided to express who I am in different ways, I have become more aware of the afflictions that hinder my life or life style. College or university is a different experience for different people, I have no doubt that some people can get warped world views from taking something too intensely. But we wouldn't have scientific literacy if it wasn't for college, say goodbye to your TV. Einsteins general relativity helped with that, you wouldn't have many things that you do today. College is a good thing.", "qid": 6, "docid": "2e6aa8d5-2019-04-18T14:46:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6848998069763184}, {"content": "Title: College, Parents, and Pressure Content: Note to all: My first time at debating. Go easy on me. I accepted this challenge on the basis of it not getting into a long and extensive argument. Thank you for not having such high expectations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reason for going against the resolve: - College can give you a better chance in the future. If you consider the view of the parents, then it is not at all hard to see why this reason stands. I'm not saying that going to college would secure your future, because that would be lying. Many people today graduate from college and cannot find a job. However, college certainly can help you in acquiring more life skills and opening up more opportunities. You'll be meeting more people, some of whom you may remain in contact with for life, whether it is out of friendship or mutual interests. Furthermore, college will help you to learn about more things that you did not know before, therefore helping to widen your horizons. Like they say, knowledge will never weigh you down. And anyways, why else do you think that most governments make education compulsory for under 16s? It proves that there must be something good in learning. I won't bother posting more reasons for now, as I realized I have already said too much. Hope to hear from the Pro side soon.", "qid": 6, "docid": "4942dd09-2019-04-18T18:07:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6847810745239258}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;\"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower.\" The source I provided stated;\"An Associate\u2019s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor\u2019s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor\u2019s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor\u2019s degree.\" Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.", "qid": 6, "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6845322847366333}, {"content": "Title: western universities should only place satellites in states that respect free speech Content: Maintaining the value of the degree", "qid": 6, "docid": "d3abafea-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6843475699424744}, {"content": "Title: 3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates Content: Thank you for the kind welcome, zach12! I look forward to smashing my head against the wall a few times!1. Goal Up, Quality DownI concede to the point that colleges and universities get funding based off of how many of the students that attend receive degrees. All colleges hope to increase their retention rates, so setting this as a goal is nothing to object to. Giving out more degrees is also an excellent idea because it both gives the society new leaders or even just workers that are willing and able to do a job out in whatever field. Con claims that the main reasons people quit going to school are that they do not have enough money, the course work is too hard and that the student may experience a sudden shift in circumstances.Con concedes that the school can give out more financial aid, so I do not need to pose a solution to this. However, I would like to mention that a sudden shift in circumstances is not the largest, or even close to the largest reason that people quit college. Maybe it is high on the list because there are actually very few reasons and this topic is so vague, but it does not account for the majority of the students. Because we are talking about increasing retention rates and degrees handed out to students, we can throw out this point that colleges cannot account for these sudden change of circumstances. To increase means to make more of, meaning that if I can prove that the colleges can retain more students and give out more degrees without sacrificing the quality of the education, I win this debate. Therefore, I will not need to prove that all circumstances are accounted for, but that some of them are. Because even one more student getting a degree or staying in school can be defined as an increase.Schools do not always have to make the course-work easier as Con claims. Students who either identified themselves as at risk for dropping out or had recently left the university often cited academic difficulties as a reason for leaving. Among the most frequent reasons listed were difficulties in specific courses, academic advising, academic support services and the quality of instruction. More personal academic reasons included a lack of access to coursework, a change in major, a poor grade point average, difficulties with the number of credits earned, frustrations with course availability and completing all degree requirements, and rigorous demands of specific programs. Delayed notification to students in academic distress and little attention to attendance and study habits by faculty and instructors were noted as well. Students and faculty both point out the need for degree audits and degree progression updates, two factors that may be tied to advising as well as student self-efficacy. [http://provost.uark.edu...]In this point we can see that there are multiple ways to keep a student in college when the reason is that they are having academic difficulties. Instead of making course-work easier, colleges can easily take into account the plans of U of A and solve the problem without lessening the quality of the course-work.2. Quality Sacrificed = Lesser Valued DegreesBecause I have already shown that quality will not be sacrificed this point is not valid in my debate and does not need a response. However, degrees themselves will not be valued less, degrees of certain colleges may, but not degrees of all kinds. When you see a degree from UT Austin and compare it to a degree from Yale naturally you'll want to hire the person from Yale first, just because of the prestigious name of the university. Degrees already vary when it comes to how they are valued. So even if quality was sacrificed (which it doesn't have to be), this will make such a subtle change that it will go ultimately unnoticed. 3. Lesser Valued Degrees = Lesser Valued SchoolingYou can cross-apply my previous argument that schools degrees are already valued so differently that this is not a huge impact on the educational system. If people truly want to go to a good school, they will find a school with a high graduation rate yet one that will still guarantee them a spot on the work force. Ultimately, it is the student's job to pick the college they want to go to, and whether or not the 3rd party pushes for increased graduation rates, the student does not have to be affected if they do not wish to be. Statistics on schools are out there, it's up to the student to find the right one.4. Easy As make for lesser initiative of the studentI agree that if you knew you could get easy As at a certain college, there is less initiative for you to work as hard as you would if you knew that those marks were hard to achieve. Now, even if schooling is made easier, this does not mean that easy As are the result. It means that the learning is easier, not necessarily the work. If the learning is made easier, the students will be more likely to stay in that college. The work may not have to become easier, as I've already pointed out. If the students learned exactly what they were getting into and had easier ways of organizing their future years, they can make the good grades without losing true initiative. When a student is in a situation where it is easy to learn, they do not lose initiative. In fact, their initiative to learn is boosted because they know they are able to.Con also makes the point that the United States does poorly when comparing it to other first-world-countries. However, I would like to point out that this will not be a factor in this debate because other countries work their school systems differently. Con does not have evidence that says that the United States is the only place that cares strictly about graduation rates. The common counter-example would be the High Schools of China that keep their students so much longer than the United States keeps theirs in school. It is not our job to compare in this debate. It is my job to prove, as I have, that you can increase graduation rates without lessening the quality of the education.5. Human capital down as a resultI have already proved that there are ways to increase the graduation rates without losing the quality of education. This being the point, Human Capital will not go down, and this point will default to Pro.My burden of proof was to prove that quality is not sacrificed when pushing for increased graduation rates as the 3rd party has suggested. I have proved that to increase retention rates is not to keep all students in school, but more students than in previous years. By posing solutions that could easily do this, I win on this interpretation.", "qid": 6, "docid": "987707c3-2019-04-18T18:20:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.684154748916626}, {"content": "Title: Mathematics should be optional in post-secondary education. Content: College is about finding yourself and what you want to do with your life. Some know right away and some take a few semesters to know where they should be going. But one thing is certain... College is higher education. It's the institution of learning new theories, proving or disproving their own hypothesis. How can one do that by simply reviewing what you should have learned in grade school? Why should a nursing student take photography or a history major take trigonometry? They shouldn't. If you already know what you want to do with your life, you should invest your time and studies in that field. I propose we allow mathematics and other subjects we learned in grade school to stay in college but only as core-classes.", "qid": 6, "docid": "e2a63d12-2019-04-18T16:50:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6836430430412292}, {"content": "Title: What to study in college & why? [Career Challenge] Content: Salutations to all, I will be scratching the surface of this topic. My later arguments will progress further in detail. I would like to thank my opponent for his participation. Hopefully, as viewers, I will persuade you in my favor.I would first like to mention that I will branch off of the idea of those who desire to attend college. If my opponent would like to go an untraditional route, that is perfectly fine. Every individual that hits adulthood would have to decide what they will become throughout life. It is in my opinion, that preparation for college is the best route. As I stated in round one, I will list at least six study fields and at least one career path branched off each one. There is no current ranking order for this list. IT IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED FOR VIEWERS TO CHECK CITED SOURCES FOR FURTHER CAREER RESEARCH!Study Field 1#: Architecture & Engineering ~ Ex. Aerospace EngineersA love for mathematics is necessary. A bachelor\"s in Aerospace Engineering is required, along with the love for aviation. Average Salary: $104,000Study Field2#: Management ~ Ex. Financial ManagersIt is a must to have a bachelor\"s degree in one of these categories: Finance, accounting, economics, or business administration. If you love managing money, this is your ideal career. Average Salary: $110,000Study Field 3#: Education, Training, & Library ~ Ex. Special Education TeacherA bachelor\"s degree in Education and a teacher\"s license is a must. Those who love to help other learn will find this field satisfying. Average Salary: $55,000Study Field 4#: Healthcare ~ Ex. Massage TherapistReceiving a certificate in Massage Therapy is required. Those who like to help reduce stress in people\"s lives will love this field. Average Salary: $36,000Study Field 5#: Life, Physical, & Social Science ~ Ex. Medical ScientistsA person needs a high level of education that requires a PH.D. or a M.D. This field is for the strong-willed helpers to society. Average Salary: $77,000Study Field 6#: Protective Service ~ Ex. Police & DetectivesSome college education is highly recommended, and one must attend an agency\"s training academy. To get at least an associate in criminal justice will strengthen your job prospects in this field. Average Salary: $56,000Study Field 7#: Media & Communication ~ Ex. Writers & AuthorsAlthough a degree isn't required for a writer, a bachelor\"s degree will sharpen your literary skills. Majoring in English, journalism, or communications are considered the typical majors in this section. Average Salary: $56,000These 7 fields, along with examples, are my consideration as excellent studies in college. I will elaborate more in the next round. Again, I will like to say that you should check out these sites for more information. I ALSO RECOMMEND YOU TAKE CARL JUNG\"S PERSONALITY TEST FOR A FAIRLY ACCURATE READING: CHECK CITED SOURCES!Cited Sources:http://bls.gov... ~ Government site about all occupationshttp://www.humanmetrics.com... ~ 9/10 accuracy for this personality test, trust me.", "qid": 6, "docid": "99e6abf2-2019-04-18T16:32:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6829792857170105}, {"content": "Title: federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more Content: college doesn't make everyone earn more, it makes some earn more. it doesn't really combat poverty, it might if you are the lucky ones to be gainfully employed. the free market determines how much people make, and educating more doesn't mean more money being earned. it just means there's a more educated populace. why is college the magic point of being a right? everyone gets good education in high school, and for the most part, college is just an inefficient continuation of high school, teaching humanities and redundancies and making classes out of things that can be condensed into one class. i might agree a trade school can be a right, but not college. if people are making more from education they can afford to pay back loans. why should we take money from other people effectively at gun point through taxes to pay for them?", "qid": 6, "docid": "5d68f3d4-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6822653412818909}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called \"Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt\" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like \"tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances\". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.", "qid": 6, "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6817619204521179}, {"content": "Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: I think Online College will benefit the world in many ways. One way is that you don't even have to leave your house then going to college. Just get up and go on your computer. Online colleges are cheaper than Traditional college. So that's a thumbs up for the people without a lot of money. Online colleges offer as much education as a Traditional college but its even better.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c5b8d1f0-2019-04-18T15:28:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.681687593460083}, {"content": "Title: Importance of value education in our life Content: I believe what my opponent is arguing is that we shouldn't place importance on the value of education in our life. Or, perhaps it's that the value of education is not important. Either way, the position of my opponent is one I do not agree with. My position is that the value of education is indeed important. I will use this round as acceptance, and will allow my opponent to make any clarifications. I now return the floor to Con for their opening arguments.", "qid": 6, "docid": "5833c1b5-2019-04-18T15:39:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6815915107727051}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00015-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6812659502029419}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": 6, "docid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00015-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6812659502029419}, {"content": "Title: Education is Important Content: What does it mean for \"Education to be Important\"? What is the significance of Education? And How can Education be benefitial for us? With each of these questions comes a solution of understanding education for what it is , what it can do and what successes it brings to people. Anyone who does not get the education they need or chooses to remain incomplete within education is not showing much of any interest of a future; while I may add there may be chances of being accepted in a job, does not automatically insinuate that it will be the best either. My focus on this topic will be based on the importance, significance and benefits of education altogether. In return from my opponent I only accept your arguments and refutes to my position. I ask that we keep this debate as civil as possible and if needed use any resources to prove each side to our positions. Thank you to my opponent for choosing to debate this topic with me, whoever that might be. For further exemptions, if there be by any chance to forfeit in this debate please let one another know in advance so that the other may be considerate and suggest more options of this topic while waiting patiently for the others position. Best wishes to my opponent!", "qid": 6, "docid": "d734f4ba-2019-04-18T14:11:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6808622479438782}, {"content": "Title: College is a Necessity to be Successful Content: College should not be your time to figure out what you're good at, it should not be your time to establish what you're passionate about. If you don't know what you want to do for the rest of your life, how is wasting 4 years and THOUSANDS of dollars helping you? There is no harm in taking a gap year. Also, if you know what career you would like to pursue and it doesn't 100% require a degree (i.e. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.), why would you waste your money on one? College is, in my opinion, the most costly & stupid \"trial-run\" you could ever go through. And the crazy thing is, is that there IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING AFTER YOU GRADUATE. ESPECIALLY if you have a butt-load of student loans.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6807914972305298}, {"content": "Title: Tournament Topic #8: Computers are more beneficial to education than books. Content: Extend my entire case to this round. To add, another way in which computers can be beneficial to education is the fact that one can register for college classes or particular colleges which they wish to attend. Once more, an advantage which a book doesn't even come close to reproducing.", "qid": 6, "docid": "11014197-2019-04-18T19:45:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.680138111114502}, {"content": "Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: A rise in tuition fees making higher education itself more valuable, combined with the reduced number of students that will attend university owing to the increase, will make a degree a more valuable and sought-after qualification. At the moment more and more people seem to be heading off to university and if this keeps up, before long a degree will be worth practically nothing since the majority of the country will have one. Perhaps an increase in tuition fees is needed to prevent this concern and to ensure that a degree keeps its value.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00016-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6794334650039673}, {"content": "Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: I accept your challenge. Education is probably one of the most debatable subjects there is. Let's review what we know. Education has helped, some not all, forge a path down the road of job opportunities. But is education a necessity for the future? I will be inferring that \"education for people's future lives\" means college education, which has the biggest effect on the outcome of people and their jobs. College education becomes increasingly more money, and some people who have big ambitions, can't afford what they think is a necessity. People in the past, such as Bill Gates, have not needed a college education to succeed in life. He also did not have some sort of magical gift that granted him that success. Bill Gates MADE his success by hard work and determination almost comparable to the most stubborn of donkeys. The sky is the limit when you have an idea and you want nothing more than to make it reality. Education is learning, but ambition is an entirely different thing that can make the best out of the most unlikely circumstances. Concluding Statement - Ambition can overcome the necessity of education, when the determination is at maximum.", "qid": 6, "docid": "f48730ac-2019-04-18T15:19:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6788046956062317}, {"content": "Title: Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No) Content: That is very true my friend, but online colleges have a lot of advantages over traditional colleges. One is that there are so many of them at your finger tips waiting to be used. Second they cost less depending on what college you choose. Three they open up more opportunities then a traditional college. While some people might choose a traditional college, I would recommend an online college. Good Luck to my opponent.", "qid": 6, "docid": "c5b8d1f0-2019-04-18T15:28:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6786420941352844}, {"content": "Title: Is education necessary for people's future lives Content: Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or \"seal of approval\" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.", "qid": 6, "docid": "f48730ac-2019-04-18T15:19:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6785454750061035}, {"content": "Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: Rebuttal 1:The millennial generation can be characterised as being \u2018interested in daily work reflecting and part of larger societal concerns\u2019, helping communities, caring more on corporate social responsibility and the environment. Importantly, millennials place higher worth on experience rather than material things. (1) 87.5% millennials disagreed with the statement that \u2018money is the best measure of success\u2019, in contrast to 78% of the total population (2) - lighth0us3This is true, though there are also many opportunities to be able to obtain a degree for a career that helps society out. For example, one can't become a nurse without a nursing degree, and not only is higher education necessary for doctors and specialists, who also help society, but post-higher education is as well. With a high school diploma, one is very limited in what they can do, so a college degree opens up many ways in which millennials will be able to help the community in some way. Also, if college education is truly outdated for millennials, why are there more millennials than any other generation going to colllege or who have a college education?[7] They must be getting a college degree for some reason, and it would be logical, that since the millennial generation is more interested in doing a job that is helpful to the community, that they go to college for a meaningful degree that will lead them to a career with which they can do much for the community. Rebuttal 2:P1: Yes, a college education is an indicator that you have reasonable knowledge to qualify for a job. But if this is considered a reason as to why you should go to college \u2013 so you can indicate to employers of higher skilled jobs that you are qualified (and not to learn and get more skills), this merely strengthens my case that education needs serious reform! As reinforced by A4: students go to university for the degree, and not the education. - lighth0us3Well, this isn't the only reason to get a college degree. There are plenty of other reasons, which I gave a few others already. If this was the only reason to get a college degree, then yes, college would be outdated. Agreement 1:P2: Yes, a college education indicates to employers that you are qualified. Similarly, a college education also increases inequality by providing less opportunity for the poor, where they are kept from knowledge! and jobs! Due to their economic position. I know scholarships exist and all that but in an ideal society a poor kid with above average intelligence should not be prevented from entering college due to monetary issues when a rich kid with below average intelligence can graduate from one. Of all millennials that are not in college/have not earned a college degree, more than a third (36%) say that it is because they cannot afford it. (3) This is why I think, perhaps, I misunderstood what con was supposed to be arguing for, because I agree that college education should be reformed to be available to everyone regardless of income. This isn't a concession, because I believed this before I began the debate, so I'm not sure that this should be a reason why voters should vote against me, since I simply may have misunderstood what con was arguing for. Again, I was thinking along the lines of that con was arguing that college education in general(and not how it necessarily is currently) is not outdated for the millennial generation. It wasn't clear upfront (to me at least) that con would be arguing that how college education is currently executed is not outdated for the millennial generation. I would agree that how college education is currently executed is outdated, and I agreed with that before the debate began, so again, I'm not sure if we should continue this debate or not. Either I misunderstood still, or this point is irrelevant because it can be solved by making higher education tax-payer funded.Rebuttal 3There also exists a large array of alternative pathways apart from a college education today. You can take an exam to do actuary. If you are skilled and want to be a lawyer badly enough you don\u2019t even have to go to law school \u2013 you can pass 3 examinations and sit with a practising attorney for four years \u2013 you can save time and money by avoiding law school altogether. -lighth0us3 But I don't believe it works that way for every field. To become a doctor, for example, I don't think you can just do something similar: Pass examinations and sit with a practicing doctor for a few years. Maybe one can do this, and I don't know that one can. Even if it does also work that way for doctors, there are so many fields out there and I doubt all of them work that way. Not to mention, if we did make college tax-payer funded, then either route is just as viable as the other as neither cost money for the student.A degree is not the only indicator of being qualified \u2013 experience and skills are also good qualifiers. You do not need to major in journalism, history, french, photography etc. to qualify for work in these career fields. This is as skills can be used as a qualifier (which is arguably the better indicator for job performance). -lighth0us3 Yes, but it's often the case that one doesn't obtain the skills needed unless they have a college degree. Not every employer will give you an examination to see if you're qualified and have the skills for the job, so a college degree is necessary to indicate to them you have the skills needed.Rebuttal 4/Agreement 2Additionally, 50% of students in 2005 (including myself) who declared a major changed majors. 40% of students who enrolled in a 4 year college program will not have graduated by year 5 or even year 6. (5) This is alarming given that a college degree is very expensive, and should not be wasted on young people who do not know what they want due to the pressure to decide and fast track to a certain pathway with little to no experience with the working world or what a certain career path will be like. -lighth0us3 The only thing I have to rebut here is the cost wasted you brought up. No matter how you go about getting experience within a field, it will cost money. There's nothing that can be done about that some people will waste money. Whether you waste it on paying for classes that are going to be useless because you changed career paths, or do it by paying for some sort of career workshop or really any alternative to education but later change your career path, you're still spending money and it costs money to teach people in a specific field or give them experience. I agree that there should be something done to change the pressure to decide a career path immediately, or at least some sort of class or something that will give people experience in a given career field. I also agree with what you said in the following paragraph that reform is needed. Again, this might be due to that I wasn't clear on what con is arguing for. I absolutely agree, and would have from the beginning before accepting this debate, that education should be reformed. Rebuttal 5This statistic excludes those who entered higher education (like me) below 18 years. (I spent half of my first university year being underage, it is not as uncommon as it may be in America) -lighth0us3 Well, yes, the statistic I used was a survey of adults 18+, but if teenagers were included it would likely only lower the percent a little. Either way, the point was that adults, in general, have more instances of anxiety or depressive disorders than university students. Really, the problem with my statistic is that it includes university students(those who are 18 or older). That would lower the percentage since the percent of university students with depression or anxiety is lower than for adults out of college. The problem is, if you combined both figures to calculate the total of those with anxiety or depression in higher education, 13% + 15.6% = 28.6% affected.Those numbers cannot be combined though, as they represent two completely different populations. The 13% statistic is those who are in undergratuate education with depression or anxiety, and 15.6% is those in graduate school with depression or anxiety. It's not 28.6% of college students(of both grads and undergrads) that have depression and anxiety, rather, it's the average of the two numbers(though it's a little more complicated than that because the number of undergraduates outnumber the number of graduate students in education). First, we need to take into account how many graduates there are in post-graduate school, then add it to the number of undergraduates. That's the total number of college students in either undergratuate education or post-graduate education. Now that we have that, you take the number of graduate students who have depression or anxiety(15.6% of the total number of graduate students), add it to the number of undergradute students with depression or anxiety(13% of the total number of undergraduate students), and then divide that by the total number of graduate and undergraduate students. Adding the percentages does not work, and the actual percentage of college students(including both graduate students and undergraduate students) with depression or anxiety is somewhere in between 13% and 15.6%; it would be closer to 13% than 15.6% since undergrads outnumber graduate students(I don't think I need a source for that undergrads outnumber graduate students right? That should be common knowledge that most people stop after 4 years of college education) Source:[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov...", "qid": 6, "docid": "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.678263783454895}, {"content": "Title: A degree will become more valuable. Content: How much a degree is worth is proportional to how prestigious the institution is and how well-known the course is. A rise in tuition fees will only lead to the poor being forfeited the chance to enrol in a degree course and hence, resulting in only the better off people obtaining degrees. A degree, in this sense, has lost its purpose and worth as it is just a luxury good that can only be afforded by the affluent. One might argue that financial aid is available for the poor who perform well academically, but then again, with the rising costs of tuition fees, will there be more grants and scholarships handed out? I highly doubt so.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00015-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6776003241539001}, {"content": "Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing", "qid": 6, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6775888204574585}, {"content": "Title: University Fees Should Be Scrapped Content: University education helps society", "qid": 6, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00019-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6775039434432983}, {"content": "Title: Ending Education Subsidies Content: Re: Con\u2019s ContentionsHis statistics about college graduates earning more are begging the question. I agree that college graduates earn more than non-graduates. The question is why\u2014simply stating that they do earn more proves nothing.Con then argues that many people would not be able to go to college without subsidies. I agree. My whole argument is that there should be less college education, because it costs a lot (both directly, and in the form of the opportunity cost of not working during that time) and usually doesn\u2019t increase productivity.C1: Human Capital Con misunderstands my studies. Perhaps my algebra and calculus examples weren\u2019t clear. My point is that the only reason algebra helps with calculus is that its part of calculus\u2014you need to know how to do algebra to do calculus. And calculus doesn\u2019t help with anything that doesn\u2019t explicitly involve calculus. Con claims that he isn\u2019t arguing for general transfer of learning, and therefore my arguments don\u2019t apply. But by \u2018general transfer\u2019, I don\u2019t mean general education requirements. I mean anything that isn\u2019t actually part of your job. Not related to your job, like how the study of human societies in sociology class might be sort of related to social work or teaching, but actually part of your job. Like, learning how to use Excel will make you more productive if your job requires using Excel. Taking classes provides students with a specific set of knowledge, and unless you use that knowledge in your job, it doesn\u2019t make you more productive. Transfer of learning studies failing to find evidence of general transfer of learning doesn\u2019t just mean that classes completely unrelated to your job are useless; it means that classes that aren\u2019t pretty much exactly the same thing as your job are useless.In the experiments I\u2019m citing, educational psychologists tried very hard to find general transfer of learning. They made the sets of problems as similar as possible to each other to make it easier for students to transfer their knowledge from one to the other. The problems in the study I mentioned last round are very similar\u2014if people can apply their learning to different situations, then surely they\u2019d be able to apply it to different problems as similar as estimating the area of a square and estimating the area of a triangle. But they didn\u2019t. Even extraordinarily similar problems found no evidence of transfer\u2014in a 1974 study, they trained students to do a word problem involving cannibals and missionaries. They then tested to see if that training transferred over to the exact same problem with the words \u2018cannibals\u2019 and \u2018missionaries\u2019 replaced with \u2018jealous husbands\u2019 and \u2018wives\u2019. They found no evidence of transfer\u2014even though the subjects were not the average person, but college students! [1] The literature on Transfer of Learning theory shows that the only way to get better at X is to practice doing X. People can succeed in college classes because you\u2019re tested on exactly what you studied for\u2014but work in the real world is rarely exactly what you studied in college, so college classes usually won't make you more productive at work.C2: SignallingI don\u2019t think I need any evidence to show that people that go to college are smarter and harder working than those that don\u2019t\u2014it\u2019s self-evident to anyone who\u2019s ever been to high school, and observed the differences between college-bound students and non-college-bound students firsthand. Think about what gets you into college\u2014good test scores and grades. Are people with good test scores and grades just as smart and hard working as those without them? And, of course, people who go to college and graduate and probably smarter/harder-working than those that go to college but drop out. Anyway, even though I don\u2019t think I should need it, I do have evidence. The average IQ for college graduates is 115\u2014that is, the average college graduate is smarter than 5/6 of the population. [2] In addition, going to college shows conscientiousness\u2014that is, being goal-oriented and forward looking (being low on conscientiousness means being more laid-back, present-oriented, and impulsive). Going to college for 4 years before getting the reward shows that someone is goal-oriented and forward looking. This is an important trait for employers\u2014conscientious employees are more reliable, more motivated, harder working, and have lower rates of absenteeism. [3]Con argues that college causes students to be smarter and harder-working, which completely contradicts his earlier claim that he wasn\u2019t arguing that general transfer of learning exists. College classes making someone smarter in general would be general transfer of learning. College may improve work ethic more than sitting around doing nothing, but it certainly doesn\u2019t improve work ethic compared to actually having a job. Think about it\u2014would you want to hire someone with a college degree that had never held a job? The average full-time college student puts in only 14 hours of studying per week\u2014compared to 24 in 1961. [4] Hardly a way to build one\u2019s work ethic. Coincidentally, the average return to education has sharply increased during that time\u2014the opposite of what the human capital model would predict.C3: Useful EducationMy argument is that only education involving specific job training, like medical schools, significantly increases productivity. For other degrees, like sociology, the investment is not worth the cost. If someone won\u2019t make enough to pay back an unsubsidized loan, then that just proves that that money would be better invested elsewhere. Saying that you need a subsidy for an investment to be profitable is admitting that the investment is a waste of money.[1] Reed, S.K., Earns, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.[2] http://www.assessmentpsychology.com...[3] Roberts, B.W.; Jackson, J.J.; Fayard, J.V.; Edmonds, G. & Meints, J (2009). \"Chapter 25. Conscientiousness\". In Mark R. Leary, & Rick H. Hoyle. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 257-273.[4] http://www.aei.org...", "qid": 6, "docid": "16199f60-2019-04-18T18:14:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6772886514663696}, {"content": "Title: Formal Education does not equal success in later life. Content: Economic growth Pro assesses that I am presenting Formal Education as necessary for economic stability and employment. Pro is right and this can lead everyone to success, no matter what job or function they perform. Pro has basically conceded most of this argument. Advantages of education Pro is incorrect in assuming I am limiting education to just college or school. People can read and learn on their own but a formal education gives you the greatest chance of success. A steady job or pay is always considered a success. This gives one the ability to further themselves and also their family. Improvements in IQ are remarkably consistent across the whole spectrum. This effect of an apparent increase in IQ has also been observed in various other parts of the world, though the rates of increase vary. . http://eyeonsociety.co.uk... IQ tests are scored with respect to those standardization samples. The only way to compare the difficulty of two versions of a test is to conduct a study in which the same subjects take both versions. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. The average rate of increase seems to be about three IQ points per decade in the U. S. on tests such as the WISC. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponents tests do not mention the previous levels of IQ. Therefore, his test leaves out that peoples IQ were lower previously to the results of the test he gave us. He also asserts that it is impossible to rise higher in IQ or intelligence. Pro does not even show us the importance of IQ. We have schools and classes for those with less intelligence or slower learning. I have shown the majority of people who have formal education have a increase in IQ. Pro drops my economic argument and concedes points to the advantages of Formal Education. The only point Pro makes is the one about students who cannot keep up in school, which is addressed with certain schools or classes especially for these students. This point fails by the lack of evidence. I think I have provided most of the evidence in this debate and Pro has the burden of proof. I send it back to Pro.", "qid": 6, "docid": "3d4ee487-2019-04-18T17:32:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6772518157958984}, {"content": "Title: must tertiary education be free Content: Higher education is a magnificent thing, but to say that it is a right would be comparable to something such as everyone has the right to be wealthy. I would go as far as to saying that college should cost even more and be more competitive as I would say that there has been an \"inflation\" in a sense when it comes to the college system. University is not the only place where people learn and innovate, and the by-product of higher education does not always equate to being a productive member of society or the workplace of their selected field(s). A vision that I have for the education system that we (as I would assume that you are a resident of The United States) as a nation could possible do would be as such; 1) Stop telling our youth that college is the way to go -Not going to college does not automatically assume laziness or being unsuccessful as is the common misconception of our society, as there are alternatives such as trade schools or apprenticeships or even the military option that I had took 2) More focus/spending on the alternatives to higher education -We need a workforce that knows how to do the jobs that are in demand. Trade schools and apprenticeships are not exactly an attractive option for the average high school student, but I firmly believe it would have a better impact on their careers than college (I cannot express in words the support I would have for you if you were advocating free trade schools and apprenticeship programs) 3) Change does not happen overnight. -Years of the pursuit of college has transformed our entire job culture, to the point that is a requirement if wanting to succeed to life and the advocacy of free education is curious concept. If the points above are met, we can see a major shift in the future of our college-is-the-only-way-centric society. Sources; None (I admit that this round I decided to be entirely opinionated and going sort of freehand)", "qid": 6, "docid": "a1f3d362-2019-04-18T12:48:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6767024993896484}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Much of the current dogma in U. S. society in particular is that everyone should go to college. I think that we are all lifelong students, but I don't believe that college is the one path forward that should always be touted. Why not? Well, first, not everyone is benefited by broadening their horizons. There's no reason to believe that every individual is going to want to be a scientist, a teacher, or a lawyer. Second, not everyone is cut out for college, intellectually or emotionally. Anxiety among students is a huge problem. Not all these students are going to have the grades out of high school to get necessary scholarships for them to go through their college programs without heaps of debt. What are the alternatives? For one, there's vocational schools. These are essentially trade schools, meant to teach students job-specific skills. This will often be highly beneficial, as they're usually shorter in duration, produce skilled labor with hands-on experience, and are normally supported by private companies, providing a route into a job shortly after graduation. There are also apprenticeship programs, which involve working directly for an employer and studying the masters at work. This is an even more directly applicable way to learn and transition. Much as college provides a great education, it is often distant from real world problems and concerns about getting a job, which are often left solely to the students. Businesses are wary of college graduates, even those with great GPAs, because there is always a gulf between their knowledge and the knowledge and experience the company requires. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships don't suffer from that. I'll get into some rebuttal in the next round. . http://www.politico.com... . http://www.dailyfinance.com...", "qid": 6, "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6762158870697021}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone. Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a \"prerequisite for entering into society,\" partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up. Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists. Let's go through those assertions. 1) Higher education = deeper education Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this. 2) More civic awareness No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college. 3) Higher efficiency Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient. 4) Increased profit for company No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits. 5) Better inventions and technology Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish. 6) Better firms Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard. Back to Con.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6754947900772095}, {"content": "Title: University education needs to be capped and more selective Content: A university degree has far less worth than it once did", "qid": 6, "docid": "ed52489a-2019-04-19T12:45:22Z-00010-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6753866076469421}, {"content": "Title: Higher Education is outdated for the millennial generation Content: I'm typing this on my phone so sorry in advance for any typos/terrible sources. Thus debate has been quite problematic as... 1) whilst the premise 'higher education is outdated for the millennial generration' is clear enough, I wasn't clear on what my argument would be on - that higher education is outdated and needs serious reform whilst being maintained. 2) con accepted the debate believing that higher education was indeed, outdated for the millennial generation, and accepted anyway believing that he would argue for 'pro education' (if my interpretation is correct) 3) this confusion was found out after my first argument as shown in the comments. Hence I suggested and we agreed to compromise so that my argument would be 'higher education is outdated, and therefore not worth it to everyone'. Sadly I later found myself arguing for a position I did not personally believe in, but I will maintain this position for the sake of this debate. CON RE: millennials care more about contributing to society, and college education opens up more doors to help society that High school cannot. (E.g. Nursing, doctors) 1- Yes, nursing and doctoring can definitely improve our quality of life - yet does this really create a big social impact? According to 80000.org (1), each doctor saves about 90 lives in their lifetime. Medicine has extended everyone's quality of life for 7 years. Yet, 1) the amount of good medicine has done is overestimated 2) increase in age is not mutually exclusive to increase in disabled life - hence a full quality life is not completely true. 3) doctors cannot take sole credit for medicine. (Researchers, managers, scientists, nurses) In the end, we can save 6 times the amount of lives a doctor saves by simply donating 10% of our income wisely to a worthy foundation. 2- You don't need to go to university without creating a big social impact (the idea that these are mutually exclusive is false) examples : Stephen Spielberg, Mark zuckerverg, Bill Gates 3-Medicine is not the only way you can solve world problems it is sometimes not even the best way. What about electricity? Or education? Or government? CON RE: if college is not worth it, why are more millennials going to college than any other generation? They must be going for a meaningful degree that can help society. Millennials are going to college more than any other generation because they have the most opportunity to go, because they are pushed (45%) by their parents to go, perhaps because they believe it can lead them where they want to be also. However millennials are also expected to only be able to repay their debts in the next 11 years, 37% students regret going to college, and 49% graduates believe that they would have ended up where they are today without a college degree. (2) RE: there exists alternative pathways to college education - Con argues some fields do not have alternatives, and alternatives are not needed if college education becomes tax funded. 1- yes some fields do not have alternatives, but it is increasingly clear today that college is not necessary for everyone and not worth it for everyone. Commerce, arts and in some cases even in science. Con uses the doctor argument again, yet it is revealed above that medicine is not as influential on the quality of life than investing and utilising your money to elsewhere for society, which millennials care more about. Additionally one field of practise is not enough to validate the value of higher education for the entire pool of millennials as a whole. Only 0.27% of the population are doctors, for example. (2) 2-Con suggests that tax payer money be used to fully fund college education. Whilst that is the case for Germany today, and even Australia in the past, I personally don't believe this is possible in America. It is a strong liberal democracy that values it's small government. It also strongly advocates for the freedom of the people from 'corrupt officials' etc. To believe a call for such a huge reform with such major repercussions on the people to become successful would be too idealistic. One would have to convince the president-trump, Congress (which I imaging would be near impossible) and the judiciary to even consider this. Not to mention the inequality that exists in the US today already - to ask for more tax paying money would be difficult. RE: Skill can be better used as a qualifier for job performance - Con argues you often develop your skills from college and not every employee will give you an examination, and hence college is necessary to indicate your skills. Yes many develop skills from college but this is only because it forces people to keep working. Your own resolution to succeed is what is important. Hence, you do not need a college degree to develop your skills. No, usually a career in these fields do not require an examination, but rather an example of their work (e.g. A photograph, a piece of writing, a translation, a conversation in French etc.) which I believe speaks louder than certifications of a degree. RE: statistic argument Sorry as you didn't exemplify that you averaged the two statistics I only guessed that you compared each statistic with the general statistic of 23.5%. Yes I admit my calculation was wrong but I didn't really trust that addition of the two percentages anyway and it was used more of an example as to why comparing 2 independent means together is unreliable. As to why your calculation is unreliable - I don't have my computer here but it seems to be that you don't know the sample size of any of the statistics that you used (undergraduates with anxiety or depression, postgraduates with anxiety or depression, adults with anxiety, adults with depression) and hence am unable to make a reliable statistical comparison between any of the figures. You don't know if these population sample figures are normally distributed either, or independent from each other. Hence you cannot come up with a reasonable T statistic to accept or reject the null hypothesis which is - are the means of postgraduates with anxiety or depression the same with the means of adults with anxiety or depression? (Or likewise with undergraduates) not to mention that adults with anxiety or depression have two different sample sizes being from different sources. I have also taken statistics as a unit this year (3) Also, Thanks for this debate con! I enjoyed it despite our confusions haha. I have developed a lot more insight about millennials, about the past, and about college and higher education in general. 1) https://80000hours.org... 2)http://www.forbes.com... 3) https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu...", "qid": 6, "docid": "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6753064393997192}, {"content": "Title: kids who finish High school deserve free post secondary education Content: Positive externalities of higher education. Generally, university education does offer some external benefits to society. Higher education leads to a more educated and productive workforce. Countries with high rates of university education generally have higher levels of innovation and productivity growth. Therefore, there is a justification for the government subsidizing higher education. The United States is by far and away the biggest economy in the world. Out of Western countries, it is also by far and away the greatest producer. It is also a false equivalency to compare small European countries to a giant country. Controlling small population systems and funding them is much easier than controlling a mega-multicultural country of massive size. Education is a merit good. One characteristic of a merit good is that people may underestimate the benefits of studying and undervalue higher education. No one is obligated to provide people a free product, much less one of quality. POINTS The proposition of Pro ignores the domino effect. What happens to everything else when you make education free? Everyone is qualified When everyone is highly qualified, wages drop through the floor. Your qualifications can be found in anyone. Are you going to deliver babies for $17,000 a year? Of course you are if we hire you. You're lucky to have a job at all seeing everyone is qualified. Now go do surgery. Education Quality drops Professors get paid nothing now because everyone is qualified to be a professor. You have a professor in poverty, as you attempt to get a minimum wage job that everyone is qualified to do. No one pays for college, so now we can't afford the tools needed to teach you well. Better learn to love reading books from 1984. That's all the school could afford. Which college has to take you dilemma Can you go to a regional college? Well you wanted to go to Harvard for the most elite education. Guess what? It's booked to capacity because college is free. You cool with Springfield College for Crap Weasels? I hope so. It's the only place with room for you. And guess what? Professors and school administrators have certain predjudices. I hope you don't match any of them, otherwise they'll pack the place with their favorite group, race, or their friends' kids, despite having horrible grades in highschool. You had good grades in highschool? So what? College is free. Community College of the Ozarks is all that is open for you.", "qid": 6, "docid": "ea43a5f1-2019-04-18T11:39:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6751079559326172}, {"content": "Title: paying to go to college freash out of school Content: My opponent's argument is blurry but I will argue how a person could pay for college and why it is a good thing. Just a little insight into my life, I did not go to college out high school. I was ignorant to my options. That is the key. There are options! You should never believe that education should be free or at the hands of tax dollars, Americans cannot afford it. If you are poor, get a pell grant, and a student loan. Pick a college that you know you can afford. You should be held accountable to pay for college out of high school; you can pay for it with the two I mentioned. You may have to pay it back when you graduate but in theory you are still paying the university right out of high school. And if you wait, you will age. I am 25 now and will not get done with Law school till I am 30. I have friends that are 25 and making money already. You do not realize it till you are older and look back at what you could have done. Look guys, this is a weird debate but I take it as an opportunity to share. My opponent's argument is cloudy but mine is here on paper. http://www2.ed.gov... http://studentaid.ed.gov...", "qid": 6, "docid": "905b7061-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6743991374969482}, {"content": "Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: Questions: 1. What is the value that 4-Year colleges have that you are comparing? Is it the monetary cost or something else? 2. Are you in agreement that going to community college first is cheaper, or is that not your argument? I didn't quite understand what your argument against the cost was. If you could please answer these the best you can, I would be able to understand your argument better. Response: I understand He_Needs_Some_Milk_69 argument as that it is inconvenient to go to community college because you have to go to a four-year university anyway (please correct me if I misunderstand). -I agree that it is more convenient, but it costs more. I have shown that the College Board says that it is cheaper to start with community college. Based on price alone, it seems that it is beneficial to go this route instead of going straight to a four-year college. -I also found evidence for the argument that people who complete community college with an Associate's Degree have a higher chance of getting a Bachelor\u2019s Degree within 10 years (1). Although only 33% of community college students transfer to 4-year colleges, students who transferred with an Associate's Degree had a 48% chance of graduating compared to 35% chance for students who transferred without an Associate's Degree (1). I would like to know if there is something that four-year colleges have that isn't present in community colleges. Resources1. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu...", "qid": 6, "docid": "844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6743752360343933}, {"content": "Title: Should colleges be free Content: College is a place to learn, but not all people can go, and people can actually save money and buy thing for themselves or there family. Also so people don't have to worry about loans. I did some research and the government would pay for the teachers and supplies for the colleges.", "qid": 6, "docid": "bbae4f3b-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6741700768470764}, {"content": "Title: Should colleges be free Content: On average, a college graduate with a bachelor\"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011\"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org", "qid": 6, "docid": "bbae4f3b-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6735196113586426}, {"content": "Title: Public vs Private Education Content: Public education is, overall, not worth it to a wealthier person. To a person who doesn't have the wealth it is much smarter to put his or her child into public education rather than private education because of the main fact that they cant pay for the private education. This means that any education is good enough for his or her child and if this means public is better choice for the family because they cant afford the private education. Even though one must obtain a higher gpa to get into a preferred school under public education just means that you can get a lower gpa in Private education because realistically you are paying in advance for a college degree.", "qid": 6, "docid": "30a568aa-2019-04-18T16:55:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6733934283256531}, {"content": "Title: Community college should be the first college people attend Content: I argue that more people would benefit from going to community college first rather than going straight to a four year university.Definitions:Community College will be any college that is state/government funded and is a 2 year institution.By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.Argument:People should start with community college for a few reasons:>. Most community colleges have smaller class sizes compared to 4-year colleges (3).>. When the cost of community college is lowered, slightly more students enroll in college then they would have if tuition remained the same (1) According to the College Board's website, the average cost of community college for in-district students is $3,440 on average. A public 4-year college, accepting students in-state, is $9,410 on average (2).>. Community college was found to increase the number of people obtaining their Bachelor's Degree slightly (1).I would be convinced to the Con/Against side if someone could show why my sources are incorrect or what evidence there is to the contrary.Sources:1. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...2. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...3. https://www.educationquest.org...I look forward to debating with you.", "qid": 6, "docid": "844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.672078013420105}, {"content": "Title: University isn't useful compared to college as it is merely theoretical rather than practical Content: I will stand by my position by saying that yes, a degree in auto mechanics at university would be more theoretical than practical, hands on experience. I think that if one wants to gain practical employable skills, one should go to college rather than university, because in my opinion, university aren't for people who are interested in a trade, but for those interested in the social sciences or the humanities. I should have been more specific. Depending on the discipline in which one is interested in gaining a degree, university is an invaluable resource. (Ie: Law, Medicine, Business, etc) It depends upon the field, as to whether one should attend college or university. What I mean by this is that while it gives the student short term satisfaction, it doesn't provide long term satisfaction. Being older (50+) allows one to fully grasp and appreciate the knowledge that is being professed, while when one is a teenager, one isn't able to fully appreciate the knowledge being professed due to other seemingly more important priorities. (IE: Parties, members of the opposite sex, etc) In closing, the difference between these types of institutions are that of content. While I would agree that a college institution is at the same level of a university institution in engineering for instance, but as I said, it all depends upon the discipline that one wants to obtain to determine which institution is better suited.", "qid": 6, "docid": "56ad9029-2019-04-18T19:14:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6720427870750427}, {"content": "Title: We regret the emphasis on college education Content: The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one\"s potential in many ways. Students who didn\"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn\"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.", "qid": 6, "docid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.671660304069519}]}
{"query": "Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, \"In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8408395648002625}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Today I stand to affirm the resolution: \"resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.\" Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons \"Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system\" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States \"prohibits excessive sanctions\", and reads \"punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense\". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be \"excessive,\" as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...", "qid": 7, "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8312934637069702}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.", "qid": 7, "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8312591910362244}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be \"fair\" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is \"gain the right to vote\" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of \"excessive sanctions.\" The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of \"previous condition of servitude.\" The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the \"Great Melting Pot\" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8195129036903381}, {"content": "Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, \"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness\". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: \" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says \"It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don\u2019t have a right to make the laws if you aren\u2019t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don\u2019t let everyone vote \u2013 not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don\u2019t meet those standards. \"[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;", "qid": 7, "docid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8145826458930969}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: As Con, I will argue why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Good luck!", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8135920763015747}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary", "qid": 7, "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.810470461845398}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that \" the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak\". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in \"normal life\" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that \"people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it.\" Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a \"BIG mistake in life\", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8104588985443115}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I negate the resolution: Felons Ought to Retain the right to vote. My value for determining this is social contract. My criterion for this is the ability of the social contract to uphold societal welfare. Contention 1: By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeighted their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract.", "qid": 7, "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8076661229133606}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I will be debating against the topic, \"Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. \" Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition\"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country\"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country\"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition\"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition\"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don\"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro\"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn\"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it \"seems to be excessive\" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn\"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can\"t vote because of these laws doesn\"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn\"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America \"would maybe gain more international respect. \" First of all, America doesn\"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro\"s points and added two points to this debate.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8066587448120117}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: \"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).\" This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8023272752761841}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00008-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8006536960601807}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation \"If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. \"America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail \"Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. \"So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting \"According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn\"t limit freedom of speech. \"Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting \"In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens \" or nearly one in 13 African-American adults \" are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election.\" Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.", "qid": 7, "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7988322973251343}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8fdec11b-2019-04-18T19:35:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7980983257293701}, {"content": "Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1)\u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.", "qid": 7, "docid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7969503402709961}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an \"excessive sanction\" and does not in any way violate the constitution.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7946958541870117}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word \"Continued\" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7934401035308838}, {"content": "Title: prisoners and should they be able to vote Content: prisoners should not be able to vote. They lost there rights to vote when there done something wrong and they went to prison but I know they have done there time in prison but yeh", "qid": 7, "docid": "362f40bc-2019-04-18T13:09:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7900826930999756}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: My opponent mentions how people must learn the consequences of their actions, however, felons have already served their prison time and completed probation. They have already been punished. Why now does the state get to strip them of their Constitutional right as citizens because they committed a crime? A good point Politico magazine makes is the following: \"If prisoners remain citizens and retain their civic status throughout their sentences, then it follows that prisoners should enjoy the most basic of their civil rights, the right to cast a ballot. Disenfranchising them creates a class of people still subject to the laws of the United States (they were, after all, punished under that law) but without a voice in the way they\"re governed\"not unlike taxation without representation.\" How can we make them abide by the law but then in the same breath say that they don't get a voice in the law. https://www.politico.com... Some people make the argument that felons can't be trusted but this is a silly argument. \"We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war...If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.\" It is also unconstitutional because our 8th amendment specifically states: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" This sort of punishment is cruel and unnecessary. By stripping their right to vote, we are stripping their right as a citizen. Yes, felonies are bigger deals than misdemeanors but to assume every convicted felon is evil is unfair. In a just society, we are supposed to try and help felons become better and improve. We don't continue to punish them even after they've served their time. As Robert F. McDonnell, JD, MPP, MBAI says: \" I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again...Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process.\" https://felonvoting.procon.org... Barring felons from voting is unconstitutional, unfair, and illogical. We can not allow this to happen any longer.", "qid": 7, "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7894538640975952}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are \"created\" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7861541509628296}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. \u201d(1)\u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. \u201d(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7854335308074951}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7851027846336365}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con states that \u201cFirst off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.\u201d I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... \u201c We don\u2019t let children vote, it\u2019s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don\u2019t vote it is true, not because we don\u2019t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks \u201cdo criminals belong in that category?\u201d I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con\u2019s Argument. Con argues that \u201cthe fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.\u201d This is in contrast to America\u2019s fundamental principles of Government. \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can\u2019t vote, they can\u2019t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows\u2026. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7849814295768738}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms \u2013 denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.", "qid": 7, "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7836976051330566}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California \u2013 Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy.\" People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above \"\u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\u201d When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? \"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] \" Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons\" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting \"Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one...\" According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] \"Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't state \"Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] \" Your July 16 editorial \u201cDisenfranchised Felons\u201d asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is \u201cto stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.\u201d To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don\u2019t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens \u2014 or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law.\" Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7826895713806152}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked \"Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?\". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities \" occupy the majority of prison cells\" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said \"Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats\". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked \"Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?\" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7819764018058777}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1) \u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7812741994857788}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. \u201cThe idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.\u201d(1) \u201c5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. \u201c(1) \u201cState approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.\u201d(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7812741994857788}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?", "qid": 7, "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7809578776359558}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners should be given the right to vote Content: Sweeeeet. So firstly today we are arguing the motion: Should prisoners be able to vote? On my side of this, I am arguing against all prisoners voting whilst they are in jail. I have several main arguments why this should not be the case and they should be withdrawn of all and any voting rights. 1. These prisoners are no longer deemed as functioning members of society so therefore do not deserve the right to vote. As prisoners, they are in prison for a reason. Because they are in prison this means several things: firstly, that they committed a crime so bad that the judicial system has felt the need to separate them from the rest of society. Now, this crime may be \"non violent\" like tax fraud or even extends to violent crimes such as aggravated assault or even murder. Regardless of this, a judge and jury has deemed them unfit to be wandering around the community and have used jail as a means of discipline, separation and rehabilitation. Because of this, there is a clear distinction between the normal, fully participating citizens that give back to society and people who sit in jail. The people who are in jail do not give back to our society in any way. Instead, they have taken away from society in general and ended up in jail. Because of this reason, they should not have the right to vote because they are not functioning citizens meaning they should not be able to have a say on what happens outside of prison let alone who the next president or political party in power should be. They don't live like normal citizens so should not get to have a say on how the government should be run. Secondly, being in prison means they do not get the same rights as the \"normal\" citizen I have referenced would. We can all acknowledge that in prison, prisoners do not have all of their rights preserved. This because I believe that there are two different types of rights when it comes to situations like these. Firstly, the basic rights you need to exist and secondly your extra rights. Because prisoners are in prison they only have their basic rights which allow them to continue living, perhaps until they get out of jail relative to the offense they have committed. These include the right to food and a roof over your head and the right to clothes and a bathroom etc etc. The other set of rights are the rights a prisoner does not have because they are incarcerated and these are also quite obvious and reasonable. These include the freedom of choice, privacy, the right to travel and employment. Any normal citizen would have these rights but since they are prisoners, they have this type of \"extra\" right taken away from them. I believe that the right to vote comes under these rights and therefore it is unnecessary to give them this extra right while they are in jail. Because of this, we are perfectly justified to withdraw their right to vote from them. 2. This would give rise to corruption. With a whole new group of people able to vote, this would incentivise parties or presidential candidates to make policies that appeal to prisoners. This would mean that the prisoners, their families, friends or anyone tied to the criminal lifestyle would vote for the parties or candidates that do this. Obviously, this creates an unhealthy cycle of corruption and the result of this are normal people who do not have any criminal convictions or any involvement in the criminal world getting the shorter end of the stick. Therefore, we should not give these criminals the right to vote. 3. Prisoners are usually uneducated and would not make a logical decision anyway. With the exception of let's say, prisoners that have committed tax fraud (which is a small fraction) these prisoners typically start out with rocky beginnings. Resorting to crime from earlier on, they have a minimal education or if they do, they don't tend to care about the political system that much. They would vote for the best looking candidate or even the one that is most appealing so this is hardly an educated vote. Therefore this is the final reason why we should not give prisoners the right to vote.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ab4e671f-2019-04-18T13:07:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7795286774635315}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.", "qid": 7, "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7788296341896057}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I negate that felons should retain the right to vote. In my oppenents first statement of round 4 he said \"I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy.\" A democracy is a government where the people of a society choose their own leaders, and laws. So if this sociaty says they don't want felons to vote shouldn't feons not vote. This is part of democracy. Majority rules. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. My oppenent also spoke of discrimination in that blacks lose their right to vote more than other races. This is not because our court systems are racist. Our court sytems are fair and just. If any became racist they would immediatly be taken out. My oppenents third contention in round 4 was about felons being in jail and not deserving more punishment. Being sent to prizon and disenfranchised come together. You made a bad choice and got sent to prizon and disenfranchised for it. American citizens are no longer going to allow you to choose who you want to lead them, when you have just got against them all together. Felons are bad people who do not deserve to vote. They are rapists and theives. Murderers and drug smugglers. We, as the american public, do not need the help of these people in voting for our President or any other election.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7784297466278076}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "qid": 7, "docid": "6bf94fce-2019-04-18T19:32:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7778693437576294}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "qid": 7, "docid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7778693437576294}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not \"retaining\" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.", "qid": 7, "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7766567468643188}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.", "qid": 7, "docid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.776214063167572}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7756224870681763}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. If you include those brain damaged by a felon, that number would be much, much higher. (Pause.) My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society. Contention 2 Felons are not silenced by not voting. The affirmative wants you to believe if a felon cannot vote, he cannot participate in the political process, but Felons CAN actively campaign for issues or candidates if they so desire. Think of Carrie and Cindy or the thousands of brain injured victims of felony crimes and contrast their loss of rights to that of the felons. Then ask yourself if that is equal or just. Contention 3 Permanently keeping felon's from voting serves equality and justice. According to FBI Homicide Reports from 76 to 2005, over 90 percent of homicide victims were old enough to vote, yet were silenced by a felon. Over 81 percent of homicides had multiple victims, meaning that one felon silenced more than one voter. According to the National Child Abuse Center, felons injured over 900,000 children in 2003 alone. Over 700,000, or 80% of abused children are left with a psychiatric disorder by age 21. These disorders, including severe brain injuries, can disqualify them from voting, too. Face it, felons are savagely stealing votes from their victims while fleecing the public for voting rights in the name of democracy. Are you going to find this FAIR? To recap, felons chose not to vote, they are not silenced from politics, and not allowing them to vote serves equality and justice. Therefore, I negate the resolution. Now, let's look at my opponents case and see why it doesn't hold up.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa3b2-2019-04-18T19:34:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7754423022270203}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. Content: I accept my opponent's value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. Opponent's VC-Maximizing rights This better fits the con side. Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. My VC is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. I will first go over my opponents arguments then precede to my own. C1. My opponent said, \"If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?\" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. C2. The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. C3. If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. These are my random arguments against that don't rebuttal my opponent's contentions 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. For these reasons I negate", "qid": 7, "docid": "41f862a6-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7723221778869629}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In response to me asking how taking a felon\u2019s right to vote protects other\u2019s freedom con responds \u201cBecause voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility.\u201d Voting is a civic duty. Some criminals may have little care for civility, though to assume that for all is foolish. Likewise, a so called \u201cfelon\u201d who has been in prison for 20 years may have an entirely different world view then when the crime was committed. Either way, as mentioned previously, felons would make up about 2% of the vote, and that is only if they all voted. Clearly there would be no harm done in allowing \u201cfelons\u201d to retain the freedom to vote. \"I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it\" I maintain that this quote supports the principle behind this debate. Despite my opponent foolishly declaring that \u201ccriminals are anti-social with little care for civility\u201d they are still part of society however removed they appear. They are still governed by the system. Again as the Declaration of Independence states \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Felons, without the right to vote cannot give consent to be governed and are therefore victims of tyranny. This is a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con then says \u201cYou complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty.\u201d I never made such an argument. Though it appears that con feels that minorities are disproportionately affected. This is a welcome endorsement in favor of the resolution. Conduct: Con has repeatedly ridiculed me in this debate. Saying things like \u201cI can hardly believe anyone would make the argument\u2026\u201d and \u201cMind your own business.\u201d These Ad Hominem statements have no place in debate. Con has also repeatedly committed the straw man fallacy saying \u201cYou also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also.\u201d I never expressed such a view. \u201cYour proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will.\u201d I never made such a proposal. I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished. Lastly and perhaps the least offensive \u201cYou complain that minorities are disproportionately affected.\u201d I never made such a complaint. Though, it is a reasonable argument to make. I leave it to the voters to determine if the Straw man fallacy and Ad Hominem attacks are valid. Closing Statement: As con conceded, minorities are disproportionately affected. Allowing Felons to retain the right to vote poses no harm. As such, taking such a right away is tyrannical and against the principles this nation is founded on. \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Vote Pro!", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7717961668968201}, {"content": "Title: In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates Content: I thank Con for presenting well thought out arguments! As a brief roadmap, I will be addressing all the points presented by my opponent. \"It would be enormously inappropriate to elect officials through people who have broken the system.\" This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison? Under that logic, you believe any individual that has been to prison should never vote. Regardless, even if an individual has broken the \"system\" I am going to argue representation is more important than suppressing their right to vote. The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement. We see many unintelligent voters all the time, however, this does not mean we ought to suppress their vote. This would be reverting back to the times where only certain sections of society could vote...ie. Rich white men who owned land. \"We now have to take care of the prisoner. The prisoner is now essentially a burden on society. If prisoners are apparently more capable of making poor decisions, then why should they help decide the fate of America?\" First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? Second, you talk about how they are a burden on society, and to an extent I agree. However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives. You see, the problem with suppressing a minority (even if that minority happens to be in a prison), is that it can lead them subject to potential harms. Such as an increase in harshness of sentences changes in the death penalty, etc. Not to mention, once they are released that president could also affect their lives for 4 more years. \"We don't allow prisoners to vote because we do not trust their judgement.\" You talk about the examples of children and the \"mentally incapable.\" In the case of children I would agree with you, they chose the age 18 to wait for the kid to be mature, but this is because children are already receiving representation by their guardians -- thus protecting them. Prisoners don't have this luxury. I'm assuming you mean mentally handicapped, in which case, these people literally cannot vote. It's not that we don't trust their judgement; it's that they literally cannot exercise their right to vote. Unintelligent people are allowed to vote so we can receive better representation, same thing with prisoners. \"If prisoners want the right to vote so bad, they should not break the law. Prisoners are not a part of the community. That's why they are secluded in jailhouses.\" What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic. I was talking about once they are released. I would argue, releasing the prisoners into a society where they can't feel accepted results in the cycle of going back to prison again", "qid": 7, "docid": "de499a0-2019-04-18T15:30:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7717365026473999}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a \"valid\" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, \"We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely.\" We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) \"If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?\" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) \"Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment...\" I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) \"As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?\" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) \"...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless.\" The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) \"It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin.\" It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) \"...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote.\" Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) \"I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc.\" Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) \"I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly\" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) \"Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?\" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7709609270095825}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Cheers! I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed. ------------------------DEFINITIONS-------------------------------- felony= (1) a felony as a crime which involves a potential punishment of one year or longer in prison.[1] (2) in general, a \"serious crime\" [2] felons= people who commit or have committed felony democratic society= a society based on majority rule; a society where supreme political power lies with the people [3] right = an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature [4] vote= express one's preference for a candidate or for a measure or resolution; [5] -----------------------MAIN ARGUMENT---------------------------- First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory? Society grants the right to vote on the promise of good behavior, and can suspend it when people break that promise. Having established that society can curtail the right to vote, I will show society ought to curtail the felons' right to vote. There are 2 main arguments why felons don't deserve their right to vote: (a) Punishment: A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract. Only law-abiding citizens who uphold the Contract have the right to vote; felons, who have expressed contempt of their fellow citizens by breaking the law are deprived of their right to vote. In combination with being incarcerated, it impresses upon the felons the magnitude of their crimes. (b) The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote. I also realize that some felonies are accidental and/or less severe than others. There are some felons that reform. For such felons, I propose that we set up a Pardons Commission to determine whether the felons are worthy of receiving the right to vote. All felons will have the right to apply to the Commission for a hearing. This Commission might meet every quarter year, and precedent for such a Commission already exists in some USA states. This will allow the one-time criminals to retrieve their right to vote. -------------REBUTTALS IN ADVANCE--------------- 1) Some argue that the felon will undergo double punishment: after serving his jail time and fulfilling his debt to society, the felon will be made to undergo a 2nd punishment because of not being able to vote. However, this argument commits the fallacy of begging the question [6]. It assumes that the jailtime adequately punishes the felon, and that the lack of voting rights is a 2nd punishment. However, the jailtime and the lack of voting rights can be viewed as 2 parts of a single punishment. Just like drunk driving can lead to both jailing you and depriving you of your driver's license. 2) Some argue that the policy of depriviation of felon voting rights originated in the Civil War - blah blah blah. Basically, they argue that because this policy originated to promote racism or whatever, it must be bad. But this is committing the genetic fallacy. [7] 3) Some argue that the policy is racist because there are many colored felons who get stripped of rights. But, this is really a red herring. If it is a fact that more men of color are felons or something; so be it! These charges of resulting racism are irrelevant as to whether felons should have voting rights. SOURCES [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [6] http://www.nizkor.org... [7] http://www.nizkor.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7691084146499634}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Wow nice job. This was a good closing statement except you copied and pasted the whole thing from http://www.debate.org... I guess i will still make my closing statements to. First i will attack this new case you just copied then i will make my closing arguments. Against your criterion of Democracy- Democracy is a governement run by the people and decided upon by majority rule. So if the majority of people think felons shouldn't vote they should not be able to. I don't think this is a very good criterion considering we will always still have democracy whether felons vote or not. Felons do have a voice in sociaty. They used this voice when they went against sociaty saying \"I don't want any part of this sociaty.\" They wasted there voice there instead of using it to elect who they want. By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Now for my closing argument. Felons are people who have commited a serious crime of anger and hatred. These felons have shown they do not have good judgement. We should not let them use thier poor judgement at a time when judgement counts the most, during a national election. 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. The american punlic has spoken and came to a conclusion of felons not being able to vote. In my first arguments I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, I also showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. Then I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. In my next argument i gave facts about felons having drugs and in most cases going back to jail once set free. In my last argument i spoke about felons having bag judgement. With all of this together i believe you should vote toward the negative side. To Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating- Thank you for this fun debate and may the best debater win. I very much so enjoyed this resolution. I would love to debate you on other topics sometime in the future. Thank you and good bye for now.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7666064500808716}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con says \u201cFelons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country.\u201d Voting includes a lot more than just the vote cast for President. Unfit or not, our system is built on a concept of the consent of the governed. That includes consent of those being governed from prison. Con says \u201cIf we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me.\u201d right, no difference when it comes to unalienable rights and representation. Being in prison should provide enough of a distinction between felons and non felons\u2026 Con says \u201cYes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself.\u201d The Declaration of Independence reads \u201c\u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d Governments are instituted to protect rights... including the right to vote. Con says \u201cIf felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place.\u201d Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws\u2026 They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. Extended Arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7660917043685913}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Content: Keep in mind that this is not a debate of whether it is illegal for prisoners to vote, but of whether they \"should\" be allowed this right. Therefore, referencing a policy/law such as the Supreme court decision of 2000 for the disenfranchisement of voting rights is likely to be deemed as irrelevant in the context of this debate, so debate with caution. Opening Arguments:Felony disenfranchisement: excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence (Wikipedia). Also this is a general issue, but I will be referring to the US frequently, since US polices condone felony disenfranchisement for the most part. Felony disenfranchisement varies in degree in some circumstances sometimes based on the type/degree of the offence or what state they were located in when serving their sentencing. Prisons are generally seen as a punishment for some convictions while for other convictions, they are seen as a means for rehabilitation. This perspective usually varies depending on the viewpoints of the outside parties. Arguably, punishment is the subjective perspective while rehabilitation is the objective perspective. The same case can be likened to voting disenfranchisement. Many prisoners (especially those with minor offenses), contrary to popular belief, strive to better themselves and rejoin society. Felony disenfranchisement is often an overly excessive punishment for certain prisoners. Prisoners already have their liberty take away, including their rights to be with their family and friends or occupy a job whilst in prison. It is certainly justified for them to serve a court's sentencing, but why should their right to vote be taken away as well? Especially considering that there are prisoners serving relatively short-term sentences and who had committed minor offenses. Prisoners would be less likely to be involved in criminal activities if encouraged to participate in the politics as part of their rehabilitation. -Enfranchisement not only bestows self-esteem and a sense of purpose in society, but encourages research and participation with contemporary political issues. \"To deny this right is to force the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family\" (Parris). Felony disenfranchisement conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Granting them the right to vote would likely be consistent with the American tradition of making our democracy more and more inclusive. Arguably there would be reduced re-offending rates and perhaps a society with fewer criminals as a long term effect. Felony disenfranchisement distorts the total voter turnout. -In 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together prevented \"an estimated 5.85 million felons\" from voting, \"up from 1.2 million in 1976\" (Wikipedia). \"This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. \" The estimated population for Florida in 2010 was\"18,804,623\" (US census) and it had the highest disenfranchised voters for any state, with \"1.5 million\" disenfranchised from voting. That is roughly a calculated 12.5% of the total population that was not represented in Florida. It would virtually be an inaccurate representation in our society, a largely democratic society that prides itself for representing the general populace rather than a select few. The equal protection clause can also come into play if it is recognized in the courts that prisoners who are colored are not represented and are racially discriminated against in terms of voting. Prisoners are not treated as \"civically dead\" when it benefits the government. - Prisoners remain liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. This is virtually taxation without representation. Many convicts have difficulty finding employment when put on parole after serving a sentence, and so this would be an unfair and excessive punishment when taking that into account. The support of felony disenfranchisement is largely based on subjective values of furthering justice against those convicted, rather than objective values concerning what would really function well in terms of rehabilitation and voter representation. Sources Utilized:-. http://quickfacts.census.gov...-https://en.wikipedia.org...-http://archive.fairvote.org...-http://insidetime.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "b952f294-2019-04-18T14:13:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7646762132644653}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Thank you for the challenge and good luck. Before beginning, there is a piece of evidence of his that needs updating. It is actually 5.3 million people that can not vote because of felonies, not 3.9 like stated in his last speech. However, this is 2006 and the number may be even greater now. http://www.time.com... My case/his case\u2026 I oppose: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I. Value- Fairness Within this round, you will see how it is not fair to give equal voice to someone who has kept their trust with the society, and someone who has not. In essence, when someone commits a felony, they deserve to lose the right to vote. Also, you will see that in order to get a FAIR decision, you must eliminate the felon vote. Please cross apply his point about how there 5.3 million felons who do not have the right to vote. Do you really want that overwhelming factor to decide most every election for the rest or your life? II. Criterion- Just Deserts Just Deserts is basically giving people what they justly deserve. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. Why? Because a right is something you have until you lose it (like gun rights)\u2026 And since voting decides who will run our country, it is too important to put in the hands of felons (5.3 MILLION). Give not only the felons, but also the society what they deserve and vote CON. ============================================= Since my arguments go so well against his, I'm just going to attack his case right now. Against Value- Equality --> I immediately challenge my opponent to say when we treat any felons any differently than a regular citizen. EVERYONE was given citizenship and the FELONS lost it. If a regular citizen committed a felony tomorrow, then he/she would be treated EQUALY and would also lose his/her right to vote. In other words, HIS value is flowed to the CON side! Against Criterion- Democracy --> Democracy still exists whether or not you vote pro OR con. However, on the con side, it exists in a much better form\u2026 Take for example, the 5.3 million that currently can not vote. Let's say that a candidate was up that was willing to be EXTREMELY less harsh against criminals. The extra 5.3 million votes that he would get would create would be enough to change ANY election in his/her favor. But is that what we want to be deciding our elections? Another angle to look at is the fact that more candidates would begin to be more persuaded toward being nice to criminals since there would be much more votes that they could get (since politicians are nothing without the voters). Definitions seem fine\u2026 I will just use common knowledge from the judges for definition unless abuse comes from my opponent (or even from me). Against Contention I: His first contention is completely useless because we will always have a democracy regardless of if felons can vote or not. A democracy is something that gives people a choice, and the felons already made their choice of going against our society, and because of that, they do not deserve the right to vote for people who help (or hinder) our society. Against Contention II: 5.3 MILLION voters would put the election into the hands of not only criminals, but FELONS!!!!! Politicians would inevitably reach out to these voters by crafting their views to be likeable by them. Against Contention III: The problem with his quote is that we're not dealing with voting qualification, but DISqualification (which is two totally different things). Then he goes on to say that this will lead to a lot of people not being able to vote. Well, this law has been around for a long time and it hasn't been blown out of proportions. It still only restricts felons. No discrimination at all, men, women, white, black, Republican, Democrat, all felons can't vote. And as far as the amendments go, realize that it says that we can't DENY these people the right to vote if (then it lists various things) but NONE of them have to do with laws they have broken. In the end, felons ought to NOT receive the right to vote because they broke a serious enough law to lose the right. If someone abuses a gun, we take it away from them for good reason. If someone abuses society (through becoming a felon), then we take away their right to vote. It's only fair because we DON'T want felons to run our society. Please vote con\u2026 Thank you!", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa317-2019-04-18T19:37:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.76466965675354}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners have forfeited the right to vote by breaking the law Content: Voting is a privilege, not a right, and people in prison has shown they are not worthy of that privilege by breaking the law in the first place. Is it not oxymoronic to grant someone who has broken the law a privilege granted by the law? If prisoners are unsatisfied with their condition, they should not have got there in the first place, and they have only themselves to blame. If they believe their sentence is too long, then perhaps we should consider changing some other laws, but not grant this one. Would you give someone who has recently blown someone else up the privilege of voting for the leader of our community? What kind of leaders do we want?", "qid": 7, "docid": "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00031-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.764191746711731}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: My opponent didn't attack my first contention so it holds contention 2 THE FELON HAS COMMITTED A CRIME the criminal has done a crime and should be punished for it.", "qid": 7, "docid": "6bf94fce-2019-04-18T19:32:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7633206844329834}, {"content": "Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \" According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment \"succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. \" Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon\"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. \" When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7625266313552856}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7619324922561646}, {"content": "Title: We cannot assume that they do not wish to vote. Content: While many prisoners may not wish to vote we cannot assume this goes for the entire prisoner population. It is their right to have the option of voting and the choice of whether or not to use it.", "qid": 7, "docid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00059-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7617729902267456}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: I believe that prisoners should have the right to vote. I believe this because in politics the overwhelming view on crime is that longer and harsher sentences are better. No one is making election promises about how they're going to be soft on crime, it's all 'harsh on crime'. So I believe that by giving the prisoners the vote, politicians would have to have a more balanced, and rehabilitation views on criminals.", "qid": 7, "docid": "cefb9306-2019-04-18T12:17:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7615377902984619}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.", "qid": 7, "docid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7609689235687256}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent has conceded this debate with the statement \"Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute\". Felons are members of society. Due to the lack of an argument from my opponent, I will provide a list of democracies which allow for felon voting rights, both restricted and unrestricted: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India (yes, India allows convicted \"felons\" to vote after release from prison), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa (where Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon, served as President), Sweden, Switzerland, United States (where convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens, is not barred from voting, running for senate, and fulfilling his duties as Senator), United Kingdom, and Ukraine all allow some type of restoration of voting rights for felons. (http://felonvoting.procon.org...) Thank you.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.760546088218689}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: Background Now, I will point out that it has been declared constitutional for states to disenfranchise felons in the supreme court case Richardson v. Ramirez[1] so here I will not be presenting any legal reasons why felons should be allowed to vote, as the legal reasons show that they can't. Instead, I will focus on explaining why this ruling is wrong. Not every felon has committed a terrible crime. In many states, it is considered a felony to possess a certain amount of marijuana[2]. Thus, also in these states, your voting rights can be taken away just because you have marijuana. I think that since many states are now legalizing marijuana, and a majority(53%) support marijuana legalization [3] with that number rising every year, it is safe to say that people are beginning to realize that marijuana use or possession is not a crime. Since marijuana possession, I consider, a lesser crime than say murder or theft, why should all felons have their voting rights taken away? Some didn't do anything that really harms others. I imagine there are other \"felonies\" that most people would agree are not actually that major of a crime, yet they are felonies and they would prevent you from being able to vote in basically every state. In addition, some estimate that at least 10% of convicts are innocent of their crime and wrongly placed in prison.[5] Why should these people be denied their right to vote just because the other 90% of prisoners did commit a terrible crime? I consider it a worse problem to deny 10 innocent people the right to vote, than to allow 90 felons the right to vote. While it seems like it's proper to deny a murderer or another felon the right to vote, I'll explain in my next point why this is flawed as well. Laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral Since laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral, and there is tons of evidence to suggest that morals are subjective[4], why should criminals have their voting rights stripped away over something that is subjectively wrong? Even murder is subjectively wrong, as many cultures consider murder okay in some circumstances that America or other nations would consider immoral[4]. Since I believe laws are supposed to reflect what society deems what is moral, shouldn't criminals still have a say over such laws? Prisoners are still part of society, albeit they are put somewhere they can no longer harm others, but they still are part of society, they are just separate from most people in society. Just imagine one day that society deems it morally justifiable to murder someone in a specific circumstance, however the law is lagging a little behind society. Then what begins to happen is a massive influx of prisoners will occur as more and more people are murdering under those circumstances, and more and more people are being denied a right to vote. This makes it impossible to change the law, even if majority of people want to make it legal to murder in that instance, and it\u2019s considered moral to do so, but the law can never be changed because people are constantly being thrown in prison. Now, perhaps my opponent will say there is good reason to have murder under all circumstances to be illegal, so it should never change, but if majority of society agrees it is moral, why should there be a law against it? In addition, it is merely my opponent\u2019s subjective opinion that murder would be wrong in that instance, so what makes their subjective opinion better than others\u2019? This is all hypothetical of course, I don\u2019t know if my opponent would have brought this point up, but I rebutted it in case they would. Since murder is universally agreed upon in our society to be wrong, perhaps we can go back to the the marijuana usage argument to get my point across better, if it seemed my murder example was weak. Most people believe marijuana usage is morally okay, now imagine if a majority of people who believe marijuana usage should be legal are thrown in prison because they, themselves, use marijuana. The law can thus never change, even though marijuana usage is seen as moral by society, because people are getting their voting rights taken away. This can apply to any action that changes to be moral by society's view. I will leave my argument at this for now. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.drugtreatment.com... [3]http://www.pewresearch.org... [4]http://www.debate.org... [5]http://www.tandfonline.com...", "qid": 7, "docid": "cefb92e7-2019-04-18T12:32:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7604701519012451}, {"content": "Title: Felon Voting Content: Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, \"In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting.\" \"In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing.\" Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, \"We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.\" In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the \"average Joe.\" By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.\" Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, \"Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right.\" Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as \"The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1).\" It states that, \"No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.\" This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.", "qid": 7, "docid": "bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7602613568305969}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners should be given the right to vote Content: So what my opponent does to start off is beg the question. To put it simply, con needs to give a reason for why prisoners shouldn\"t be able to vote and in response, con says that because they don\"t deserve their extra rights. So what this leads me to ask is, why don\"t they deserve their extra rights. Yes prisoners don\"t have the right to see their family everyday, but does that mean that they shouldn\"t have the right to vote? The justice systems are not infallible in deciding what is right or wrong. Therefore saying that because the justice system thinks this, is invalid. And I say to con again, everyone commits things that have a negative impact on society, and my opponent assumes that a crime had to do with another individual\"s rights. Someone could have being doing drugs alone, but that did not infringe on anyone else's rights. Then my opponent brings up a line that I believe is really foolish, \"you can't do the time, don't do the crime\", because this assumes that every prisoner did a crime on purpose, and that they had a choice, and that their other option was better. Then my opponent says, \"there are only very RARE cases where people are imprisoned on false grounds\", but this is equivalent to saying that not all rapes are reported, because how would you know if they weren\"t reported? My opponent assumes on this point that people who have been imprisoned on false grounds, have been recognized as innocent. Con later says, \"crimes that authority and the rest of society not only deems, but knows, are bad.\", in which con sees something being bad as objective. Someone doesn\"t know something is bad, but they can think it. Then my opponent attempts to attack my point about prisoners giving back to society by saying giving back is, \"contributing to a community in some way\", but my opponent neglects that giving a vote to someone who will provide a better future, is contributing to the community. And if my opponent says that prisoners won\"t vote for the right person, then she assumes ignorance in prisoners, but not in the people from the outside. Has anyone heard of the prison debaters that beat a Harvard debate team? Then my opponent says they are leeching off families, well how does that make their opinion invalid. People leech off of families outside of prison, but this doesn\"t make their opinion invalid. My opponent\"s point is essentially, they have done something bad, even though everyone does bad things, therefore they shouldn't lose their right to have their opinions heard. \"They may not even be out by the time this government they vote for is in power.\" Well to this I can just simply say, what about the people that will be? Also they don\"t need to be outside of jail for the effects of the president to affect them. The president could make certain regulations to prisons, which will affect the prisoners. Therefore con\"s point about vicariously living, is refuted. The purpose of the prison is not to remove them from society, unless my opponent makes the point that the people in prison aren\"t a society. I would rather say that the purpose is to rehabilitate them. Then my opponent brings up the same foolish quote, after I made the point that some people make mistakes. And con states that if we saw every murder as an accident, then nothing would be punished, but i\"m not saying everything is a mistake. I\"m saying there are cases where it is, so therefore you would be taking away their right with no reason. Also my opponent neglects that people get punished for their mistakes. Even if it is a mistake, people do get punished. It\"s not as if someone accidently murders someone in court the judge will let him go. Therefore my point that mistakes does make us human, still stands. My opponent continuously begs the question by saying prisoners shouldn\"t deserve this and that, without giving actual contentions. I\"m asking why they don\"t deserve to be given those extra rights. Con then goes on to say that people don\"t deserve rights if they took the life of another human being and brings up the Dylan Roof example. First con says that wasn\"t a mistake which I guess makes my opponent a mind reader. Someone doesn\"t need to seek help for something to not be a mistake, and even if someone put himself in a situation, that doesn\"t necessarily mean that this person intended for this type of outcome. The stress and certain anxieties could have turned him irrational, and make him do something he regretted. Now whether something someone did was devastating is subjective to the person, someone may say something is a big deal and someone else may not. But since it still is a negative impact on society, we judge whether a negative impact warrants for someone to take away their voice. But I point out again that everyone has some sort of negative impact on society. My opponent keeps on bringing up the point of negative impacts which I have refuted, con also brings up how they have been taken away from society but I have refuted that as well, and then says they have taken away the rights of someone else, therefore their rights should be taken away but two wrongs don\"t make a right so that point is invalid. Now, my opponent again brings up how raping or killing someone can not be counted as a mistake, but I feel like my opponent is confusing mistake with accident. Con is essentially saying that people can\"t regret what they did, but as we all know is false. And my Ted Bundy example was not to prove that people can\"t do mistakes regarding cases with rape and murder, but that they are criminals and smart. Again i\"m not making the point that everything is a mistake, I\"m making the point that prisoners can make mistakes. And my opponent essentially groups all the prisoners together by saying they are, family leechers, non mistake making, and dumb. Then con pulls out a straw man when saying, oh pro says mistakes are human, that must mean my opponent is saying rape and murder is human, which is not what I\"m saying. I\"m not saying that the specific acts we did is what makes us human, but I\"m saying the fact that we are infallible and make mistakes, is what makes us human. Con is basically saying, if thinking is what makes us human, then thinking about raping someone is what makes us human. Con asks where is the line drawn to where we have the right to take someone's right away, I say where is the line drawn that we do? I ask my opponent if someone with an impeccable record loiters, do they really think that their right to vote should be taken away. \"The last thing I would want to have as a victim of a traumatic incident such as a rape is knowing my rapist is voting and getting the sense of merging into society like \"everyone else\" and not really feeling the consequences of his crimes which is isolation from society. An election comes round every 3 years (in my country) and this should not be prioritised over justice and the isolation of a person who committed a felony from society (as prison does) and taking away any extra rights they may have is something they deserve as once again\" Lastly, my opponent reiterates points that I have already refuted. If my opponent thinks that the purpose of prison is to exclude someone from society, then what are the harsh conditions for and I suggest the people and voters to look up the definition of society. Then con strawmans again by saying that they wouldn\"t feel right if prisoners weren\"t having the consequences for their actions, which is assuming that the only consequence they get is their right to vote taken away, which is not the case. And again begs the question by saying prisoners do not deserve extra rights, without saying why and me not refuting it. In conclusion, my opponent makes tremendous generalizations and assumptions, as well as making strawman\"s.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ab4e671f-2019-04-18T13:07:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7596257925033569}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the \"democratic order\", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7588302493095398}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.", "qid": 7, "docid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7587817311286926}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. \"It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens,\" said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. \"I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies,\" Mr. Travis said. \"This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities.\" But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. \"If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else,\" said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the \"get tough on crime\" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00008-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7587023973464966}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I'd like to start out by making the following observations. 1) My opponent has dropped his ENTIRE case. (Value, VC, and contention.) 2) My opponent has dropped nearly all of my case. (Observations, Value, VC, and first contention.) Moving on to my opponents rebuttal. ----\"First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy.\" This relates back to my 2nd contention. However, my opponent is misunderstanding my point. I'm stating that it is EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT to take away felons' right to vote. The idea of the double standard was merely to enforce the idea that it is punishing felons excessively by incarcerating them while taking away their right to vote, which, as I said, destroys their right of self-determination. ---\"therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validating my side of the argument.\" I have several responses to this: a) Link this back to my second observation, which my opponent completely ignored. It directly refutes what he said. b) I never said felons should lose the right to vote while incarcerated, I only said it was the burden of the affirmative to prove felons in society should be able to vote. Thus my opponent's logic is flawed as this alleged \"argument\" that I make doesn't exist. c) Even if you do not buy into those two arguments, my opponent is wrong in saying this. Simply link everything he is saying back to both my contentions, which he dropped. He is 1) destroying the right of self-determination and 2) giving excessive punishment.", "qid": 7, "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7584033012390137}, {"content": "Title: \"No prisoner should have the vote\" Content: I will be arguing against the motion that no prisoner should be allowed to vote. Some key terms; \"The vote\" - the right to political, democratic representation. Be warned, this debate will be fairly Anglo-centric; bear this in mind before accepting it. \"Prisoner\" - a person tried and found guilty of a crime, to whom prison time is conferred. \"No prisoner\" implies an absolute blanket ban on voting; the pro position must argue for this, but the con position is not an argument for every prisoner to have a vote. It is the view that some prisoners may be given the vote, and this right may be conditional. This first round is for acceptance. (This is my first debate in this format, so if I've missed anything out please let me know/provide it.)", "qid": 7, "docid": "f219edc4-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7570230960845947}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners getting the vote Content: I'll agree with you on that. Not every person in prison has committed a true crime. But, my main argument would be that they do not pay taxes. They also don't have an income, I understand that. But in the end of the day, every other voter pays taxes, has a legal ID, and, typically, meets other requirements needed in their state. Though they don't always get the chance to gain an income, by being in prison, they aren't exactly giving anything back to society (such as those who aren't in prison). I know that in the state of Florida, you must be a registered citizen, have a valid driver's license or state-issued ID, and also not be a convicted felon without the rights of voting to have been restored. Voting is just among one of the rights that the prisoner loses when they get convicted. While in prison, they can't legally drive, vote, smoke cigarettes (in most, if not, all prisons), nor can they drink alcohol. By giving them the right to vote, shouldn't we give them the right to do those other things, as long as they are of age?", "qid": 7, "docid": "e8d3697d-2019-04-18T16:46:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7567693591117859}, {"content": "Title: It would ruin constituencies Content: The judgment does not actually mean that prisoners have to have the vote as under the European Convention the right to vote is a very qualified right. Up until 2000 there was a blanket ban, but now people on remand before conviction or sentence can vote because they have a home address. It would be unfair that a whole prison's worth of voters could sway a council or a general election because the prison is so large it would affect the constituency size and count as a large part of the voters in the constituency and it would marginalise the votes of law abiding citizens in constituencies.", "qid": 7, "docid": "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00035-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7552648782730103}, {"content": "Title: In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates Content: \"This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison?\" Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Once there time is up, so is their punishment. When the punishment is over, their rights shall be returned. \"The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement\" \"Like I stated earlier. Prisoners commit the crime to society as a whole, so they don't really care for a society. Also, democracy is irrelevant, since America is not a true democracy. In a republic, we elect officials to vote for us. (Electoral college). \"First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? \" I do not want to withhold info. They have access to news. But there is no real point to them voting because when you go to prison, you are typically there for a while. You don't go to prison for 3 months. If you are sent to prison, we are talking in term,s of years. \"However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives.\" Not in prison. I can imagine many prisoners don't care. They are not directly affected because they are always put in the lowest tax bracket. You agreed with my argument with children and handicapped people. I see no difference in children in prisoners. They both eventually gain the right to vote, and you essentially agreed to both sides in that statement. \"What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic.\" I never said anything close to this. Prisoners are not guaranteed all of their rights. Similarly to how students lose some rights. My argument of this stands because you dropped this argument. \"When prisoners can vote while behind bars, that's one more reason for them to feel like they're still part of the outside world and one less reason for them to feel alienated and break the law again.\" Also, you failed to prove this from the last round, so this is officially invalid. You also dropped my argument where I talked about how gangs could influence the prisoner vote. You dropped my argument talking about how it is not unconstitutional for prisoners to lose a few rights, because students justifiably lose a few rights in school. You also dropped my argument talking how prisoners likely will return to prison. You dropped my rebuttal talking about how prisoners are not a part of society, mainly because prison is meant to seclude them. Thanks", "qid": 7, "docid": "de499a0-2019-04-18T15:30:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7547714710235596}, {"content": "Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: First, it should be readily apparent that denying a convicted felon the right to vote is NOT unconstitutional; my opponent has already (and apparently without realizing it) quoted the very text from the Constitution which shows this. Repeating that quotation - the 14th Amendment - here, with the relevant text highlighted: \"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\" Carefully note that phrase, \"without due process of law.\" The rights enumerated in the Constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, are not and never were intended to be absolute and inviolable. The fact that we imprison people in the first place (a clear violation of the \"right to liberty,\" if that right were to be considered \"absolute\"), and that such imprisonment and other punishments were clearly and explicitly anticipated by the Constitution, shows this. The States can, through the due process of law, deny various rights as punishment for infractions of the law. But why deny voting rights to convicted criminals? First, this is clearly a part of the punishment prescribed for various crimes (in general, that class of crimes that we call felonies). You know going in that if you commit certain criminal acts, and are convicted of them, that you are going to be stripped of certain rights that otherwise would be yours as a citizen. In short, this is your choice - and if you value your right to vote, it is an additional incentive not to commit the crime in the first place. And from society's perspective, this makes sense. We do not grant the right to participate in government, through voting, to just anyone. You must be of a certain age, and in general you must be of reasonably sound mind. But a convicted criminal has already demonstrated one major shortcoming regarding a quality that any reasonable society should expect of its voters. Simply put, in committing a crime, you are demonstrating that you are NOT willing to abide by your society's laws in the first place - should you then expect to have a hand in the making of those laws? Our system of voting rights is based on the assumption that voters will have an interest in promoting the good of the society as a whole - why should we grant voting right to those who have demonstrated the exact opposite? It might be claimed that the permanent loss of the right to vote constitutes an unusual and extreme punishment, one which is not warranted in many cases. That's fine, and the law already provides a means through which it may be addressed. The ex-convict retains the right to petition the State, through legal channels, for their right to vote to be returned. In many states, the right to vote is automatically restored after a specified time period following completion of the convict's sentence, assuming of course that no further crime has been committed by the individual during that period. Given, then, that the franchise IS very commonly restored to ex-convicts - especially if it is important enough to them that they pursue it - what justification can there be for eliminating this part of the punishment for such demonstrably anti-social individuals?", "qid": 7, "docid": "7581a608-2019-04-18T19:58:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7543917894363403}, {"content": "Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country.", "qid": 7, "docid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7539811134338379}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I accept my opponents value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. value and criteria -Maximizing rights Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). My value and criteria is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. Contention one: Most say \"If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?\" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. Contention two: The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. Contention three: If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. I am one who believes in responsibility. Everyone on this earth has responsibility and can use it. But by granting them a right they don't deserve, they are taking us for granted and we are letting them. Now prisons take such good care of their occupants, that some would prefer living in a prison because they can get pampered and taken care of. It's been said that there has even been said that some felons have purposely committed a crime just to be in prison where they feel is a better place to live. So I rest my case by saying things because I believe my ethics are correct, and that justice need be taken place if so deserved. For all these reasons I negate.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa393-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7537702918052673}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners getting the vote Content: Prisoners should get the vote.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e8d3697d-2019-04-18T16:46:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7536410689353943}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: I affirm the resolution \"in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote\" For the purposes of clarification I would like to define the following terms Democracy-government by the people Felon-any person who has committed a felony Retain-to keep All of these definitions came from the Webster's dictionary I would now like to offer the following value of Equality Equality is defined as the right of all people to have the same opportunity as everyone else in this case voting. Equality is essential because if you don't have equality in a democratic society then it isn't a true democracy because all people don't have the right to have a say in that society. To accompany my value is would like to offer the criterion of Mills Marketplace of Ideas This criterion pertains to the resolution because it states that the best or most accurate idea comes from when all people have a say in an idea. This is perfect for a democracy because it lets all people have a say in the democracy. And when the most people have a say then the best outcome happens and this is the best thing for society. Moving on to my first contention Felons wouldn't use their votes for election fraud. The argument that a felon would commit election fraud with his/her vote is an invalid argument for many reasons. First there aren't enough felons to significantly create a large scale fraud. Second they have no reason to. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 1 says In their most straight forward incarnations, these two concerns have been expressed respectively, as a fear that ex-convicts might use their votes to alter the content or administration of the criminal law as a relief that the disqualification of former felons is necessary to guard against vote fraud and related election offenses. No evidence suggests that ex-felons would base their votes solely, or even partially, on candidate's positions on penal issues rather than other matters of policy and politics. Furthermore, even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive that those of the population as a whole., regardless of how they might vote on issues of crime and the administration of justice, ex-felons are unlikely to constitute more than a tiny percentage of the population, and thus are electorally insignificant. What this means is that supporters of disenfranchisement argue that, having shown a propensity to break the law felons are more likely to violate the particular prohibition against election fraud. Whether or not this characterization holds true, however a blanket exclusion of all ex-offenders and felons in order to protect society from those who would commit electoral offenses is clearly over inclusive. Other, less restrictive means of preventing vote fraud exist. This relates to my value because it states that since felons would not use their votes to alter the validity of the ballot box that they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. This brings me to my second contention Disenfranchisement works against rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement hurts felons because it takes away their right to have a say in their society. It also works against the prison systems attempts to rehabilitate the prisoners. This claim is validated by Harvard Law Review 2 which says Disenfranchisement of offenders simultaneously justifies and is justified by and idea that deviants are the source and embodiment of corruption, pollution, and moral turpitude: that they can and must be isolated, fenced out, and politically sterilized. As they are not we, their impurities are not ours. Self-congratulation of this sort may comfort, but does not heal. Disenfranchisement should be recognized and rejected as an atavistic, self-perpetuating reflex that serves no legitimate purpose. Disenfranchisement indisputably harms the stigmatized offender. Disenfranchisement also shows that people have little faith in the rehabilitation attempts of the prison systems. It shows the prisoners that society thinks that they cannot be trusted to make a decision about the way that they would want to live. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 3 says The very premise of lifelong disenfranchisement, that a former offender must never again participate in the political life of the community, indicates that society has less faith in the rehabilitatative possibilities of the prison that its rhetoric might suggest. Regardless of whether the penal system can attain the goal of rehabilitation, pretending that we are doing something we are not does not advance the debate. Such pretence merely advances an illusion of enlightenment, which serves only to mask the brutal nature of the prison from those who incarcerate others. What this means is that by disenfranchising felons we are degrading them in a society and working against rehabilitation. It also shows that people have little faith in the governmental programs in the prisons as well. This relates to my value because if you begin to work against people then you begin to separate them from the equality of the society which leads me to my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination. When a felon has their right to vote revoked it leads to other discriminations against that felon. It is also shown that disenfranchisement is driven by racism so it is in fact discriminatory there is evidence to support this Harvard law review 4 says the notion that criminality springs solely from hopelessly different moral defectives blinds us to the social and political components of crime. As long as crime is conceived of as \"their\" problem rather than ours, amelioration of its causes will remain an impossible task. Legislators in states that disenfranchise offenders should consider carefully the meanings and effects of this exclusionary regulation. As a discriminatory practice based on irrational fears and destructive stereotypes, disenfranchisement has no place in an American community. Disenfranchisement is a symbol, and it is the wrong sort of symbol to legitimate in law. It is a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation; a symbol of difference, rather than commonality; a symbol of domination instead of equality. What this evidence proves is that Disenfranchisement separates felons from the rest of society by sending a symbol of domination over the felons. This relates to my value because when you have dominion in a society it can never fully reach its potential because someone's voice is always going to be left out but when you have equality then no one gets discriminated against and everyone becomes successful it is for all of these reasons that I urge an affirmative ballot thank you.", "qid": 7, "docid": "b20f7665-2019-04-18T19:34:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7533953785896301}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. Content: I affirm the resolution, Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. In order to clarify the resolution, I offer the following definitions. (Webster's New World Dictionary) Democracy (root of democratic) is defined as a \"government by the people either directly or through elected representative.\" This includes \"acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of right, opportunity and treatment.\" A Felon is defined as a person guilty of a major crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison. It is important to note that the majority of felons who are denied the right to vote are no longer in prison. My value for the round is democracy. By confining the round to a democratic society, the resolution implies that democracy should be valued. The value criterion is maximizing rights. A democracy is grounded in the fact that all citizens have equal rights under the law. When rights are violated, this degrades the democracy. The most important right in maintaining a democracy is the right to vote and participate in government. That is the fundamental principle of a democracy. As written by Steven Earl Bennett in the American Journal of Political Science, \"the most fundamental criterion of a fully functioning democratic system is citizen participation.\" Therefore to ensure that we have a stable democracy we must maximize people's rights, especially the right to vote. Contention One: By banning felons from voting, we set the stage for others to be disenfranchised as well. Felons are a unique part of society. Most felons are part of poor minority groups. They have unique experiences and a unique point of view. If we allow this minority group to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others? As Alexis Tocqueuille wrote in his book Democracy in America, \"Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it all together.\" By denying felons the vote, we make it possible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised as well. This is bad because it can multiply to violate the rights of many more people. That goes against democratic values which are to maximize rights for everyone. Contention Two: To ensure that rights are not violated, it is important to restore ex-felons the right to vote and to reintegrate them into society. Sub point A: Ex-felons are trying to rejoin society. By denying them rights, we alienate them, making them more likely to commit another felony. As outlined in the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008, \"allowing people to vote after release from prison encourages participation in civic life and helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior.\" Without the restoration of this right, ex-felons are more likely to commit another felony, violating the rights of other. Whether it is right to life property, or some other right, this hurts a democracy. This kind of violation of rights is bad and contributes to destabilizing a democracy. Sub point B: By denying ex-felons the right to vote, we continue to violate their rights. Ex-felons have already served what courts deemed to be a just sentence and have already paid their debt. There is no reason to continue punishing them. As U.S. Senator Russ Feingold said, \"For a nation that depends on the participation of its citizens, it is fundamentally un-American to deny the vote to people who are living and working as law abiding citizens. Furthermore, the more doors we close on people trying to rejoin society, the more likely it is we will drive them back to the behaviors we want them to leave behind.\" Ex-felons are hard working, newly law abiding citizens. By denying felons the vote, we not only violate their rights as a citizen but undermine our democracy. In order to have a good democracy, we must maximize the rights of everyone, including felons and stripping ex-felons of the right to vote does not achieve this. Contention Three: By banning felons from voting, we cripple our democracy. For a democracy to work all views must be taken into account. Felons belong to the group of lower class minorities that are least represented. If these groups do not cast many votes, they have little influence and it becomes likely their rights will be violated. In the American Journal of Political Science David Resnick writes, \"Nonvoting is said to skew policy in the direction of participants because politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote.\" Banning felons from voting quiets the voice of minorities with high percentages of felons. According to Resnick, this will make it unlikely that politicians will pay them much attention and more likely that politicians will violate their rights. This goes against what we strive for in a democracy, maximization of rights, and weakens the democracy as a whole. For all these reasons, I affirm.", "qid": 7, "docid": "41f862a6-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7533037662506104}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. \"Nineteen states \"may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. \"In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is \"legal ground for divorce.\" \"In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. \"In six states a felon can never hold public employment. \"Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. \"In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. \"Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. \"Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. \"All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. \"People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. \"Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. \"The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an \"approved\" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , \"Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out \"In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com...", "qid": 7, "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7532715201377869}, {"content": "Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Fair points that my opponent had to say about my case. But now I will have to do the job of proving them wrong. 1. Broadness of a felon My opponent gives the usual things an ex-felon could do. Though he makes the case that after they have done there time in jail they learn there mistake. I agree with that statement, but my case is to help young kids not get into crime. What is more important the 5.83 million ex-felons, or the 74.8 million minors learning that doing drugs, and alcohol is cool. 5.83 million people need to be an example to the 74.8 million minors living in America. It is about the new generation. Focus on the right now, instead of the past. We can get them financially secure, but they have to serve as an example to our minors. 2. Taxation without representation My opponent tries to make the claim that there debt to society has been served in jail, and it should be a right for them to vote. I respect that my opponent is trying to protect the 2% of America, but I am trying to protect the 74.8 million minors that can get in trouble with the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million Americans to 1 million. We should have these ex-felons as examples to the larger demographic. We need to protect the 74.8 million minors. We need to focus on the right now. We need to focus on the greater benefit of the 74.8 million than the 5.83 million Americans. 3. Ex-Felons go back to jail His argument in a way helps my case, because he is saying that this is a way felons can actually help themselves. We should give them jobs, but we shouldn't give them voting rights because they could be put up as an example. 4. Benefits of ex-felons voting My opponent said that countries do well if they let ex-felons voice there opinions. Ex-felons can voice their opinions anytime in America. Maintaining our status as a free country has nothing to do with the resolution, therefore it is invalid. My opponent also said the returning there vote can integrate the criminal system. I said earlier in this argument that they still have the power to voice there opinions. They can create awareness about how tough it is in prisons. But they should also serve as an example to the 74.8 million minors who might commit a crime. It is truly the greater benefit for our society. 5. Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting My opponent tries to make the case that there is discrimination against minorities. I totally agree that there is discrimination against minorities when it comes to the prison system. That is why I have been trying to stress through out this whole case that the ex-felons should serve as an example to our new generation. I think, and my opponent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is trying to say that giving these rights back to them will fight discrimination. He also stated that these ex-felons come from poor neighborhoods. That is exactly why we should have ex-felons as an example to the poorer neighborhoods. We should teach these neighborhoods the consequences of their actions. It will serve as a greater benefit for American society.", "qid": 7, "docid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7520439624786377}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: Having limits is not equatable to losing a right. Me losing the right to vote is not the same as me not being allowed to call someone the n word. The reason our jail system sucks is not because the institution of jail is inherently flawed. It is because of the way we use it. When people do drugs, we just keep sending them to jail instead of rehabilitating them. Some crimes needs more rehabilitation than jail but that doesn't mean we should get rid of jail. Also, what would we do if people didn't go to jail anymore? With my morals argument, you seem to be missing the point. The point is that assuming all felons is unfair. People have this misconception that the only felonies are murder and rape thus felons all have bad morals. This is untrue and this is bigotry! These people already have served their time. They've already been punished! Taking away a person's right IS dehumanizing them. Stop saying voting is a privilege--IT IS NOT. (All caps for emphasis). Election swaying goes the other way around as well. But even worse. It disenfranchises the poor, minority males, and likely Democrats. What the governor did was wrong but not nearly as bad as what is happening in states where felons cannot vote: \"And don't fall for the line that the nation's original plan called for denying felons the vote. In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons. Today, the impact of these laws still falls disproportionately on poor, minority males, a fact that seems to have skewed more than a few elections. Anyone familiar with the details of the deadlocked 2000 presidential race will recall that tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters were disenfranchised because of Florida's laws against voting by felons. A relative handful could have made Al Gore president.\" http://content.time.com... \"Consequences to your actions.\" Like I continue to tell you, these prisoners have already served their punishment. The 8th amendment says that punishment should not be cruel or unnecessary. This violates the 8th amendment. \"Again, jail doesn't always work. Plus I don't believe people should be in jail for a long time, but at the same time I believe in justice.\" Once more, the institution of jail is not the problem, the problem is the way we use and handle it in America. Onto your conclusion: OI think that it is immoral to take away people's rights. I think it is wrong to make someone follow the law but then not allow them to be part of the law process. No, taking away someone's right to vote will not kill them but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting their life. How horrible it must be to sit and watch, disenfranchised, as your country votes and makes decisions for YOU but you can't have a say.", "qid": 7, "docid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7512997388839722}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn\"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation\"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person\"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they \"stole\" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7512727379798889}, {"content": "Title: Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not ... Content: This is not an argument for letting all, or indeed any, prisoners vote. The imposition of a prison sentence is a good general index of the seriousness of a crime, and those who have committed serious crimes should suffer \u201ccivic death\u201d. Where people are exceptionally not imprisoned, they should be deprived of the right to vote for the period for which they would usually have been imprisoned.", "qid": 7, "docid": "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00020-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7511484622955322}, {"content": "Title: \"No prisoner should have the vote\" Content: Consider, if you will, that you have committed minor fraud, and have received a small sentence. You spend your time in prison across the corridor from a serial killer. Each day that passes makes you a lot closer to your release than each day does for the killer, and each hardship of prison you experience will be experienced for much longer by the killer after you are released, as is right and fair. However, your sentence happens to overlap with a General Election, and both you and the murderer are equally kept from voting. Would this sound unfair? The International Declaration of Human Rights agrees that yes, this is the case. The lack of differentiation when allotting this punishment and the heavy-handed nature of the voting restriction, purely on the basis of being in prison, is discriminatory. When a recent article in the Guardian revealed that in some prisons reoffending rates top 70%, it becomes ever clearer that the most important aspect of punishment for crime is the rehabilitation that follows, in order to prevent the cycle of repeating offences and thus drastically reduce crime rates. Thus, whilst a popular view opposing giving any prisoners the vote argues that it undermines the punishment of being separated from society, I would argue that in taking the vote away from all prisoners you take away a vital, if symbolic, way of rebuilding links to organised society and participation in everyday life. The vote alone would not be entirely sufficient to prevent prisoners from reoffending, but is a simple step with other benefits in terms of rights issues. Those who see the vote being taken away as a punishment fail to make an important differentiation. Whilst to lock someone up is to further limit their freedom of actions, to take away their vote and thus their representation in parliament is to limit their voice and their freedom of speech. No crime deserves the revoking of the right to freedom of speech, no matter how severe. There may be cases for the criminally insane or mentally infirm who are unable to make a rational choice when voting to lose this right, but not for the sane of mind who have wronged. This is because the legality of actions and the morality of actions often do not overlap. Whilst the law (and, I would hope, society) believes certain actions wrong, it may be the individual\u2019s opinion differs. Fine, lock them up, as they should not have freedom of actions if we are to keep society in order and protect everybody's rights to freedom from those who would take them away. However, their right to express these views is inalienable. Another common argument against giving the vote to prisoners claims that they would only vote in their own interests, voting for lower sentences and better conditions. The first stumbling block for this argument is that in theory everyone does. A rich person will vote for low taxes, a poor person for more welfare, so why not a prisoner for less laws and shorter prison stays? Whether this is an objectionable use of a vote or not, the right to vote this way is an option for everyone, and should not affect the right of any demographic to vote. Crucially, the number of prisoners in the UK as of 2010 was 85000, compared with the total UK population of 61.8 million \u2013 meaning prisoners would make up 0.1% of the population. The votes of prisoners will not bring into effect the collapse of society; they are a drop in the ocean of representational politics.", "qid": 7, "docid": "f219edc4-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7506219148635864}, {"content": "Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with \"summary offences\" and \"indictable offences\". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered \"correction\" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too \"untrustworthy\" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: \"Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders.\" (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons \"should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation\", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define \"ought\" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: \u2014used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be \"obligated\"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to \"advise\" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a \"natural expectation\" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the \"logical consequence\" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.", "qid": 7, "docid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7501755952835083}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Thank you for your courtesy and for a good debate. Like promised, I shall try and summarize this debate using the famed \"They say... I say\" format. I shall paraphrase my opponent's arguments in their strongest formulations. ------- HE SAYS, I SAY---------- My opponent says that a democratic society that deprives any of its members of the right to vote is not a democratic society. I say that democratic societies still retain their essential character even if they remove some voting rights, as in the case of children, the insane and the jailed. HE says that all citizens are equal and equally deserve the fundamental rights of a society. I say that citizens are created equal but distinguish themselves with their actions. He says that the loss of the voting rights of millions of felons is a grievous loss. I say giving the benefit of the doubt to the felons of the society rather than to the law-abiding members is a grievous loss. He says felons already fulfill their debt to society through jail time. I say that felons fittingly lose their right to the social laws that they flouted, just as drunk drivers lose their driving licenses. He says that the felon's past actions are simply a \"scar in the past\", and have no effect on his voting decisions. I say that actions are an indicator of judgement and that the felon's actions are like the grade F on the student's transcript that denies him many job opportunities. He says that a felon, like a non-felon, would have to choose either candidate A or B. I say the political reality is that out of candidates A....Z, the drug dealer can likely pick out someone who supports the legalization of harmful drugs. He says that we should assume felons possess the judgement required to vote. I say we should assume that felons lack the judgement to vote, until they prove otherwise. He quotes J.S.Mill. I do not quote J.S.Mill. He says we must give felons the chance to prove they're reformed. I agree, which is why I proposed the Pardons Commission in Round 1. ---------- Reader, as you vote, keep in mind that Pro, despite my explicit request, has failed to provide any concrete policy implications of his position. I have already demonstrated what my position would entail practically, giving the example of Mississippi, but you lack any idea how Pro's positions could be implemented. A vote for Pro would be a vote for something you do not understand concretely. To recap: Even in democratic societies, the right to vote is alienable. Felons should lose their right to vote as a form of punishment and to benefit society.", "qid": 7, "docid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7498911619186401}, {"content": "Title: Depriving prisoners their vote exceeds judge's punishment Content: Voting Rights of Prisoners. Australian Democrats Action Plan. - \"As part of their citizenship, convicted persons in detention should be entitled to vote. To deny them this is to impose an additional penalty on top of that judged appropriate by the court.\"", "qid": 7, "docid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00070-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7497112154960632}, {"content": "Title: Allowing prisoners to vote Content: Issue of PlagiarismThe entire R2 was pretty much copy and pasted. Regardless of the fact that Pro admitted this and provided links to the places he pasted from, it is still a shock that not a single argument of Pro's was his/her own.My Rebuttal\"People need to stop thinking about themselves, thus prisoners should have the right to vote!\" This is a baseless assertion that actually goes against the entire philosophy of democracy. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] In a democracy, where people vote on certain matters to reach a conclusion based on what the majority wants, it is supposed to be every person looking out for themselves (or what they believe to be best) and what the majority wants will inevitably become the conclusion.\"Prisoners are still members of our society.\"A prisoner, in the context of this debate, one in custody for doing a crime that relinquished their rights to be a citizen (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Thus, they are not functioning as members of society until they are freed.\"Give me one good reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote?\"If you have proven that you fail to understand the law by breaking it, or that you care so little that you'd be willing to do so then you have no right to be voting on who runs the show regarding it.\"So why shouldn't they decide on their future when they come out?\"This is debate is about convicts only. Ex-Cons were never mentioned in R1 or the resolution.The majority of your remaining debating is aobut Ex-convicts... This is not the debate at all.In actual fact unless you make a single original argument of your own, I have won this debate since I'm the only one actually debating my own thoughts.", "qid": 7, "docid": "146c9c8-2019-04-18T15:39:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7489694356918335}, {"content": "Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: To my opponent, thank you, and good luck in the final round [Overview] Some of my opponents 'crosschecks' appear to be sketchy, so I will try my best to depict what he attempts to argue. Also, you can ignore my opponents continuation of his argument on the comment section, for that his obviously against the rules and for good reason [My case-Observations] Observation I: America --> he accepted it, end of story Observation II: Felons/ Ex-felons Pretty much, my opponent argues that felons are put back into society, and therefore I have to extend this to felons that are in society --> Upon re-entry into society, felons are no longer considered a felon by society. If society still recognized them as a felon, they would still be in jail serving their felony. Because society has realized that their debt was paid off, they are now considered an ex-felon --> Because ex-felons are not implied by the resolution, anything pertaining to an ex-felon is inherently unresolutional [My case-Contentions] Contention I: Retribution My opponent argues my whole contention because I made an argument on how he was implying things that were not relevant to the resolution --> My opponent says that we have to look to the time frame from when felons get out. This is wrong because you are inferring something that is not implied by the resolution. For example, he says that all felons are eventually released (which I proved wrong; capital punishment, death in prison, life in jail, etc.) But, because he is looking post-resolution, why can't you look pre-resolution? I was simply using my opponents logic against him. If he is going to infer thinks that are not implied, I then am able to infer things that are not implied. Pre-resolution means giving babies the right to vote, which, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous and jeopardizes the whole democracy Contention II: Legal Consistency He argues that we do not have a legal system and that I value the right to vote over basic rights. --> The whole point of my argument was the fact that we do not have a legally consistent system, and that we must strive towards one, which include disenfranchisement during incarceration --> I do not value the right to vote over the right to speech. All positive rights are equal. I say that for a neutral arbiter to uphold standard principles of fairness to its constituents, the government must take away the right to vote because more intrinsic rights are withheld through incarceration Contention III: Double Standard My opponent says that I am 'turning the right to vote into a privilege' --> This is wrong. I, more than my opponent, value the right to vote. It is exactly why I value it that I take it away from undeserving people. By rewarding political rights and say in the government in incarceration, my opponent is condoning violent acts and setting a double standard to that of law-abiding citizens by making the law-breakers into the law-makers [My case-Value/Value Criteria] Value: Justice --> my opponent failed to attack my value, and so it can thus be extended Value Criteria: Maximization of Fairness --> Once again, he dropped his attack on my VC [His Case- Observations, Contentions, Value, Value Criterion] --> he dropped ALL of them. If you do not believe me, check his last post. All my arguments from the previous post are therefore extended [Voting Issues] (1) My opponent dropped his attack on my first observation, my value premise, and my value criteria (2) I defended my second observation and my contentions above (3) He dropped his WHOLE CASE on the last rebuttal. This includes his value, which his whole case is built upon. In LD rules, he forfeits his case (4) Because he has forfeited his case and did not present one, he has not reached his negative burden, which is to prove the resolution categorically false Thank you", "qid": 7, "docid": "9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7488659620285034}, {"content": "Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I affirm: Felons ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society. Definitions: Democratic society: society where the government is decided by the people, either directly or through representatives Felon: one who has committed a felony Retain: to keep in use. Observations: 1) The resolution states felon. All ex-felons are essentially felons as they have been convicted of a felony and therefore the negative must prove that all felons should lose the right to vote. 2) The definition of \"felon\" states one who \"has\" committed a felony. This indicates past events and thus it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that felons in society should retain the right to vote. My value for this debate is A Democratic Society, which is the inherent value indicated by the resolution. The resolution specifically states a democratic society, thus is should be the highest value. The value of a democratic society is upheld by the value criterion of protection of rights Since in a democratic society the government exists solely for the people, then therefore it is only logical that a democratic society's government ought to protect its citizens' rights. Contention 1) Right of self-determination. This is the right to shape the conditions of one's own existence and pursue one's own happiness. Underneath the classic inalienable rights, a democratic government ought to ensure people have this right, otherwise the government would not be just. Without the right to vote one has no say in government and control of the state that they are forced to live under and abide by the laws of. Therefore, they cannot possibly control their own life when they have no say in the government that controls their life. Additionally, granting felons the right to vote infringes neither on anyone's right to vote or right of self-determination. Contention2) The negative is punishing the person's crime already through incarceration, yet at the same time taking away their right to vote. In terms of felon disenfranchisement, the government is punishing twice; once in jail, and once out of jail. This is known as double jeopardy, or punishing a crime twice. The 5th Amendment states \"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.\" Also, we do not give people a lifelong ban on marriage or freedom of speech, so why would we give them a lifelong ban on voting? It is excessive punishment to incarcerate someone and at the same time take away all their political influence and right of self-determination. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((REFUTE))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) --Value: Social Contract- This is not specifically stated by the resolution, however mine is and thus should be looked at above his. ---VC- Societal Welfare Link this back to my VC. It is not possible to uphold societal welfare unless you protect of the citizens' rights and thus if you are even to look at his VC you must look at my VC first. Additionally he provides no link between this and his Value and C1. --Contention 1: \"By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeited their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract.\" However, a) When a felon commits a crime, yes they break the social contract, which is why they are incarcerated. However as I show in my second contention it is unjust to punish them additionally by taking their right to vote away. b) Also, it is feudal to continually deny felons a place in the social contract. Once a felon exits prison, although still a felon they should then re-enter the social contract. Should we not allow them a chance to become one of society once more?", "qid": 7, "docid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7481818199157715}, {"content": "Title: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: I will first address the affirmation and then lead into extensions and clarification on the neg. As it pertains my opponents observation, it is flawed for the following reason My opponent claims that every citizen has inalienable right, yet what you need consider is that voting does not apply. clearly every citizen doesn't have the right to vote or else four year olds and people of a mental iq 0f 20 could. Resulting in extremely inaccurate and pointless results. Sense there is such a requirement one must look to voting as a privilege rather then a right. Now onto the con1 of oppression you need to understand again that voting is a privilege not a right. Con2 redemption you need to see that felons don't need voting as a form of redemption just the mere fact that they have been released from prison gives them a chance to redeem themselves. defeating the entirety of con two now briefly to go over my case you need to extend my v and vc as being paramount for we need consider the victims rights in the situation. Equality as presented by the affirmative cant even be achieved with out looking to the opposition as well as the fact that natural rights as a vc doesn't apply as well. My def were not attacked therefore they still stand and will be used throughout the round which essentially in doing so agrees to the negative position in regards to the resolution interpretation. My con still stand as well for rehabilitation hardly has a great enough effect to make a difference, through examples such as background checks, not being able to bare arms, and not serve on jury. (all points opponent fails to address). As well as my con 2 as well as 3 for although its not mandated in the resolution its implicate why would you want kids to vote no society would ever allow people that are not even capable of spelling there name the PRIVELEGE to vote thank you", "qid": 7, "docid": "2a3eee28-2019-04-18T19:35:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7477884292602539}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7475357055664062}, {"content": "Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7473176717758179}, {"content": "Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: Thanks to my opponent for picking up this debate and yes lets make this fun So to begin this round i would first like to rebuild my own case and move on to attack my opponent First i will agree with his counter definitions My opponent didnt attack my value or standard so you can extend both these and for that reason there is no doubt about voting aff because it means he agrees with my value of equality which says that felons should have equal rights as all citizens so this alone proves that he agrees that felons should have the same rights as felons. Extend my standard of Mills Marketplace of ideas which also basically states that when you have the most ammount of people contibuting to an idea then the best answer arrises. Both of these reasons prove you should vote aff He attacked my contention 1 by saying that if a vote came down to 1 vote and that deciding voter was a felon that he wouldnt want the felon to decide. Harvard Law review 1 clearly stated that \"...even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive than those of he population as a whole...\" What this proves is that although felons may have made a wrong choice that they may not have an opinion that is different than the general population. He attacks my second contention by saying disenfranchisement has nothing to do with rehabilitation. I would like to offer evidence against this, Harvard Law Review (counter 1) Fifteen American states disenfranchise ex-felons for life. This practice, although constitutionally permissible , is an anomaly in two respects. First, it defies the trend over the past 150 years tward expansion of the franchise exempified by courts' adn legislatures' abandonment of voting restrictions based on property, race, sex, and age. Seccond, it runs counter to the modern notion, still widely expressed if not always believed, that ex-convicts can and should be reintegrated into the communityas full members of society. What this proves is that disenfranchisement works against progression in this instance rehabilitation. He doesnt attack my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination and this is key because it shows that he agrees to this and this totally destroys the basis of disenfranchisement because it works against society by discriminating against members of the society. It is for all of these reasons i urge an affirmative ballot Now to attack my opponents case He offers the value of justice and says that it is defined as \"giving someone what he or she is due\" I pose the question \"Who determines what deserved punishment is?\" clearly whatever answer is given is still going to be contoversial to someone in a society so my value of equality fits the situation much better. I attack his Criterion by saying that he is harming the wefare of soceity by taking away voices in a society. When you do this then not all people have a say in the democracy and so this undermines the whole purpose of the democracy. My criterion is much better because it allows all people to have a say in society. Contention 1. He implys that since a felon has made one bad decision that this is a constant trend with felons. I have to say otherwise because that is a politically incorrect extreme. He also doesnt offer why or how this relates to his value or criterion. I would like to offer counter evidince aginst his claim Harvard Law review (counter 2) Disen. is not driven by pragmatic realities or theoretical principles but rather by an atavistic and dee-rooted social need to define the boundaries of the community by stigmatizing some persons as outsiders. As a symbolic act tat perpetuates and reflects a perception of criminality as an evil, alien force, disen. manifests a misguided desire to label as \"others\" those who commit crimes, in order that those who are not so chracterized may gain an increased sense of their own esteem as \"good\" Members of the community and deny responsibility for the creation or elimination of criminal behavior. Contention 2 He basically offers Lockes social contract to define punishment and crimes Harvard Law review (C3) It is hardly likely that free and informed individuals would enter into a contract in which a single failure to execute payment by one party would constitute a forfeiture of all goods previously obtained under the contract. Liberal theorists posit an individual who exists prior to and seprabel from the attachments and aspirations that she chooses. In the liveral frame work, justice consists of respecting the individual's dignity and capacity to reason, regardless of his/her choices or ends. Thus, real justice, \"must permit inequalities that can be traced to the choices people have made about what kind of work to do, what kinds of risks to take, and what kind of life to lead. It is for all these reasons that i must urge an affirmative ballot and now turn it over to my opponent Thanks again to my opponent for picking up this debate and thanks to all the people who vote on this. Good luck and i hope this makes us both better", "qid": 7, "docid": "b20f7665-2019-04-18T19:34:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7470946907997131}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I stand in affirmation, \"Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.\" I offer the following definitions for clarification of the affirmed resolution: \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdDemocracy- Government by the governed. Within this I must state that felons are part of \"the governed\". \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdFelon- Someone who commits a felony; A Felony is a level of crime that is higher in comparison than a forfeiture or a misdemeanor. Repeated crimes can rise to the level of felony offenses, such as repeated DUI's \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdOught- Used to indicate advisability or prudence. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdRetain- To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdThe right to vote- a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. This right is inextricable in a democratic society to retain full citizenship. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdThe value of this round must be equality of opportunity which refers to the fact that all citizens MUST be equal citizens under the eyes of the law. Thus you can construe that my definition of equality is referring to equality of citizenship within a society. In this resolutional standpoint opportunity must be pertaining to the right to vote. The optimal criterion for achieving equality for this round is consistency which is Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility. Thus meaning that for equality to be reached, all citizens must be treated consistently as citizens in the eyes of the law - no one can become \"more of a citizen\" or \"less of a citizen\". By negating the resolution certain citizens are not treated consistently thus you are not treating all citizens as equals. The affirmative sole burden is to prove that the consistent treatment of the right to vote functions under equality of opportunity. Thus, upholding democracy in the resolution. While the negative's sole burden is to show consistency in equality of opportunity because it's a prerequisite to democracy, and if he or she cannot than his or her case is non-topical because it cannot uphold democracy and cannot be looked to. Observation 1: Democracy is government by the governed. Certainly convicted felons are part of the governed. When felons are not treated equally and consistently, this contradicts the concept of democracy because the governed are disallowed participation within a democratic society\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd Observation 2: Some may argue that no true democracy exist. This should carry no weight in a round for two reasons. A) In the resolution itself their clames to be a democracy so If there were no true democracy than we could not be debating this topic at all. B) This is a great thought or opinion but take this example: If the president of the United States has a bill on his desk that has the exact wording of the resolution he cannot just throw that bill away because there is no democracy, in fact, by taking any action at all he would be acknowledging the fact that there is a democracy because he made a decision. Observation 3: Some may say that a negative position is that the negative can give the right to vote back to felons once they have been released from prison, yet this is entirely untrue. No where in the resolution does it say \"felons released\" or \"felons imprisoned\". Thus, any negative argument that this can win for the negative should be disregarded or turned for the affirmative because it is still winning for the affirmative. Contention 1: Disenfranchisement destroys a felon's status as an equal citizen. SubPoint A: The right to vote is a fundamental right, and as such it is central to the meaning of citizenship. Furthermore, the fundamental importance of the right to vote is not determined by its actual exercise, but merely by its possession. Possessing the right to vote is of paramount importance as it is a tool by which an individual engages in active participation - S. David Mitchell furthers \"the right to vote serves as the embodiment of political empowerment, and it is essential to the full privilege of effective citizenship.\" The right to vote, therefore, can be construed not only as a means for an individual to exercise political power, but also as a necessary requirement in being a full citizen. Therefore, since the right to vote has been taken away from felons, they are no longer treated consistently and therefore are not equals. The possession of the right to vote, or more aptly the opportunity to participate in the political process, serves as an indicator of a person's legal status as a member of the polity, but nothing more. Conversely, the loss or infringement of that right would indicate both a repudiation of membership in the polity and a lack of full citizenship. The right to vote is a political right that allows an individual to be an active participant in the government and is exercised cyclically; it is not the determining factor of citizenship. Citizenship in fact embodies a full range of rights including, but not limited to, the possession or exercise of the right to vote. The right to vote is consistent for all citizens which helps them become equal in their society. When a felon is disenfranchised, they become non-citizens, and even when a society's laws are broken, one may forfeit liberty but must not become non-entities. To disenfranchise any group, even those that have violated the laws a democracy has established, is to render them powerless, and any hope of rehabilitation becomes revenge. When a democracy turns on its own citizens and seeks revenge, it clearly is no longer legitimate, and is a democracy in name only. \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdContention 2: Disenfranchisement creates negative consequences for felons in social and economic ways. The deprivations that ex-felons encounter extend beyond the scope of the political sphere. The right to vote is integral to a citizen's sense of belonging and undeniably holds a place of critical importance in the United States for both its symbolic and practical value; it serves as a marker of inclusion for formerly excluded groups, i.e., African-Americans, women, and those under the age of eighteen. For ex-felons the right to vote is merely one of many rights denied to them in but one of several spheres of their lives. Convicted felons are denied a host of rights that govern the social and legal spheres of their life; many of these rights have more pressing importance than the opportunity to cast a ballot. To examine how felon exclusion laws infringe upon the full citizenship of both the individual ex-felon and the community, to which the ex-felon belongs, a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship will be used. The leading contemporary scholar to consider such a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship is T.H. Marshall, a British sociologist; and, it is Marshall's formulation of citizenship that frames this argument. Marshall posited that citizenship is comprised of three distinct, yet interdependent, elements: the civil, meaning individual freedom; the political, referring to the franchise; and the social, addressing an individual's economic life. The political element, according to Marshall, consists of the \"right to participate in the exercise of political power.\" This element is comprised not only of the right to vote, but also includes the right to pursue public office; political power is manifested in the voice of the people and through the machinations of those chosen to serve as proxies of the people. The rights most commonly associated with the civil element are those rights that are \"necessary for individual freedom,\" and in the context of the United States are embodied in the Bill of Rights. So since I show you that the disenfranchisement of felons is inconsistent with the rest of the members of society because it makes them unequal which is unlawful because in the eyes of the law all citizens are equally citizens, I strongly urge you to vote affirmative.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa3b2-2019-04-18T19:34:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7470588088035583}, {"content": "Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...", "qid": 7, "docid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7466956377029419}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners right to vote Content: Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters crime", "qid": 7, "docid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00008-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.746017336845398}, {"content": "Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Con says \u201cIf I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. \u201d Yes, that is the case. Con says \u201cYou also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. \u201d That is not what I think at all, just not relevant to the debate topic at hand. Let\u2019s not start this off with a straw man fallacy. .. . Con says \u201cFreedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism. \u201d I agree which is why I am in favor of the resolution. Arguments: We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. A: Unalienable Rights \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. \u201d (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: \u201cimpossible to take away or give up\u201d (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable B: The Duty of Government \u201cThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men\u201d (Declaration of Independence) \u201cLocke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;\u201d (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights C: The Power of the People \u201cGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d(Declaration of Independence) \u201cRousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. \u201d(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed. D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts\u2026 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government\u2019s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: \u201cWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u201d( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 7, "docid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7455853223800659}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: \"The main purposes of punishment are incapacitation and rehabilitation. Taking away the right to vote doesn't seem to accomplish either of these. It could even be detrimental, as ex-felons could see themselves as outcasts in society, causing feelings of resentment\"~ Bill Clinton \"\"\"I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed.\"\"\" Woah woah woah.... If you assume this position then I will assume the position that felons should retain their voting rights, except in extreme cases. It's either you say they can't ever and I say they always can, or you say they can't unless extreme circumstances and I say they can unless extreme circumstances. There is no mixing of the two in an attempt to skew the debate towards your side. If you don't mind, I'd like you to choose which one you'd like to debate, either is ok with me. Now Lets move onto the contentions that you've made. I've broken them down into numbers for later clarification 1) Voting is/is not inalienable 2) Disenfranchisement is/is not suitable punishment 3) Felon disenfranchisement is essential for the preservation of integrity. For the opening of my first point, I'd like to directly quote you. \"\"\"First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory?\"\"\" 1) Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the sugject being argued upon, is the same. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential top have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. Lets open the second voting issue with a quote from you as well. \"\"\"A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract.\"\"\" 2) A serious punishment for a serious crime is the serious sentance that follows. Voting disenfranchisement generally has NOTHING to do with the crime felons commit. It is an extra unwarranted infringement upon a felon's rights. Laws are measured by how well they protect the public and how well they deter crime. How well disenfranchisement protects the public will be addressed in my next voting issue, so lets take a look at the second criteria for effective laws. How well it deters crime. While committing a crime, criminals aren't thinking in the back of their head \"Oh man, I hope they don't take away my voting rights.\" It isn't in their minds AT ALL! People aren't afraid of losing voting rights, they're afraid of being away from loved ones for long periods of time. It basically, IS JUST THERE. Now, just being there isn't bad, if it's not doing anything. However, it is taking away million's of people's right to vote! Taking away voting rights is an infringement and cannot be justified! Committing a felony and voting are pretty much separate entities. It seems, for lack of a better description, kind of random for a society to say, \"You robbed a house, so... now you can't vote.\" Like before, here are your words to spark yet another problem with your stance. \"\"\"The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote.\"\"\" 3) Now this points out 2 majors problems. So I will attack them differently. A- This problem being that you don't want felons voting because of the fact that they are felons and B- The fact that you have a problem with anyone voting who has ideals that differ from that of the \"societal norm\" First off, with A. A- You stating \" Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape?\" Is a pointless statement. There are too many assumptions in this sentance. First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america. A killer, thief, or rapist can't vote for someone who will pass a law that will kill, steal from, or rape the american or democratic people. You've stated that voting requires that you have to reach a certain minimum which felons don't reach, but you fail to realize that laws have to reach the certain minimum. There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, we let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders [...] If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. Some basic principles of a democracy are that every citizen is given a say in society. But felons are citizens, are they not? And since they are thus forced to live and operate under a governments jurisdiction, shouldn't they have a say in decisions affecting them? Plus, Even non-felons are capable of bad judgment. If we are disenfranchising felons simply because of a bad decision and/or bad decision-making skills, there are plenty of other people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. But who can set that standard of good decision versus bad decision in any absolute form regarding elections? B- The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions! A true democracy is the expression of EVERY opinion and the weighing of each one in comparison to one's own until the best possible opinion is formulated. Only then can an opinion be validated and used in action. Voting applies directly, particularly for felons who it can be assumed will have deviant opinions, because if votes are the ultimate mode of expression and change in a democratic society, ALL opinions of anyone governed by the law created in the society is valued highly, because of the previously listed impacts. It can even work on a societal level in the sense that, the vote will be weighed and the best opinion will be chosen - the majority opinion. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. I go so far as to say, that not allowing felons to vote is harming a democratic society, because the society is not weighing all opinions, and because people will not have the opportunity to consider their opinions openly. I am anxious for my oponents arguments", "qid": 7, "docid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7454384565353394}, {"content": "Title: Depriving prisoners of a vote is simply mean spirited. Content: Surely, we should punish criminals. But, depriving prisoners of the right to vote goes beyond reasonable punishment (physical imprisonment itself is very hard on a person) and into the realm of mean spiritedness. Particularly in societies where rehabilitation is an objective, such mean spiritedness is counter-productive.", "qid": 7, "docid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00072-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7450524568557739}, {"content": "Title: Current prisoners should have the right to vote. Content: I will now defend against my opponent's rebuttals to my round 2 arguments:RE: There are people in prison for crimes that majority think shouldn't be a crime, why should they be denied the right to vote? Ah, I had a feeling that number might have been too high and I should have double-checked it. Still, 40,000 is significant enough. I admit it most likely won't influence the vote on marijuana legalization, but you're still denying people the right to vote based on a law that most believe shouldn't even be a law. Perhaps the solution is actually some middle-ground stance, and we're both wrong in arguing for what we are in this debate: Maybe it should be that violent offenders are denied the right to vote, while non-violent offenders in prison are allowed the right to vote. After all, as I pointed out, most people have a higher opinion of those who are non-violent offenders in prison and believe their punishment should be lightened. I don't expect my opponent to compromise and agree that non-violent offenders in prison should be allowed the right to vote. However, if you were to agree to that, I think the proper thing for voters to do would be to make things a tie between us for this debate. I won't say I'm conceding, but if my opponent agrees to the proposition of allowing non-violent offenders in prison the right to vote, I would concede to that point, but only in that event. I will still offer arguments otherwise for the original stance I agreed to from the beginning: which is that all prisoners should be given the right to vote. Just keep in mind that's an option that I agree to if you feel you might lose the debate and don't want to. I'm fine with us compromising a stance on allowing non-violent offenders the right to vote and violent offenders would have it taken away. In a way, it would make sense because violent offenders should have a worse punishment, they do already, but this would be a means of lightening up the punishment for non-violent offenders. Moving on. .. RE: If society is the one who decides the laws, certain laws may never be removed because you're removing the suffrage of people who would want to get rid of that law. I want to specifically quote my opponent on this point: \"Also, when laws are passed, most citizens who disagree with it would still follow the law until the law is changed or abolished. This is what it means to be a law-abiding citizen. \" At the same time, however, there are laws that many people will see as unjust. Civil disobedience is often justified against these laws. Would you, for example, call Rosa Parks a law breaker for doing what she did? In a way, I suppose she was, but I think you could still consider someone a law-abiding citizen even if they break laws that are unjust. I would consider those who only break just laws to not be law-abiding citizens. RE: The right to vote is a very important right, and it would need a compelling reason to take it away from an individual. My opponent didnt' really offer a compelling reason why the right to vote, specifically, should be taken away from the person here though. They did talk about how some rights in general will be taken away, but I don't believe this suffices for why specifically the right to vote. RE: There can be people in prison innocent of the crime, should they have their right to vote taken away? Yes, I believe this comes down to subjective opinion, nonetheless I can still offer reasons why it would make sense to allow prisoners to vote due to this problem I pointed out. Is it not punishment enough to be taken away from your family, to potentially have to go through fights with inmates, to no longer be able to improve you lot in life, and no longer able to do what you enjoy? I consider each of those things to be major punishments, why do we need to add taking away the right to vote to all of that? You do say that a couple million people could have impacts on elections. However, I argue they would only have an impact on an election that is very close, within 2 million votes of one another. Not to mention, I don't think the voting rate for prisoners is 100%. It's not even 100% for the general population. I would guess it would be half as much, so maybe 1 million prisoners would vote. For the policies that would release the prisoners, there are far more law-abiding citizens who outnumber the prisoners, and I don't think they would be able to vote their way out of prison, so to speak. They may have influence over other policies, but is that such a big problem? I think the chance of having potentially a candidate chosen because of the prison vote, is therefore, ok so that we can have the innocent people in prison vote if they so chose. It just doesn't seem to be a big enough impact problem to allow prisoners to vote in my opinion. Again, 1 million people can't beat the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. They can't just vote their way out of prison. ConclusionI believe, as I mentioned, since there are people in prison for laws that most people think shouldn't even be a law, and that there are innocent people in prison, additionally since crime is partially a subjective idea, as my opponent also conceded, that this means there is not sufficient reason to deny the right to vote to prisoners.", "qid": 7, "docid": "3e3318ae-2019-04-18T12:20:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7439053058624268}, {"content": "Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. \" While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing \"piss-bombs\" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.", "qid": 7, "docid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7434075474739075}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format) Content: I apologize for not posting in video/audio form, but i don't have access to a camera at the moment and I promise that my AC is in time. I affirm. I offer the following definitions to clarify the round: Felon: a person who has committed an act deemed illegal by that person's government Democratic Society: Society governed by all citizens using the system of voting Democratic: the ability to have a say in what action is occurring Right: an ability or state you can maintain because a government enforces that ability or state Equality: the quality of being the same in measure, value or status Observation: The resolution states \"felons ought to retain the right...in a democratic society\" This does NOT mean any society we currently are residing in or know of today. The resolution does NOT state that United States felons ought to retain the right to vote, nor that any other specific members of specific societies are relevant to this debate. The value for the round is Human Rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations released said declaration, setting a standard for all democratic and non-democratic nations everywhere. It has 30 total articles, but for this debate I will focus on the following: \"Article 21, Sub Point 3: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures\" To put it simply, all people should have the right to vote in any governmental election. This also has been clearly acknowledged as a human right. The Criterion is Equality. Democracy is founded upon the principle of equality, since equality shows that all people are of the same value. Democratic acts allow all people to have an EQUAL say in what is occurring. This proves a direct relation to the resolution and therefore is the clear, best choice for today's criterion. Contention 1: \"Felons are still citizens\" Therefore, we cannot rightfully discredit a felon's input on government simply because they have committed a crime. The basic purpose of voting is to gather input from citizens on the issues of their society, and if even one member of that society is a felon, they should still have the right to vote because they are still a citizen, they still are counted in the population and they still experience the results of the election. Furthermore, the commission of a felony does not render a felon incapable of having opinions on other social issues, thus a felon's opinion is still relevant to the society and therefore the felon should retain the right to vote. Because of this, equality is better upheld on the affirmative. Contention 2: \"The Prison system is a punishment system\" All people that are convicted of a felony are given a proper punishment based on the severity of the crime committed. If we were to add a separate and additional punishment to a punishment that they already have served, we are destroying the very system used to judge felons. Adding an addition punishment is destructive of a democratic society because it is neither equal nor democratic, as not all felons have committed the same crime. If we were to negate the resolution, we might as well stick all felons in prison for the rest of their lives because we aren't trusting them to do anything after they have been labeled a felon. Because negating is NOT proportional, equality is better upheld by affirming the resolution. Contention 3: \"Rational Choice Theory\" Rational Choice Theory is the basic process that a person does all the time. It basically shows that citizens only do something that is more beneficial to them than not. In this case, Rational Choice Theory can be applied in the way citizens vote. There is the intense (primary) benefit that each citizen has in an election, (like gay marriage for a homosexual voter or banning abortion for a pro-life voter,) an intrinsic (secondary) benefit, (meaning an issue that the voter has a stance on, but is not high priority) and a voting cost. (Like taking the time to register, standing in line or even filling out the ballot.) Citizens will only vote when the benefits outweigh the costs. The warrants and impacts for this are as follows; affirming allows all voters who have the moral and social standards to suffer the costs of voting in order to cast their vote. Negating however decreases the number of good voters (felon or not) by not retaining their right to vote. Equality is better upheld by the affirmative because all voters are given the ability to cast an equal vote if they choose to. (Meaning any non-voters are creating by choice, not force)", "qid": 7, "docid": "e9f3a082-2019-04-18T19:25:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7429962158203125}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Since this is the last round I will illustrate why the negative panel's reasoning is far superior to the affirmatives by deeply explaining my case in a summary. I will not attack my opponent because this is the last round and it would not be fair to him, nor I because I could not respond to his attack in the third round. So I will not motivate any more attacks upon my case. The resolution implies a society with a government that is a democracy. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative. The only thing significant about the democracy is that the citizens in the society vote for their governors and officials. In this society certain citizens have committed harsh crimes. We know this from the mentioning of felons. The significant portion of felons is that the citizen has committed a brutal crime. We interpret the brutality of the crime from the American legal system definition of a felony. We also figure out that in this society that there is a legal system that prosecutes and punish citizens that commit crimes. No where in the resolution does it implies the American or any other democratic society. With the scenario the resolution implies illustrated above the resolution poses the question that should a felon retain the right to vote. Therefore we understand that the felon has already lost his right to vote. The question is asked because the society the felon dwells in has a democracy for a government where the citizens must vote for their governors. The negative panel will answer to the question that the felon should not retain the right to vote. The negative values democracy and will achieve are value through strengthen the power of voting. A democracy must have the populace vote, so by strengthen the power to vote the negative upholds the strongest facet of a democracy. The negative will strengthen the power of voting by only allowing certain individuals vote in elections. To vote one must not commit a felony. A democratic society can function if not all of its citizen's vote. The governors in the government purely must have gotten their through an election by the people. Strengthening the power of voting in a democratic society by disfranchising felons is morally correct. This is a debate of theory. The affirmative has the burden of proving that it is morally correct to allow all citizens in a democratic society to vote. The negative has to prove that it is morally correct to not allow all citizens the right to vote in a democratic society. When the minority that is disfranchised are only because they are felons it is morally correct. Any gender, race and age can be a felon, but they commit a felon. That ideology keeps others from being disfranchised because of sexism, racism or ageism. The negative panel presents contentions to why disfranchising felons is morally correct because a felon that loses the right to vote will not become a detriment to the society and it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. The felon in the society the resolution implies loses their right to vote because they have harmed the society and the society has endorse the lost of voting rights as a deterrent to prevent other non-felons from becoming felons. I have properly explained the negative reasoning and urge the judge to vote neg because the negative panel's reasoning is superior the affirmatives. Also I give thanks to my opponent for performing excellently in the debate it has been fun.", "qid": 7, "docid": "e5aaa374-2019-04-18T19:35:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.742129921913147}, {"content": "Title: Prisoners right to vote Content: Prisoners have a right to express interests through voting", "qid": 7, "docid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00038-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7420956492424011}, {"content": "Title: In most cases, the punishment doesn't fit the crime Content: There is a strong principle in the criminal justice system that the punishment should fit the crime - the more severe the crime, the more sever the punishment. At the moment, anyone who is serving a custodial sentence at the time of an election is unable to take part, regardless of the crime for which they were sentenced, or for how long they have been sentenced to prison.", "qid": 7, "docid": "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00023-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7420951128005981}]}
{"query": "Should abortion be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Should abortion be legal", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1870922-2019-04-18T12:50:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9099284410476685}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: I will be arguing against the notion \"Abortion should be illegal\", therefore I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. I trust that my opponent will post their opening arguments in R2 as will I, I look forward to a good debate.", "qid": 8, "docid": "3b40d7ed-2019-04-18T14:22:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8897632360458374}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Why do you believe that abortion should be legal", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702c4fe-2019-04-18T13:27:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8855665922164917}, {"content": "Title: The Legality of Abortions Content: Stance: Abortions should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "8ff2a47b-2019-04-18T15:01:16Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8836495876312256}, {"content": "Title: abortion Content: abortion should be legal", "qid": 8, "docid": "81e767ea-2019-04-18T13:52:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8817198872566223}, {"content": "Title: Abortion: Legal or Not Content: As my topic clearly states, my opponent and I shall debate whether or not Abortions should be legal. I am hoping I can do well with this being my first debate. For this debate I will take the postition of being against Abortion, so my opponent shall be for it. I am not really going to state much else towards my arguement. I am going to wait until I actually have an opponent.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6c6c530a-2019-04-18T19:18:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8801096677780151}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should in most cases be illegal Content: Regards! I accept this debate, as Con I will be arguing for the legality of abortion--that it should be legal in all circumstances. Good luck to Pro.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1ca3201-2019-04-18T12:13:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8800289630889893}, {"content": "Title: Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal Content: This debate will be a classic abortion debate: should abortion be legal? I will be arguing on the side of legal abortion. First round is acceptance only. Abortion - The termination of a pregnancy in which the fetus dies.", "qid": 8, "docid": "f98398d2-2019-04-18T13:31:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8761730194091797}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1859921-2019-04-18T17:23:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8716981410980225}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Abortion should be legal, Because women have the right to control the uses of their own body, And they shouldn\"t be forced to have children and raise them if they don\"t want to, Nor should they be forced to go through with the scars and pain of childbirth if their life is at risk or the babies is. Abortion should also be legal because of complications like rape or child marriage, Children shouldn\"t be forced to have children.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b187e2fb-2019-04-18T11:11:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8677469491958618}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I oppose all of your resolution. Abortion should be legal as long as the fetus isn't viable outside the womb. Until that time it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body including any living beings living off of her body.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1870162-2019-04-18T13:07:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8670535087585449}, {"content": "Title: Legal Abortion Content: This debate is \"should abortion be legal?\" Short answer no... Long answer noooooooo... Lol, but seriously, Abortion is murder any way that you look at it. I am excited for an intelligent debate", "qid": 8, "docid": "b38c2a52-2019-04-18T14:11:17Z-00009-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8666337728500366}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Welcome, everyone!This is a reinstatement of a debate I did with my opponent, Weiler, which ended in nothingness, essentially. So, I hope to rectify this fact in this debate. A re-match, if you will!The resolution is: Abortion should be legal. Weiler will take the Con position on this resolution. I should hope we are good enough to be able to get past semantics and thus not need to define it. If my opponent would prefer I define it, however, I would ask him to post a comment. So, onto the rules:1) The burden of proof will be on Pro and Con to show why abortion should be legal and illegal, respectively.2) There can be no \"Vote Pro\" or \"Vote Con\" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters conceded.3) A forfeit of a round will be an automatic loss of conduct; a forfeit of a round will only be an automatic loss of conduct.4) The first round can be for acceptance only. If that is the case then the debate shall continue normally. If my opponent wishes to use the first round for opening contention(s), however, then Weiler must put - and only put - \"No argument posted here as agreed\" for his round three post. I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please feel free to post a comment! Good luck to Weiler et al. Allez!", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702bd7c-2019-04-18T17:08:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8611528873443604}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: Abortion should be legal. Within this four-word phrase, we already stumble upon ambiguity. When we describe abortion as \"legal,\" do we attach any qualification? My opponent concedes we should. For instance, in cases in which the mother's health is affected by the child. I might argue that this concession already cedes the entire debate: if any instance of abortion can be considered appropriate then abortion should be considered legal. However, I will attempt a more thorough address of the Instigator's points. The instigator first claims that abortion should be illegal because abortion is equivalent to killing living humans. A complicated subject is difficult to reduce to such concise terms. Therefore, I ask of the instigator: \"What is a human?\" \"What makes it living?\" \"Should we avoid ending life in and of itself?\" It is my opinion that some address need be made of the the above queries before a proper debate can be entered. -A first and unedited draft by the Agonist", "qid": 8, "docid": "e12b543e-2019-04-18T12:39:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8608290553092957}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Today I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. The way this debate will work is this:R1: Opening statementR2: Defend your opening statement.R3: Rebut opponents defense.R4: Closing statement Thanks to whoever accepts and good luck.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.86060631275177}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: First off, sorry I forfieted. I completely forgot about the debate because I had lots of work to do. Anyway, for my closing statement.Abortion should be legal. Mothers to be are dying from failed pregnancies, and because of abortions, they are surviving. If we take that freedom away, mothers will die, leaving the baby with a very bad chance of survival. Abortion equals good!", "qid": 8, "docid": "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8571450710296631}, {"content": "Title: should abortion be legal yes or no (no) Content: No, I do not think abortion should be legal. Abortion is not right because the child that is forming inside the mother's womb is not just a clump of cells its an actual human being! Yes, there is women's rights but it just goes too far such as abortion and other things. It is actually proved that 90/100% women who want to do abortion, but see the baby through the ultra sound decide against their abortion plan. Finally, if you don't want a child don't have sex or if you do get pregnant give up the baby for adoption after it is born so it may have a good life with someone who will actually care for them.", "qid": 8, "docid": "c32a8d70-2019-04-18T11:49:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8564275503158569}, {"content": "Title: should abortion be legal Content: I believe abortion should be illegal.My opponent has to prove why abortion should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "fb4c403d-2019-04-18T12:38:39Z-00009-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8549208641052246}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Dear Facts. . . BOP is on you that abortion should be legal. I'll take con, that it should be illegal.You can start on Rnd 1 for your initial argument. Its a low word count, so be adviced.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1860d80-2019-04-18T15:57:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8508576154708862}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. Definitions:Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case. I will start the rest of my debate in Round 2. Good luck, 1dustpelt, may this debate serve to be an informative one and I hope to learn a lot by researching the topic.", "qid": 8, "docid": "75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8500417470932007}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal in the United States Content: 5 rounds 72 hours 10,000 characters I will be arguing, clearly, that abortion should be legal in the US. Con will argue that it should be illegal. Distinctions such as in the case of rape or life endangerment, etc., are flexible. I only ask that you argue against abortion, in some cases, immediately after conception. It would be a less interesting argument if all we were debating was late-term abortions. Thank you, and I'm looking forward to some fun, some practice formulating a solid argument, some learning and some widening of both of our views on this topic!", "qid": 8, "docid": "f8b7357b-2019-04-18T16:24:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.84819495677948}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: resolution: Abortion should be legal Is that ok with you? Since he has provided no argument I'll start with these simple arguments: 1. A fetus is not a human, so it shouldn't be against the law. 2. The mother has the right to decide whether she wants a child or not, because raising a child is hard work. 3. We kill things all the time. Having an abortion is the same as wearing a condom. I'll let you take it from there.", "qid": 8, "docid": "47ca8c0a-2019-04-18T19:12:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8477573394775391}, {"content": "Title: Abortions Content: Abortions should always be legal because that is your body and every decision you make about your body is yours. If you believe you aren't ready for a child or possibly you were force into a physical altercations involving a man. I believe you should be able to handle the scenario in the best of your ability which is abortions.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b54275ec-2019-04-18T11:43:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8457382321357727}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished* Content: Abortion is one of these hard topics to discuss but being the controversial person I am, I will take you on. Abortion should be perfectly legal. I'll give you some examples why it should: For example: Let's say someone was raped and they didn't want a baby but now they're pregnant. She had no choice to be burdened with this baby so why should she stay burdened by it with the constant bathroom breaks, the morning sickness etc.? Another example would be if the condom split during the act. She didn't want the child so why should she? If you're against or for abortions like me, nobody wants more abortions. Abortion should be an option for those who got pregnant without wanting to especially if it was an accidental condom split or the pill fails her. If you want to have a baby by all means proceed! If you don't, the safest way to do it is don't. Remember: Whatever side of the fence you're on, nobody wants more abortions. We just think it should be an option if somebody gets pregnant without wanting to and especially if it was forced on her (rape)", "qid": 8, "docid": "f5c272b-2019-04-18T16:03:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8457199335098267}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Hello, I'm just a 13 year old kid who just like to debate. So the argument is abortion should be legal because people can choose to have a kid or not, and forcing them can suffer the child and the parent. Making it illegal will make women who want to abort go to dangerous place that can harm them and possibly kill them. Unborn baby only feel pain at 20 weeks and most of these abortion is when the women life is in danger.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702cba7-2019-04-18T11:43:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.844496488571167}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: The resolution is whether abortion should be legal or not. I will give one example of why abortion should be legal, and if I do not receive a concession; I will introduce a second contention in round two. ((Yes, I'm that confident! )) Contention One: Maternal DeathsMaternal deaths are when the death of the mother will occur while pregnant. Often, if the pregnancy is allowed to be continued - the mother will die. However, if an abortion is carried out, the mother will live. This can happen, in the case of eclampsia or infections[1]So, allow me to present Con with two scenarios:1) In scenario one, the act of abortion is illegal and thus, the pregnancy cannot be terminated early. As a result, the mother dies. Also, due to the lack of almost everything for the child, the child will die as well. Con would present a case - willing or no - where this hideous scenario could play out.2) Now for another scenario, the one I'm for, where abortion is legal. To everyone's sadness, the foetus will die due to the termination of the pregnancy. HOWEVER, the mother might still live. Therefore, in all likelihood, we have only lost one life. It is important to recognise that in both scenarios, the foetus will die. This is unavoidable and thus, objectively speaking, irrelevant. What is relevant? The life of the mother. In the case I am presenting, I give this mother a chance to live. In Con's case, we have a dead mother on our hands because abortion would be illegal. I would ask Con to justify why abortion should be illegal even though the foetus dies either way. I do not see abortion as killing a child in all cases; I see abortion as saving a mother. ((I am not suggesting at all that Con wants this kind of thing to play out; I am merely demonstrating that the case Con is debating for - illegal abortion - it will play out. ))It is possible that Con accepts abortion to be legal under these circumstances. If that is the case, Con has conceded this debate, because the stance Con is taking \"Abortion should be illegal\" has no asterisks attached to it and nothing the rules changed this. I will eagerly await my opponent's response(s)! Until next round! Source(s):[1]WHO report, 2005", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702bd7c-2019-04-18T17:08:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8436919450759888}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: _____________________________________________________________________ Pro will argue that abortion should be legal, Con will argue that abortion should be illegal. _____________________________________________________________________ Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus http://www.merriam-webster.com... _____________________________________________________________________ One may not win by default. Both sides must defend their position in order to win and cannot simply refute their opponent's position. I will allow my opponent to begin as I'm a lazy douche. Good luck!", "qid": 8, "docid": "47ca9aef-2019-04-18T18:52:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8435354232788086}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Remain Legal Content: Abortion should remain legal, because it's the right for a women to do what she wants to her own body because of either unplanned pregnancy, deformed baby, or the possibility of harm to the woman from the pregnancy. I also think that the Freedom of Choice Act should be signed.", "qid": 8, "docid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8423318862915039}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.Since my opppnent has made himself 'pro' in a debate where the resolution is \"Abortion should be legal,\" I take it that he intends to carry the burden of proof. He did not stipulate that the burden of proof would be shared, so I will not be arguing that \"Abortion should not be legal\" (unless it becomes necessary in the course of the debate). I will simply offer rebuttals to Pro's arguments. If his case survives my critique, then he should win. If his case does not survive my critique, then he should lose.With those preliminaries out of the way, let's look at his arguments one at a time. From reading his post, I can discern three arguments: (1) the argument from the right of a pregnant woman to not have a child, and (2) the argument from the dangers of illegal abortions, and (3) the argument from bodily sovereignty.I. The right to not have a child.1. If abortion were not legal, then pregnant women would be forced to have children.2. A pregnant women should have the right to prevent herself from having a child.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.The problem with this argument is that the first premise is just a tautology, and the second premise is a re-wording of the resolution, which means his argument begs the question. Essentialy, he's saying (1) If abortion were not legal, then it would be against the law to have an abortion; (2) it should not be against the law to have an abortion; (3) therefore, abortion should be legal. Pro has attempted to hide the circularity of his argument by the way he worded his premises.II. Illegal abortions are unsafe.1. If abortion is not legal, more women will have unsafe abortions.3. Therefore, abortion should be legal.Notice that what's missing from this argument is the second premise. Without a second premise, the conclusion doesn't follow, so this is an invalid argument. I could make guesses about what the second premise is, but then I might be accused of the strawman fallacy. In that case, I'll wait for Pro to supply the second premise.III. Bodily sovereignty1. The government should not control a woman's body.2. Making abortion illegal controls a woman's body.3. Therefore, the government should not make abortion illegal.This argument is problematic because there is a relevant exceptions to the first premise. If a woman had no other way to feed her child than to breast feed it, then the government would have the right to enforce a law that mothers breastfeed their own children. The alternative is that the government should allow mothers to neglect their own children, leaving them to starve to death. But having a law that expects women to breastfeed their own children means that there is a law that controls a woman's body. So although we might say that in most cases, the government should not control a woman's body, that is not without exception.ConclusionThe \"right to not have a child\" is just a rewording of \"the right to have an abortion,\" so the first argument is circular. The second argument is invalid because there's a missing premise. The third argument is unsound because the first premise is false on the basis that there is an exception that is relevant to abortion. So all three arguments fail.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702bd00-2019-04-18T17:57:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8418497443199158}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should not be illegal Content: I think that abortion should be legal. 1. I understand that some people could use abortion for the wrong reasons, but people will abuse anything to their advantage. 2. No one is good enough to decide if abortion is right or wrong for each and every single person in America. So, everyone should be able to make their own choice. Some people are raped, and if abortion was illegal, would have to look at their stomach as a painful reminder of that event. Every time they would look into the child's eyes, they would remember. No one should have to go through with that. 3. Abortion being illegal doesn't make it mandatory. People just get to make their own choice. Supporting it doesn't make you a baby killer, it makes you a proponent of free choice. 4. Adoption isn't always an option. Some people may not want to give up their baby, even though they can't support it. They would feel too attached, once it is born, to let it go. They (assuming they are young) might drop out of school and ruin the baby's and their lives. Also, even if the child is put up for adoption, the child may feel rejected, and feel out of place when other students talk about family history (1). Also, adopted children may be more inclined to commit suicide according to this study (2). I believe that choice is the only way to truly allow people their freedoms. People can't always choose when to get pregnant, and sadly, sometimes it is worse for everyone (parents & child) for the baby to be born. (1): http://family.findlaw.com... (2): http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...", "qid": 8, "docid": "f03a8a52-2019-04-18T19:31:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8406041264533997}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal. Content: Whether if you're religious, or not. Abortions should not be illegal. Why? Because, some people are unfit to even have kids. And plus kids are expensive to raise. People view abortions as a bad thing. As a thing that'll kill an unborn baby. Or even as an unethical thing to do. Personally I think Abortions should be legal. We all have our reasons why we want to use have an abortion. I'm just a male. And if I placed myself in the situation of a pregnant 14 year old. You might choose to have the baby and go through the pain of child birth. Or might not, the problem is. Context, people view abortions as a killing machine. People love viewing it as that. As a Pro Choice I believe that they should be legal. But situations like that are hurting people. People make dumb choices as teens and kids. My Regards, Don", "qid": 8, "docid": "3b40d888-2019-04-18T11:38:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8405916690826416}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be OK Content: Abortion should be legal because:1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc.2. It is not the job of the goverment to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment.", "qid": 8, "docid": "ecb3571b-2019-04-18T16:51:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8394884467124939}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should be Legal Content: My opponent wanted to challenge me to this debate, so I opened it! RulesAs con, I must prove why abortion should not be legal. Pro must prove why it should. No semantics or trolling!", "qid": 8, "docid": "2928a4a1-2019-04-18T18:11:02Z-00007-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8392003774642944}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be a legal option for those who want it. Content: OK, I am looking to see if anyone wants to have a debate on this topic with me. 3 rounds each, with the first round to accept the challenge. The topic being \"Abortion should be a legal option for those who want it.\", meaning that Abortion should be legal option regardless of circumstances.", "qid": 8, "docid": "e0335252-2019-04-18T18:42:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8390109539031982}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Given my knowledge on abortion, if it is legal then it will benefit the mother. If abortion is legal then it will create a safe way for a mother to abort her baby and it will give the mother the ability to decide what she wants to do with her body. Abortion has been legal since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973, where women were given their personal rights to decide on what they would like to do to their bodies, which has led to safe ways to abort a mother's baby; therefore abortion should be legal, presumably, unless abortion brings harm to the mother.", "qid": 8, "docid": "a039e5e3-2019-04-18T18:54:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8384815454483032}, {"content": "Title: Should abortion be legal Content: Abortion should not be legal because its killing a real living humans , people from left might say that the women should get to choose if want to abort a baby or not. This is completely untrue, for example if your a mom/dad with a kid just because your \"own\" them does not mean you get to kill them for your own convenience. I do believe a abortion would be appropriate if the baby affected the mothers health.", "qid": 8, "docid": "e12b543e-2019-04-18T12:39:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8380096554756165}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should stay legal Content: Greetings. Let's pose the question: \"Should abortion be (il)legal? \"This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states \"Man shall not kill\". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.", "qid": 8, "docid": "cff9b14f-2019-04-18T11:12:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8377290964126587}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: Abortion should be legal. Regardless of whether the fetus is classified as a human, it is not wrong to have an abortion. The woman has a right to her body and her life. Denying her the write to an abortion is wrong.", "qid": 8, "docid": "32f403e5-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8375305533409119}, {"content": "Title: Abortions should be legal Content: Let's pose the question: \"Should abortion be (il)legal? \"This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states \"Man shall not kill\". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.", "qid": 8, "docid": "fe8a2184-2019-04-18T11:12:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.837470293045044}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Okay, I accept your challenge. Abortion should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1853b86-2019-04-18T17:50:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8373438119888306}, {"content": "Title: Legalized Abortion Content: Well, thank you for the challenge. I wasn't expecting it. I will be arguing this from the standpoint that abortion should be legal. By the resolution, there are no other burdens that I have to prove. Now, my opponent first claims that the average female decides to abort around three months, and around this time the fetus has developed fingernails, has a heartbeat and can feel pain. Well, if this is a problem, then abortion can still be legal. Let's just make the cut off date for where you can get an abortion earlier than three months. But even if you don't accept that, my opponent's argument is not enough to vote PRO. Having fingernails is not enough to grant you a right to life. And as for feeling pain from the abortion, while I admit it seems bad that a fetus is undergoing this pain during an abortion, they'd feel more pain if they were actually born. There is nothing more painful than life. Saying that we should make abortion illegal because a fetus can feel pain is illogical, because it is inevitable for every living human to feel pain. My opponent's other argument is, \"Children are the leaders of our future and we should appreciate them by allowing them to live.\" Well, most people who have abortions are from demographics that tend not to produce world leaders. Of course, there are exceptions; this I do not deny. But since we can make no perfect prediction as top whether a fetus could eventually be an asset to society or a burden on society, neither side can really use what the fetus could eventually be as an argument. As for the appreciation for allowing them to live argument, my opponent has not given any reason why the fetus is more important than a woman. Shouldn't we be appreciating the people who are already members of our society first? Now I'll give you some reasons why abortion should remain legal: 1.) Rape victims. If abortion is illegal, then a rape victim who becomes pregnant has no option but to carry a fetus in a situation that she has no control over. 2.) Young people make mistakes. Yeah, it is irresponsible for a young woman to have unsafe sex. But I'm not willing to tell her that she has to make serious changes to her life plans just because she made a mistake and didn't use a condom. 3.) If abortion is made illegal, then back-alley abortions will run rampant. You can't stop people from getting an abortion. If it's illegal, they'll do it themselves, and it will be done in extremely unsafe ways. Keeping abortion legal keeps abortion safe. 4.) We have more of an obligation to those who are already a member of our society than those who are not. Since a woman is a member of the social contract whereas a fetus is not, we have an obligation to uphold her right to autonomy over a fetus' supposed right to life.", "qid": 8, "docid": "8254cf01-2019-04-18T19:45:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8368226289749146}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I am FOR Abortion. Abortion should be legal at all points during pregnancy. I believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with HER body. A fetus is not a human being when it is conceived; I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb and enters the world. Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet! Abortion should be legal in every case, such as when having the baby will kill the mother, or even if the baby is just an inconvenience and the mother does not want it. Murder is killing anyone from the day they LEAVE THE WOMB to the day they die. Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1877906-2019-04-18T12:02:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8361604809761047}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Abortion should be entirely legal, although it should never be paid for by taxpayers. The simple fact that it is the mothers choice to terminate an UNBORN child/fetus, and she can afford to pay for the procedure is good enough reason to keep abortion legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b186236b-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8359335660934448}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Okay, I'll take a stab at it. I will be arguing why \"Abortion should not be legal\". I would like to request some rules to be implemented into the argument: Do not ask questions that you cannot answer. Please list sources of your information at the end of each paragraph, and if you came up with it, then say, \"by - MyName\" at the end of the paragraph. Let the debate begin.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00008-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.8350549936294556}, {"content": "Title: World Online Debating Competition: All Forms of Abortion Should Be Legal Content: The resolution is that all forms of abortion should be legal. I will be proposing this motion and BOP is on myself. Ajabi will simply be opposing this motion via negation and arguing why all forms of abortion should not be legal. First round is acceptance, second for the contentions, third for extension and rebuttal, fourth for rebuttal and summation. Good luck to Ajabi and I hope for an enticing debate!", "qid": 8, "docid": "de6af5ea-2019-04-18T15:52:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8344732522964478}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: Abortion is not immoral. It should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "32f40423-2019-04-18T13:02:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8344202041625977}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Greetings. Looking forward to the debate. I will start off my opening argument below as follows:1. ) Should Abortion Be Illegal? A. Yes depending on the circumstances. 2. ) From what point in the pregnancy should abortion be illegal? A. Very early on while it is only a fetus. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. [This goes back to depending on the circumstances]B. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort because that is her responsibility. For every action there's a reaction. A baby inside a womb is still a human life and it would be wrong to do that. Would you mind providing your definition of pro-life? I researched it and there are some definitions that are different within each other. For confirmation you are saying abortion shouldn't be illegal? (Con) and I am saying it should be illegal? (Pro)If I misunderstood, Then I apologize in advance. Round 1 response submitted. Thank you.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7586cb05-2019-04-18T11:13:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8330102562904358}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should not be a matter of the people's choice. Content: I will argue that abortion should remain legal, and available to women. You have the burden of proof in showing that abortion should be illegal.P.S. You are pro to the resolution : \"Abortion should not be a matter of the people's choice.\", which states that you are against abortion, even though it says you are for abortion on your profile. Please think through your resolutions better on future debates.", "qid": 8, "docid": "c2c624b7-2019-04-18T17:49:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8321657180786133}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Yes. Abortion should be legal but only in very specific scenarios. I am sorry that you had to go through that whole deal with being left at an adoption center. Look at it this way, at least you are alive. You can make a difference in the world. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. Everyone is here for a reason, its just up to you to decide why. You need to write your own story. Thanks for the sporty debate, even when I wasn't necessarily arguing correctly.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.8312683701515198}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I accept. I will be arguing that abortion should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1870504-2019-04-18T12:57:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8311119079589844}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: I am going Pro-life on that the United States should make abortion illegal. If you decide to debate with me you will go Con stating that Abortion should be legal. Rules: Correct Grammar and Punctuation! No Forfeiting! Cite your sources!", "qid": 8, "docid": "7586b87e-2019-04-18T16:28:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.8303234577178955}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing abortion Content: Hello I believe that abortion should be legalized. I will challenge you in this debate. I adamantly believe in the pro choice ethos. I will argue for on the basis of welfare, education responsibility and moralization. May the better debater win. Yours Sincerely BEM 1019.", "qid": 8, "docid": "24ce384e-2019-04-18T17:02:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8302887678146362}, {"content": "Title: abortion Content: I believe that abortion should not be legal one bit I don't believe that murder is right at all, but if abortion is legal why don't they legalize killing people. God has a plan for everyone and when you have a abortion you are going against God......... You think you can prove me wrong try", "qid": 8, "docid": "3dff2c88-2019-04-18T19:29:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.8293558359146118}, {"content": "Title: abortion Content: I believe that abortion should not be legal one bit I don't believe that murder is right at all, but if abortion is legal why don't they legalize killing people. God has a plan for everyone and when you have a abortion you are going against God......... You think you can prove me wrong try", "qid": 8, "docid": "3dff2ca7-2019-04-18T19:29:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.8293558359146118}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should in most cases be illegal Content: Round one is just for stating your position and acceptance. rules 1. No ad hominems 2. No new arguments in final rebuttals 3. standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply. I will be arguing that abortions should be illegal except for when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life of the mother. I am looking for someone who either believes that abortion should be legal in all instances or should be illegal despite any danger to the life of the mother.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1ca3201-2019-04-18T12:13:21Z-00007-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.8289841413497925}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Throughout this short debate, my opponent has made the error of thinking that because something is legal it is morally correct. The resolution isn't about whether abortion is legal - it's about whether it /should/ be \"left open as an option.\" For this reason no arguments about current laws apply. Pro has not responded to my value of human life. I have indicated that human life should be protected and all he has done is state that fetuses aren't human beings. He has given no criteria for what constitutes a human being (I argue that all humans are human beings). Finally, pro's argument about the baby's inability to \"act on its rights\" makes no sense. How does anyone act on a right to live? By living? Fetuses are alive and actively growing", "qid": 8, "docid": "47ca8ce3-2019-04-18T19:05:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.8281646966934204}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Ought to be Legal Content: *shakes Con's hand* Now, onto business. Argument 1 Abortion ought be legal as a matter of public health. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, there will be those who will seek out abortions anyway. Abortions received in a clinical setting are much safer than other methods, as they are performed by and under the supervision of those in medical professions who know what they are doing and what to do in case of emergencies. Abortions performed at home, such as with coathangers or any of the various methods often used in the hopes of inducing a miscarriage (blows to the abdomen, intentionally eating foods one is meant to avoid during pregnancy, etc.), are done without this medical supervision and often in the absence of any medical knowledge by the pregnant woman. Safer abortions should be provided because it would minimize the amount of deaths and complications due to abortions. Argument 2 Abortion ought to be legal because it is the right of the woman. If we accept the premise that a human being is the owner of their own body (which we must if we're debating laws in the first place, because why would we tell someone what they can and can't do with something if they aren't in control of it anyway?), then that human being also has the right to decide what to do with his or her body. If a woman doesn't wish to be pregnant, she shouldn't be legally denied an abortion, because denial of that abortion would force her to make a choice that she doesn't want to and shouldn't have to.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7b4e7a52-2019-04-18T17:07:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.8280143141746521}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: #1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother. please don't accept if you intend to forfeit.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b18780e5-2019-04-18T11:45:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.8276269435882568}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be ILLEGAL Content: Abortion should be legal.. Because the baby is a) growing inside the mother b) will be born from the mother and c) is the responsibility of the mother, she should have the legal choice to terminate if she thinks the child will not have a healthy life in the womb and after birth because until the baby is born, she is the sole provider and protector of that child because it is a part of her. The earth cannot sustain the already expanding population and making abortion illegal would have severe consequences further on down the line. This does not mean I support abortion as the only contraceptive, if people are stupid enough to not use protection (excluding rape, incest, etc.) that is their fault, but it is also their responsibility to decide what to do with the child now because they are responsible for that life. It is murder, but murder of a developing mass of cells, if terminated early enough, that may or may not have a healthy full-filling life that is the sole choice of the parent because they are the only one who can advocate for THEIR child. If vasectomies are legal, why shouldn't abortion be? It is a reproductive health service that should be made legal everywhere, even despite religious/cultural conflicts. Making it illegal is violating basic human rights to reproduction, not to mention the slew of problems that would drag the world to its knees because of overpopulation because some people think 'abortion is murder'.", "qid": 8, "docid": "271173e1-2019-04-18T15:21:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.8275442719459534}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: My arguments are not false. They make sense. The reason that I stated each of my arguments in more than one sentence is to prove that those arguments are valid. I want to hear my opponent's arguments against the right to have an abortion. He has not stated why abortion should be illegal. My opponent believes that abortion should be illegal. If abortion is illegal than there will be a lot more protests going on. Women who are pregnant will have no choice but to give birth to a child even if they don't want to. If that child is not raised well then there will be a good chance that the child will become a criminal. There will be more unsafe abortions which will cause more women to die as I stated in the previous round. Besides, taking care of a child is a lot of work. It takes a lot of time and money to do that. There's people who can't afford to take care of a child either because they don't have enough money or they don't have enough time. Abortion should be completely legal and available for women.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702bd00-2019-04-18T17:57:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.827389121055603}, {"content": "Title: Prohibition of Abortion Content: My Believe abortion should be legal for a few reasons. One there are many cases where child birth would be highly dangerous for the mother. Sometimes it would put the mothers life at risk. My mom is currently pregent. She should be fine but what if next week the doctor says that she is likely to die if she tries to give birth to the baby. Should she have to have the baby anyway? How does that affect me or my step father if she dies and even more if the baby does to and she dies for nothing. Should she still keep the child? Or someone who is too young or to old to safely give birth. What about a mother that got pregent from rape should she keep the kid. I don't think abortion should be taken lightly and other options should be explored first, however I believe in some cases it's the best option.", "qid": 8, "docid": "f7991e72-2019-04-18T15:20:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.8266160488128662}, {"content": "Title: abortion should be legal if rape or incest Content: I think that abortion should be legal if you have been raped by a relative or a random stranger. Imagine if you got raped and pregnant then you had to carry that baby for NINE months. Waking up everyday with that child having to relive that situation over and over again. Yes, God wouldn't want you to kill a child but he wouldn't want this to happen to you also. F.Y.I- I am not saying that killing a baby is alright. I am against killing a baby if you are just playing around.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6696fc5e-2019-04-18T15:03:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.8265068531036377}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is murder Content: This is a debate about whether or not abortion should be legal. I will be arguing con abortion, and my opponent will be arguing pro. We are taught that killing other people is wrong, also when they are smaller and weaker than us or more dependent on others. Yet still a lot of people think that abortion is alright. Abortion is killing another human, and as if that\"s not bad enough in itself it\"s killing an innocent life that has no way of defending itself. But of course, that is only true, depending on when life starts; at birth, or at conception. We are not certain on this matter, but one thing is certain, at some point the embryo get too developed, and we can call that a person. Already at the +8th week the embryo feels real pain, both psychological and physical pain. Just like a toddler, embryos are still a human being, a smaller and way more dependent human being, but none the less still a human being. This is a difference in degree and not kind. Therefor is abortion murder, and should be illegal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "2bb0061-2019-04-18T15:13:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.826248049736023}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: Ok, here's the deal. I was looking over this trying to decide what I want to say for my next argument, and I realized something. I am arguing the right point in the wrong debate. What I am saying is that abortion is wrong. You are saying abortion should be legal. Well, I agree. Abortion should be legal because if it isn't, we end up with really bad scenarios like in Dirty Dancing (Yes, I have seen that movie). When people need abortions, they go to the back allies and get some half wit who just got his medical license revoked to cut them open and take out the baby. Well, that isn't safe. Abortion should be legal, but there should be tons of regulations on getting one. For example, rape. If you get raped, that is one way you should be ALLOWED an abortion. But if you are a 25 year old woman who got knocked up a month before her wedding, to bad. No abortion for you just because you want to look good in your wedding dress. What I am trying to say is we are both right. Abortion is wrong but unfortunately should be legal so that when someone NEEDS it, they have access to it and don't have to go to some shady guy in a back alley. I probably won't make a next round argument as I have nothing to argue for. My point doesn't belong in this debate, and I should have thought about it more before I jumped in.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.8252749443054199}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: So you agree that abortion should be legal? And thanks for the rape scenario opinion.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.8252061605453491}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I believe abortion should be illegal! If a pregnant mother is murdered, the murderer is charged with a double homicide. This law considers an unborn baby a real person. Why then is abortion legal? From the moment of conception, an unborn baby is a distinct person. Therefore we should give these innocent unborn babies a chance at what life has to offer!", "qid": 8, "docid": "b18528e0-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.8249392509460449}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should remain legal in the United States Content: Resolution : Abortion should remain legal in the United States. There are some circumstances that justify abortion therefore it should be legal. This is a shared BOPCon is acknowledging and accepting that abortion should be illegal in all circumstance and that there is no circumstance that justifies an abortion. Illegal in this debate shall be defined as - Banning the practice of abortion in all circumstances. Rules(1) Valid RFD for votes(2) 48 hour argument time(3) 10,000 character limit. (4) In the last round con shall type \"no round as agreed upon\", failure to type this will result in a full 7 point concession from con because it awards him/her an extra round to argue(5) A ff of a round will result in the loss of a conduct point(6) 2 ffs will result in a full 7 point concession'StructureMeR1 : Rules and outlineR2 : Opening Argument no rebuttalsR3 : Crystallizing final points, rebuttals, and closing statements. Adversary R1: Opening argumentsR2: Crystallizing final points, rebuttals, and closing statements. R3 : Adversary shall type \"no round as agreed upon\"", "qid": 8, "docid": "67e96441-2019-04-18T16:54:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.8248523473739624}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: This debate will be about whether or not, And from what point in the pregnancy should abortion be illegal. Pro represents the so-called \"pro-life\" movement, con supports adoption.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7586cb05-2019-04-18T11:13:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.824644923210144}, {"content": "Title: On balance, abortion is immoral Content: On my opponent's request, this debate will actually concern whether or not abortion should be legal. Nevertheless, morality will still have a major part of the debate, considering many of our laws are shaped around moral sentiments.Note that I will make the following concession, that I accept that abortion should be legal in cases where it is necessary to save the mother from death or severe physical injury. This is because the killing of abortion starts to be considered as proportionate self-defence, which I believe is morally and therefore legally acceptable.Nonetheless, only 0.00014% (1) of abortions in the past ten years in the UK have been to save the mothers life. It is absurd to suggest that we should make the other 99.99986% of abortions legal to allow for such a negligible minority of cases, especially considering that in every single one of these cases a human life is destroyed unjustly.ArgumentMy argument takes the following form of premises and conclusions:P1: A human foetus is a human beingP2: It is wrong to kill a human beingP3: An abortion kills a human foetusC1: It is wrong to have an abortionP4: Wrong acts should not be legalC2: Abortion should not be legal.This argument is deductive, which is to say that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. All I need to do now is justify the premises.P1Consider the definition of 'human being':'any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.' (2)Firstly, a human foetus is an individual organism; it has unique DNA with a distinct body.Secondly, a human foetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens because it has DNA that pertains to this species.Therefore, a human foetus is a human being.The US Senate report on Senate Bill 158 summarised this premise:'Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.' (3)P2This premise is somewhat more challenging to verify. First we must consider why killing human beings is wrong.It is a hard question, as many take it as indisputable fact that homicide is wrong, but it seems that there must be a particular reason why we all share this sentiment.But when one thinks about it, it becomes apparent that the reason that homicide is wrong is because it denies someone their future life.This is demonstrated by how people often mourn the dead by saying: 'He had so much to live for!' or 'He had his whole life ahead of him!'.Furthermore, if one was to be diagnosed with cancer and given 2 weeks to live, probably the main reason why the patient would feel saddened would be that they feel disappointment with the prospect of missing out on a future life.So killing human beings is wrong because it denies them of a future life. Even if this future life can seem to be undesirable, it is still valuable insofar as it has the potential to be desirable. For example, the future of a homeless person may look bleak, but the future life is still valuable because it has the potential to be desirable, through the autonomous deliberation of the individual.Therefore, as pretty much all human beings have a future life with the capacity to be desirable, and that killing is the removal of this future life, then we can conclude that the killing of human beings is wrong.P3This is an uncontroversial premise, as it is entailed by the definitions that were accepted by my opponent in round 1.C1This conclusion is a logical deduction from P1, P2 and P3.P4Immoral acts are immoral because they generally share some negative trait - namely the decrease in the general welfare of all parties involved. In other words, if there are two actions, X & Y, then if Y causes a general decrease in the welfare of the involved parties, then Y is immoral.So to summarise, immoral acts are such because they harm the welfare of others'.Now, consider that the role of government is to promote the welfare of its citizens (as it is democratically elected by them). If legalising something will cause a general increase in welfare, then it ought to be legalised. Conversely, if something will cause a general decrease in welfare, then it ought to be prohibited up until the point at which further prohibition would decrease the general welfare.Therefore, as immoral acts decrease the general welfare of society and those within it, such acts ought to be legally prohibited.C2This conclusion logically follows from C1 and P4.ConclusionThis valid argument, which I have sufficiently defended, demonstrates why abortion should not be legal. (1) https://www.gov.uk...(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(3) Kaczor, Christopher 'The Edge of Life: Human Dignity and Contemporary Bioethics' p48 (available on Google Books - http://bit.ly...)", "qid": 8, "docid": "f7ff8d93-2019-04-18T14:58:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.8246351480484009}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: Abortion is not immoral and it should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "32f40404-2019-04-18T13:07:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.8243073225021362}, {"content": "Title: Should Financial abortion Content: \"This debate is about if Financial abortion should be legal or not.\" That's what you wanted to debate. If abortion weren't legal in all but extraordinary cases, financial abortion would not be either.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6141ed46-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.8240123987197876}, {"content": "Title: Should abortions be legal in cases of rape and incest Content: Well, I think abortions should be legal,because if your raped and you don't want the child,then you could get an abortion,and incest well you could still get an abortion If you wanted to......", "qid": 8, "docid": "2290faab-2019-04-18T12:48:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.8238438367843628}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal. Content: I accept. As Con, I will argue that abortion should not be legal. In what follows now, I will first present my argument and then refute what Pro said in his first round. But before I do this, I would first like to note something important. Although I am against abortion, there is one situation in which I believe that abortion is justifiable, namely, when the life of the mother is directly threatened.My ArgumentShould abortion (the killing of an fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy) be legal? Well, in order to answer that question, we must first know what the fetus is. If the fetus is just a meaningless thing, like for example an insect, then why shouldn't it be legal to kill it? However, what about if the fetus is a human being? Should abortion be legal then? Of course not. It would be absurd to argue that abortion should be legal if the fetus is a human being. So, what is the fetus? Is it a human being? Yes. We know from science that from the earliest stages of development, the fetus is a distinct and living human being. In fact, we also know from science that a new human being comes into existence at conception, as the standard text of Human Embryology and Teratology states, \"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization/conception is a critical landmark, because under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.\" [1]Indeed, it is surely absurd to say that the unborn isn't a human being. If it isn't a human being, then what is it? A lion? Or maybe a cat? Of course not. The fetus is obviously biologically human, genetically human, and a distinct member of the species homo sapiens. Even Peter Singer himself, although being a pro-choice philosopher, accept the humanity of the unborn: \"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo/fetus conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.\" [2]David Boonin, also a pro-choice philosopher, writes:\"Perhaps the most straight forward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.\" [3]Pro's ArgumentPro said two things in his first round. Pro first said that \"The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our \"unalienable rights\" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us \"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\" That's exactly right. However, the right to life, liberty and happiness, is something which the fetus should be given too, because as I have clearly showed, the fetus is also a human being.After saying this, Pro said that \"Without legalizing abortion, women wouldn't be granted the right to care for their own bodies and make decisions regarding their unborn child/children.\"This is completely mistaken. Without legalizing abortion, what women really wouldn't be granted the right to do, is to kill an innocent human being. ConclusionThe fetus, as I have clearly showed, is a human being. Thus, abortion (which is the killing of an human being, namely, the fetus) should not be legal.Sources[1] http://www.caseforlife.com... This site presents several quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology who all confirms the fact that the fetus is a human being and that a new human being comes into existence at conception.[2] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, page 85-86.[3] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, page 20.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702411f-2019-04-18T18:02:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.8232160806655884}, {"content": "Title: Aboriton should remain illegal Content: 8000 characters48 hours to respondRounds:1 is for acceptance2 is opening arguments3 is clarification and rebuttal4 is closing statements The argument is over whether or not abortion should be illegal. For the sake of this debate lets leave out life of the mother. All other situations are fair game. I argue that abortion should be illegal. Let's not let this get into the practical of everything. This should remain about the principal rather than what to do in specific situations legally", "qid": 8, "docid": "2c9ce16e-2019-04-18T17:14:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.8230966329574585}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Laws Should Be Legalized. Content: My opponent wanted practice debating, but did not feel up to writing an affirmative case, so I have obliged on an agreed-upon topic. I understand that the resolution means \"abortion should be legal.\" For this debate, I will consider mainly first trimester abortions, but also abortions at any time when the life of the mother is at stake. Negating the resolution requires that no abortion should be legal, so to it suffices to affirm that some abortions should be legal. this puts aside the issue of late term abortion. 1. Whether or not to have an abortion is a moral decision, but it is a personal decision to be made by the woman, not a decision for society. The Supreme Court ruled that for the first trimester the fetus is by nature totally dependent upon the mother, so it is properly considered part of the mother. The fetus cannot survive independently. The Court also ruled that the Constitution has an implied right of privacy. I don't necessarily agree that there is such a right in the Constitution, but the logic of the fetus being part of the mother is sound. The mother has an inherent right to manage her own body, and no law ought to interfere with that right. 2. The life of the mother ought to be prioritized above the ultimate survival of the fetus. Society has a lot invested in the mother in terms of education, and she is highly valued by her friends and family. The fetus has no perception, and most important, no memories. Consequently, if it comes to a medical decision to save either the mother or the fetus, it ought to be the survival of the mother that prevails. Legalizing abortion to save the life of the mother is required to make the right decision. 3. For the first few days after conception, the fertilized egg is a microscopic undifferentiated sphere. Many fertilized eggs, more than half are spontaneously aborted naturally. No one considers spontaneous abortion as morally significant. No one holds them to be comparable to a late term miscarriage. Generally no one knows they happen, and no one thinks it important to find out. Since natural abortions in the first few days are not given moral significance, it is consistent to make early induced abortions legal. Incidentally, the \"morning after pill\" is a contraceptive, not an abortion drug, but there are other drugs that accomplish early abortions. 4. Modern society has needs that differ strongly from those of primitive societies. In primitive societies many people died in childhood. Having many children was required to maintain populations. That is consistent with an instinct to carry pregnancies through to term. Modern societies are far more likely to suffer from overpopulation than underpopulation. Even if first-world nations, raising a child properly is an expensive undertaking for both the parents and society. It is therefore rational to allow legal abortion as a mechanism for population control. Cumulatively, there have been about 50 million abortions in the United States since legalization in 1973. We are having problem caring for the population we have, let alone 50 million more. Abortion should be legal for the good of society. 5. The alternative to legal abortion is illegal abortion. Illegal abortion was rampant before legalization, and if made illegal it would be so again. Illegal abortions are often performed by quacks. 5.1 Making abortion illegal would deter some abortions, but at the expense of injured women. In the United States, the death toll would not be as high as in other countries. In 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion was 235, a limited number as a consequence of real doctors treating the injuries with antibiotics. http://www.straightdope.com.... 235 unnecessary deaths per year is 235 too many. 5.2 Wealthier women could afford to travel to a country where abortion is legal, while the poorer would endure illegal abortions. Making abortion illegal is therefore unjust. If abortion were illegal everywhere, then the toll of death and injury worldwide due to improperly performed illegal abortions would be much higher. 5.3 In the U.S., emergency room treatment is provided to everyone who needs it. Consequently, while death could often be avoided, there would be a substantial drain on medical resources to patch up botched abortions. The abortion decision is a serious one, but it is not one that should be made by government, and certainly not in a broad way that makes all abortion illegal. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": 8, "docid": "95d50422-2019-04-18T19:03:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.8226908445358276}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Props to Pro for posting this debate, and thanks for letting me participate. I believe abortion should be legal because a fetus is not a person until birth, anti-abortion arguments are usually based on religion and threatens the vital separation of church and state , and if safe and legal abortions are not available, women will be driven to dangerous back-alley abortions. A fetus is not a person until later on in the pregnancy. Until then, the fetus only has potential. If destroying the potential of a person is considered murder, then ejaculating would be a mass killing. Linda Lowen states in a article that \"nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb\". If abortions became illegal, many pregnant women will rely on illegal abortions. Over 47,000 women die each year from illegal abortions where abortion is illegal. If abortion was illegal, a rape victim would have to go through a dangerous abortion which could kill her. In conclusion, abortion should be legal because a fetus is not a person until birth, anti-abortion arguments are usually based on religion and threatens the vital separation of church and state , and if safe and legal abortions are not available, women will be driven to dangerous back-alley abortions.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7586b87e-2019-04-18T16:28:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.821847140789032}, {"content": "Title: In the united states Abortion should be legalized\" Content: Abortion should be legalized because when you deal with \"circumstance\" it becomes tricky. The usual argument is if a woman gets raped or incest occurs, she should get an abortion. What about sex salves (By force) and a pregnancy that can go bad? If a woman needs to have an abortion, she will know it because it is her body. The doctors they attend will also give expert advice.", "qid": 8, "docid": "30477273-2019-04-18T18:26:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.8216326832771301}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: Abortion is, and should be legal in most cases. The right of the mother to make her own health decisions must always be protected. Making abortion illegal will not help to stop the procedure, it will just move the location to a more unsafe environment.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b185b349-2019-04-18T16:29:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.8211894035339355}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: This will be a debate on when abortion should and should not be legal. My opponent can be for or against abortion, as my position could allow for contentions from both sides. *edit* My opponent must support another model for the legality of abortion.Resolution: Abortion should be legal until the fetus has brain activity (approximately 8 weeks gestation). Abortion would then be illegal after this point.There will be 4 rounds, 8000 character limit. First round acceptance only. I hope for a great debate!", "qid": 8, "docid": "b185997e-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.8209083676338196}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is just morally wrong. Content: For a long time the argument of abortion has been going on. My opinion is that abortion is simply morally wrong. If you think that abortion should be legal, challenge me on this debate.", "qid": 8, "docid": "47e72d43-2019-04-18T20:02:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.8208562135696411}, {"content": "Title: Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate Content: ~Not repeating my myself~ Abortion isn't murder and I have stated the reasons why in my previous rounds. So therefore it should be legalized. Now the people will decided who wins this. Sources : http://www.news24.com...", "qid": 8, "docid": "18a679e2-2019-04-18T16:19:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.8208458423614502}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be illegal Content: Hi, I just love argumentation and would like to have a debate with someone. this debate doesn't have to be so structured, it's more of a conversation. I believe that abortion should NOT be illegal because it infringes upon women's rights. I myself would never get an abortion but that doesn't mean I get to decide what other women do. Women have the right to do with their body as they see fit. A majority of women choose to have abortions because they are not ready to have a baby, can't support another being financially, and then there are the other cases where a woman is raped or giving birth will endanger their life. There is also the fact that making abortions illegal will just lead to women going through dangerous measure to abort the fetuses.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7586c763-2019-04-18T11:45:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.8206223249435425}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should not be legal Content: I understand that this topic is used so often but this will be my first debate, the ground rules are as follows 1. I will argue that abortion should not be legal 2. No videos may be posted Good luck to who accepts!", "qid": 8, "docid": "845f574e-2019-04-18T18:47:23Z-00009-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.8203347325325012}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: In my opinion I believe abortion should be illegal. It shouldn't even be allowed today, but it is.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1862444-2019-04-18T15:08:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.8200662136077881}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legal Content: Alright, the 2nd round.Abortion SHOULD be legal, because in some cases Abortion is necessary (Ex. Pre-Teen is raped, Woman has no husband/reltives and is to die due to disease after child is born). So it must be legal, and you can't have thousands of people deciding whether or not the abortion should be carried out, since it is extremely hard to do so and it will be based solely on personal opinion.If the abortion is WANTED by all living parents, it is probably the most logical choice, seeing as the parents will not love the child at all if they are forced to have it, and a Foster home will mean decades and likely an entire life of physical and sexual harassment.So if Abortion is needed due to a condition (Disease, Rape), Then it is obviously neccesary.If it is wanted by parents, then there will be some possibilities:1- Parents have an Abortion, no big problems2- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they do not love baby and it grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and, possibly, harassment 3- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they give it up for Adoption, Baby is Harassed (It will, don't say it won't) at Foster home, grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and harassment If it were me, I'd probably not make the Baby suffer so much and simply pick choice 1. Please explain how choice 1 is unwise.I await your response.", "qid": 8, "docid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.8194775581359863}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: I'm arguing that abortions should be legal.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1852066-2019-04-18T18:45:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.8189853429794312}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: #1 no ad hominems. #2 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #3 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I believe that abortion should be illegal except for when the pregnancy poses an abnormal threat to the life of the mother.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1877dbf-2019-04-18T11:48:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.8189070820808411}, {"content": "Title: Why abortion should be legal Content: Abortion shouldn't be legal to those who had consensual sex with a man and happened to get pregnant. It seems like my opponent and I both agree that abortion should be legal to those who were either raped, apart of incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. But the line must me drawn in the sand when it comes to those who made their choice by having sex and got pregnant. My opponent argues that a woman should be allowed to change her mind when it comes to having a child, well she can change her, but she can't just kill a child so she doesn't have raise it. One of the roles of the government is to protect the lives of their people and that goes even toward a underdeveloped baby. The child is still human and the last time I checked killing a human is murder. Sources- http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://carm.org...", "qid": 8, "docid": "47e4d062-2019-04-18T18:02:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.8185080885887146}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to \"fix\" the problem. Sure, there are arguments that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that? Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences could be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what happened, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1852c82-2019-04-18T18:27:23Z-00009-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.8182975649833679}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be legalized Content: Introduction Thank you for posting such a strong round in an attempt to negate the resolution. In this round we will refute your arguments. Our goal is to affirm the resolution that abortion should be legal, our opponents must argue the opposite and therefore they negate. We will now refute the negative case. Observations We agree with our opponent\u2019s observations and we agree with the positions in which we will both be arguing under these split burdens. The Fetus is a Human Being Firstly, our opponent\u2019s make a number of assumptions here. They state that we must assume that life exists from the beginning but offer no reason why. They simply tell us to read their source. This is unacceptable since they are not offering the argument, they are simply relying on the source to argue for them. They don\u2019t even quote from the source, they just tell us to read it. It is interesting how our opponents have explained the process of how the embryo is formed however they offer no explanation as to why the embryo is alive. In fact, in our contentions we proved for a 100% fact that the embryo is non-living [1]. Therefore, our opponent\u2019s must prove that the fetus is alive. Attempting to prove that life starts from the very beginning is pointless because it is a scientific truism that this is not the case [1]. The science is interesting and it is the lead up to life but it is not life. Another point worth noting is that our opponent uses Keith Liam Moore\u2019s book as a source of information. Keith Liam Moore was a lecturer who lectures in regards to surgery [2]. His study in embryology comes at a much later period in his life and he has been severely critiqued by atheists and others for basing his research with little evidence and instead making it so that it coincides with the Qu\u2019ran [2]. Without any evidence other than the process of human reproduction (provided by our opponents), we find that their argument fails. Our opponents (again), tell us to look in their sources for more information which is not something that we should be doing. They should be going through their own sources and quoting information from them. Framework Being against abortion whilst simultaneously following libertarianism as your political ideology is completely contradictory. We have shown that biologically the fetus is not living as well as by disproving our opponent\u2019s case. Since libertarians are individualists (as our opponents agree upon), this means that they value the individual in society heavily [3]. By denying them their right to an abortion you are restricting them which is an evident violation of both libertarianism and individualism. Libertarianism is violated simply due to the restrictions - which is the complete opposite of libertarian ideology which states that its objective is to minimize state restriction [4]. Individualism is violated because the individual\u2019s opinion is not being valued. We will re-state what we said in our initial framework since this is the perfect scenario in which it can be used. Capitalism magazine explains this well by saying, \u201cA fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body... There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e., there is no right to enslave... a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church).\u201d [4] This the final line of this clearly shows that the women is not owned by the state which is what the negative case essentially argues. This perfectly follows on from my explanation of ideological violations previously stated. It shows refers to the stupidity of state restriction at the end and the rest of it shows that the women is the individual and therefore she has control and authority over her own body - thus explaining why the negative case violates individualism. Need to prevent murder Our opponents states that we must prove that murder is not bad however this is unnecessary since we have already proven the fetus to be non-living. Since the fetus is non-living and the definition of murder is specific to humans [5], this means that the termination of the fetus is not murder. Promote Discretion This completely ignores cases of rape and teenager irresponsibility. People can have children from the age of 12. Sometimes even lower [6]. Almost half of all teenage girls have been forced into doing some sort of sexual act [7]. This evidently wasn\u2019t considered in our opponent\u2019s case since they reference to people needing to learn from their actions. Since our opponents have been requesting that we answer many questions throughout the course of their round, let us ask our opponents just one question. Did Lina Medina - the youngest ever pregnant women aged just 5 years old [6] - deserve to deliver her pregnancy without the option to an abortion? In regards to everyone else (that this contention was aimed at), this is also a faulty argument. Firstly, it violates the framework which is based on libertarianism. Libertarians value the individual [4] and by restricting the individual of an abortion so that they can \u2018learn their lesson\u2019 is a complete and evident violation of their own argument. This contradictory position presented by our opponents is enough to presume Pro alone. The resolution is affirmed vote Pro! Conclusion To conclude, we believe that we have successfully refuted our opponent\u2019s contentions and framework through strong and reliable evidence. We thank our opponents for their acceptance to participate in this debate. As previously stated our opponents have provided a contradictory framework to their contentions, thus concluding that the resolution is to be affirmed and voters ought to vote Pro based on this. Sources [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]https://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [6]https://en.wikipedia.org... [7]http://lifecharity.org.uk...", "qid": 8, "docid": "f32ea357-2019-04-18T13:58:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.8180480599403381}, {"content": "Title: Abortion in any case, should be against the law. Content: The Pro will be arguing that abortion in any case, is wrong, and should be against the law. The Con will be arguing that abortion should be legalized in all cases. The BoP will be shared because there really isn't a BoP.", "qid": 8, "docid": "a5d9538f-2019-04-18T16:05:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.8176096677780151}, {"content": "Title: Abortion should be kept legal Content: I believe that abortion should be kept legal. Abortion where it concerns the invidivual woman is a health and life choice. Abortion where it concerns society is a legal and/or political issue. The moral or religious oppinions of a third person - should not have an affect on the law or the health care choices of another individual. Women should not be forced - by government officials - to gestate and birth feoti agianst thier will.", "qid": 8, "docid": "48e4db2d-2019-04-18T19:52:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.8175408840179443}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances Content: As i see it, my task is simple, all i must do it prove why abortions should not be illegal under ALL circumstances. My opponent makes the argument that abortion is murder, well. .. Well i don't necessarily disagree, however what about ectopic pregnancies? Pregnancies that are often fatal to the woman, should we sentence those woman to death because of an abnormal pregnancy? Please tell me how that is justified. I await the start of the next round.", "qid": 8, "docid": "16683ec1-2019-04-18T19:28:06Z-00008-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.8174827694892883}, {"content": "Title: Poem about abortion Content: Abortion is legal. Abortion should be legal, Thank god it is. When a female is raped, Or protection doesn't work, She may have a baby. Lets say that female is poor and homeless. How would she care for her baby? In america, Healthcare costs money. How would she pay to have the baby in a hospital, Treat the baby if the baby has a serious condition. If abortion wasn't legal, This mother would have to suffer and the baby could die in pain and so could the mother. But, If the mother found an abortion clinic, She could get rid of the baby in her womb, And the baby wouldn't die in pain. The baby doesn't have nerves yet when you abort, So when a mother gets an abortion, The baby can't feel anything. And the mother could survive, Find food, Without having to deal with the problems in pregnancy. I've seen your account. You are disgusting. -Maddie", "qid": 8, "docid": "eb9194de-2019-04-18T11:21:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.8173662424087524}, {"content": "Title: Abortion is morally wrong Content: No trolling or semantics, etc. This debate is not about whether or not to keep abortion legal, rather, it is about whether it is morally right or wrong to have an abortion if the mothers life is not in danger.", "qid": 8, "docid": "e690d480-2019-04-18T17:17:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.8171316385269165}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Content: In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to \"fix\" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.", "qid": 8, "docid": "b1852c63-2019-04-18T18:27:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.8170900940895081}, {"content": "Title: abortion is murder Content: I, Con, accept the challenge, and will be arguing that abortion is not wrong anytime in a pregnancy and should be made legal. I look forward to Pro starting the debate.", "qid": 8, "docid": "255c4280-2019-04-18T14:08:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.8169713020324707}, {"content": "Title: Rape Should Not Be An Exception In Abortion Policy Content: Perhaps abortion should be generally legal, perhaps it should be generally illegal. But if it is illegal then rape should not be allowed to be an exception. If abortion is illegal that is predicated on the fetus being a human person with inalienable rights. If the fetus is a human person with inalienable rights then killing it because its father raped its mother is punishing the child for the actions of the father, and is immoral and a violation of equal protection of the law and due process. This debate does not concern itself with whether or not abortion should be illegal in the first place just that if abortion is illegal then rape should not be an exception.", "qid": 8, "docid": "d4e38780-2019-04-18T18:31:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.8168885111808777}, {"content": "Title: Abortion. Content: I accept. I will be arguing that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. I also want to state that although I am taking the pro side and this debate is called \"Abortion,\" I am not \"pro-abortion.\" I am pro-choice. Therefore, I am not going to argue about whether or not women should get abortions, but whether or not they should be allowed to get abortions.", "qid": 8, "docid": "47ca0182-2019-04-18T13:27:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.8167663812637329}, {"content": "Title: Abortion Should Be Legal Content: Resolved: Abortion should be legal. Introduction: I am going to clear up a few details immediately. One argument that has been used against abortion to the point of becoming ubiquitous in such debates is that there is little significant difference between the mental or physiological status of a fetus days prior to birth and an infant days after birth. This is used against the traditional liberal argument that the significant moral break in the development of the fetus occurs with its biological separation with the mother. For the most part I do not accept the liberal argument, but that in and of itself does not help to refute the resolution that abortion should be legal. If it is illegal to abort a pregnancy after a certain point, it was still at some point legal. To make an analogy, the fact that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated does not support the resolution that driving is illegal. Legality can be subject to circumstance. Argument 1: Depending on the debate, I will typically uphold that it is morally wrong to kill a person. However, I am quite careful about using the term person instead of the term human. The status of being of one species or another does not logically have any moral value. So I will present my own argument for what ought to be considered a person and leave my opponent to address it: I define a person as an individual, morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not necessarily the ability) to communicate such thoughts via a language. This definition will include all humans that are not serious impaired mentally but will not include any inanimate objects or nonhuman animals. Moral consciousness, thought, and language are all more valuable and relevant characteristics for determining personhood than the genetic characteristic of being human. Under this definition, a fetus that is not sufficiently developed would not be considered a human because it would lack the cognitive abilities. On the other hand, an infant is moral conscious and capable of complex thought on some limited level and possesses the capacity to learn a language with which it can express such thoughts. Therefore it is perfectly legal to kill an underdeveloped fetus but not an infant. The exact point at which the fetus would be considered a person may be subject to debate, but that is irrelevant as long as at some point after pregnancy begins the fetus is not a person. Argument 2: There are pragmatic reasons why it would sometimes be logical to abort a fetus. If the fetus is diagnosed as having a fatal condition that would make the pregnancy pointless, there is no reason to force additional physical and mental stress on the mother. If the pregnancy presented a serious risk to the survival of the mother, than likewise it would be reasonable to abort. The value of the life of the child is of no greater value than the mother's, and the status of being pregnant does not innately impose any obligation to endure extreme suffering and physical risk on the behalf of another individual. In these cases, even if the fetus were considered a person it would still be rational to abort the pregnancy. Conclusion: At this point I have not presented many arguments because I believe that considering my opponent's (comparatively) liberal views this will be a nonstandard abortion debate and I am not going to try to anticipate where it will head. Also, because I am not certain on what my opponent's position will, I will not object if he wants to concede my second argument and remove it from the debate. I have other arguments that may better address his views and I expect there will be enough controversy over my first argument for the next round anyway. Sources: I drew extensively from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly the articles on Abortion and The Political Philosophy of John Locke.", "qid": 8, "docid": "7541ad49-2019-04-18T19:06:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.8165543079376221}]}
{"query": "Should students have to wear school uniforms?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: should uniforms in school be required Content: Should schools require school uniforms", "qid": 9, "docid": "299509f8-2019-04-18T14:50:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9180939197540283}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: Should school uniforms be allowed?", "qid": 9, "docid": "2403510b-2019-04-18T15:27:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.9165663719177246}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms at School! Content: I will be arguing that students should have to wear uniforms at schools. My opponent will be arguing against this. This is a tournament debate: http://www.debate.org...6,000 characters per round.4 rounds.2 weeks voting time.First round is for acceptance. Good luck to my opponent.", "qid": 9, "docid": "debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00007-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.9125632643699646}, {"content": "Title: Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools Content: This is a debate in whether schools should require uniforms. First Round: Accept. Second Round: Arguments. Third Round: Rebuttals. Fourth Round: Acknowledge and Refute Rebuttals. Fifth Round: Closing Arguments. Let's have a good debate!", "qid": 9, "docid": "6ae58551-2019-04-18T15:35:40Z-00008-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8981515169143677}, {"content": "Title: should students have to wear school uniforms Content: What do u think should students wear school uniforms", "qid": 9, "docid": "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8937045335769653}, {"content": "Title: why should be uniforms needed in schools Content: Uniforms is needed in schools", "qid": 9, "docid": "78024788-2019-04-18T16:43:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.886212944984436}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have uniforms Content: This is a debate on whether or not schools should have uniforms. First round is acceptance. Rounds 2-4 are arguments and rebuttals. Round 5 is counter rebuttals and closing statements.", "qid": 9, "docid": "5177bde4-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8860021233558655}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: This debate is about whether it is necessary to have a strict school uniform for every student in a school or not. I will be arguing for the motion.", "qid": 9, "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8831846714019775}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. Content: Here I am. I will be arguing that School Uniforms shouldn't be required. I hope you enjoy our debate!", "qid": 9, "docid": "fa922cd8-2019-04-18T16:13:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.882811427116394}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: Prove that it is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools. Students should be free to wear whatever they choose, aside from certain items such as clothes with inappropriate speech. School uniforms restrain the students' freedom of expression and create an environment of conformity. You might argue that school uniforms contribute to order in a school, but I don't think it's obvious that uniforms should be implemented in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8777134418487549}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Are Good Content: I am arguing that school uniforms do not do much good and that students should not be forced to wear them. First round is only for acceptance. Debate will begin in round two. There are only two rounds because the first round is for acceptance. Please vote for which arguement you think is stronger, not based on your personal opinion. Thank you.", "qid": 9, "docid": "23c2cf2-2019-04-18T17:39:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8712151646614075}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools Have Uniforms Content: No, I do not think schools should have uniforms. I think that wearing whatever clothes you like help you express yourself. Also, some people say that school uniforms will help you pay attention in class, honestly I can say from experience, I learn better in sweat pants and sweatshirts. And honestly we are at school to learn and be educated not to be uniform.", "qid": 9, "docid": "480a719a-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8704862594604492}, {"content": "Title: sholud school uniform be given or not Content: Thanks to Pro for the challenge. I will be arguing that school uniforms should not be required for two main reasons. 1. How we dress is an expression of our personalities. Requiring uniforms stifles a child's creativity, and ability to express himself through his/her wardrobe. 2. Dress codes can be enforced that stop kids from wearing clothing that can be a distraction, in the learning environment, thus there is no need to exert authority over what kids wear to school so long as it meets standards of decency. I look forward to Pro's arguments.", "qid": 9, "docid": "14dd18ff-2019-04-18T16:54:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8704142570495605}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should not be Required Content: I will be pro, you will be con. (You will argue that school uniforms should be required) Round one is for acceptance only.My opening statement: School uniforms shouldn't be required because they create a sense of anti-individuality, going against the Freedom of Expression, being forced to choose clothing can help prepare children for the adult world, and requiring school uniforms causes rebellion among the general student population.", "qid": 9, "docid": "c7f51eb0-2019-04-18T16:19:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8683121204376221}, {"content": "Title: Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms Content: Public schools should not have to wear school uniforms. By wearing school uniforms you are not able to express yourself. I do believe that there should be rules about what you wear at a public school but everyone should not be forced to wear the same thing.", "qid": 9, "docid": "b5339025-2019-04-18T18:30:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8672938346862793}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms should be worn in school Content: I think uniforms should be worn in schools. To support my statement I will lay out some points: 1. When all students have to wear the same thing, none of them can brag about wearing the latest, most expensive fashions. 2. Whether they're from the upper, middle or lower class, all students dress the same. 3. Uniforms can increase self-confidence when students don't feel pressured to wear a certain type of clothing. 4. A study by the University of Nevada found the middle school students felt safer and more confident when wearing uniforms. 5. School uniforms lessen distraction in the classroom so no one is sidetracked by someone's T-shirt message or where a friend got new leggings. 6. Studies have shown an increase in academic test scores in schools that have enforced uniform policies. I will now allow the CON to lead out their points and arguments.", "qid": 9, "docid": "8156d8db-2019-04-18T13:53:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.864664614200592}, {"content": "Title: Choose your topic! Content: I accept the challenge. I will do the topic I am most versatile in: School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. I will be pro, you will be con. (You will argue that school uniforms should be required)", "qid": 9, "docid": "563c9db1-2019-04-18T16:20:05Z-00007-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8642776012420654}, {"content": "Title: Students should not wear uniform Content: Let me start of by saying that children should wear uniform to school . My reasons are listed in nice order and hope my opponent gives me a great debate . My links will be put in the bottom of my argument . Reasons why students should wear uniforms. 1 . Not all students will be able to afford nice cloths so there would be a lot of bullying for those who can't afford it . 2 . Bullying has been found responsible many student suicide and making it a law will increase suicide rates . 3 . There would be an increase in rasisiam in my opinion meaning I don't have much evidence to prove it but its based in the taught that if you say something an giants one person of a race then evreyone will think that that's true about the entire culture . I hope my opponent sees these as plausible reasons to why students should wear uniforms good luck. http://www.nl.idebate.org...", "qid": 9, "docid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8637905120849609}, {"content": "Title: Schools should have uniforms for students. Content: First I will go over the meaning of the resolution Observation 1 meaning of the resolution: Since the resolution says should, it means I must prove should uniforms be considered due to some benifits. Now since the resolution says \"schools should have uniforms for students\" and not \"it should be required for schools to have uniforms for students\" it means this is an option, kind of like school lettermen's it could just be something to show off. Observation 2: opponents rules Since my opponent says no sources can be used in this debate then overall vote for sources should just be tie. So yeah I will be backing up the following points next round. 1. School uniforms would be optional 2. School uniforms would keep boys from looking at girls in a rather naughty way and help schools enforce clothing requirements 3. Since school uniforms have some benefits no reason not to have them available to those who want them.", "qid": 9, "docid": "41506d41-2019-04-18T15:34:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8636467456817627}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms. Content: This is a debate that is on school uniforms. I have asserted that they should be worn and am sticking with it. The second round will be the main argument. The third, rebuttals. And the forth closing statements. (no language or fallacies will be tolerated.if they are used, you forfeit)", "qid": 9, "docid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8635927438735962}, {"content": "Title: TROLL DEBATE: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required Content: Hello everybody! I have a very strong belief that School Uniforms Shouldn't be required, and I have many logical reasons for it. However, in this particular debate, I will use none of those logical reasons and troll you to your doom, just for fun! You may use illogical reasoning as well, but you have to argue School Uniforms Should be Required. Round one is for acceptance only.Good luck, con!", "qid": 9, "docid": "3e9161d2-2019-04-18T16:22:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8624145984649658}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: It is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8621248006820679}, {"content": "Title: School Uniform Content: Should the be school uniforms? Yes. I feel school uniforms are a must for teachers and students. This will minimize the issue with dress code and kids getting made fun of for the clothes they wear. If we all look the same, no one will get judged.", "qid": 9, "docid": "6a52a7de-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.86137455701828}, {"content": "Title: Challenger's choice Content: School Uniforms Should Not be RequiredYou pro, I con (I will try to prove that school uniforms SHOULD be required)I'll just start off light here:School uniforms increase unity, prevent crime (more easily identify those that don't belong) and students who wear uniforms have better grades.source: http://www.psmag.com...Your turn", "qid": 9, "docid": "e6f906f4-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8610766530036926}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear school uniform. Content: I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place?", "qid": 9, "docid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8603459596633911}, {"content": "Title: should students wear uniform to school Content: students should be required to wear uniform. it makes the school seem more in unison. you may disagree with me and say students need to express themselves but there are other ways you can express yourself. Furthermore, my school which doesn't use uniform encounters bullying and students break the dress code. we gave them an opportunity to express themselves and they took that for granted. wearing uniform also saves families money. Also, the amount of bullying based on outfits will decrease because everyone will be wearing the same thing.", "qid": 9, "docid": "96158d24-2019-04-18T11:23:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8587933778762817}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Not Mandatory Content: In my opinion school uniforms should not be mandatory. Students should have the will to express themselves through there clothing. Some girls don't like to wear skirts or can't wear skirts. Boys like to play. they wear t - shirts and shorts so they can move around. Not every boy likes to be dressed up. Then theres also the money problem. Uniforms aren't the cheapest clothing and some familys can barely buy normal clothing. Wearing a uniform does not make kids smarter or beahve better what so ever so there really is no point in wearing uniforms. A Website With Cons: http://kids.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Pros_and_Cons_of_School_Uniforms", "qid": 9, "docid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00046-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8565244078636169}, {"content": "Title: School Uniform Content: A general debate on whether schools should have a uniform. As I am against and this is my first debate, I will let my opponent make their case first. I look forward to a fun discussion of the topic.", "qid": 9, "docid": "6a52a743-2019-04-18T19:19:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8554831743240356}, {"content": "Title: School Uniform Should be Compulsory Content: My opponent can go first. I am arguing that school uniform should be compulsory, And my opponent will argue against this. This is my proposed structure for this debate, My opponent does not need to follow it if they do not want to, But if they do not they should indicate what structure they would like to follow: Round 1: Pro introduces debate, Con introduces arguments.", "qid": 9, "docid": "99da1031-2019-04-18T11:12:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8546888828277588}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: I believe that uniforms should not be necessary, as having unique and different clothes lets a student express themselves, and be comfortable, and also to have the responsibility of having their own choices, and not be just put into the same group as everyone else, wearing the same clothes. It is very similar to freedom of speech, students should be allowed to wear what they want, within reason, and also saves the families of students money as school uniforms tend to be expensive. Also, just to shed some light on this. For older students nearing the end of school, how can we expect them to make important life decision when they can't even choose their own clothes?", "qid": 9, "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8543760180473328}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: School uniforms should be required because of the following reasons: (1) It can prevent bullying as people will not be judged based on what they wear (2) Students will be tardy less as they won't need to spend as much time in the mornings preparing clothes. (3) It will make school more of a professional environment.", "qid": 9, "docid": "2403606c-2019-04-18T11:14:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8521601557731628}, {"content": "Title: Let opponent choose topic. I will be Con. Content: You want to increase your debating skills, eh? Well, here's a challenge for you: School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required. I will be pro, you will be con. (You will argue that school uniforms should be required) Warning: I have done this twice, and to no avail, both my opponents had forfeited at least one round and lost to me. This is actually pretty much the only topic I'm prepared on.My opening statement: School uniforms shouldn't be required because they create a sense of anti-individuality, going against the Freedom of Expression, being forced to choose clothing can help prepare children for the adult world, and requiring school uniforms causes rebellion among the general student population.So state your case, con!", "qid": 9, "docid": "cfdae7-2019-04-18T16:21:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.85207599401474}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: I believe school uniforms should be worn. School uniforms have a lot of benefits. When you're rushing around in the morning trying to get ready and find clothes to wear, a uniform could be a great help. It's quick and easy because it's the same outfit everyday, and you don't have to worry about picking out/finding different clothes to wear every day. Also, if everyone in school is wearing the same uniform, it decreases the amount of judgment towards other people's clothing. A uniform creates no sense of individuality, but that is not important at school, because we are at school to learn, and our outfits have nothing to do with it. Nobody's uniform is going to cause distraction to a learning process.", "qid": 9, "docid": "2403510b-2019-04-18T15:27:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.851770281791687}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: I don't think schools should have uniforms because an outfit doesn't help you learn. Teens and kids should have the right to dress the way they want to. Your outfit expresses you and your personality. Uniforms don't help your education AT ALL, so what's the point of wearing them?", "qid": 9, "docid": "240350ec-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8517551422119141}, {"content": "Title: School uniforms are good Content: I am taking my position as con for the argument that school uniforms should be used. I will post my arguments in round two.", "qid": 9, "docid": "2fd4b8f3-2019-04-18T19:03:09Z-00006-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8514955043792725}, {"content": "Title: School uniform Content: Should school uniform be abolished?", "qid": 9, "docid": "f380cc1b-2019-04-18T11:29:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8511024713516235}, {"content": "Title: School UNiforms Content: Should or shouldn't there be school uniforms!!", "qid": 9, "docid": "876cf9c4-2019-04-18T14:56:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8503003120422363}, {"content": "Title: should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools Content: School uniforms should be compulsory for all students at all grade levels. There are many reasons,which justify this including discipline,discrimination and to give the students a sense of identity. If all students at a particular school didn't wear school uniforms,there would be discrimination between the financially advantaged people and the disadvantaged people.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f0896680-2019-04-18T18:00:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8492891192436218}, {"content": "Title: wearing a school uniform at school Content: Finally, also it's my last time for say my opinion about this topic. In general, still i think students don't need to wear school uniform. Nobody can't say \"Oh, you have to wear school uniform\" or something else. It's their own liberty. So, i think students don't need to wear a school uniform at school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8478884696960449}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: school uniforms", "qid": 9, "docid": "cf8440ca-2019-04-18T12:30:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8472099900245667}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear school uniform. Content: I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8470883369445801}, {"content": "Title: School uniforms should be required Content: Due to personal reasons, I will be having to leave debate.org for the time being. That being said, I will be unable to complete any sort of argument. My opponent has made a great argument. I do believe that school uniforms should not be implemented for the reasons I listed above. It's up to you the reader to decide whether you agree with Roy or myself. However you decide though, I'm sure it will be the best choice. I apologize to Roy for having to do this. Thank you", "qid": 9, "docid": "38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8461201786994934}, {"content": "Title: Schools shouldn't require unifroms Content: In response to my opponent, schools still should not require uniforms because even when kids wear uniforms, it induces bullying. Kids will find things to bully on other kids. What would schools be like with uniforms? I will answer this question for you, school become much more clean looking from the outside in, but much, much more harsh from the inside out. What would you do if in your school, you were required to wear the same thing everyday, and you were not allowed to express yourself? You were not allowed to wear anything but the one uniform, no extra jacket, no sunglasses, no jewelry nothing but the same skirt, blouse, socks, and shoes every single day that you have school. And the guys wore the same pants, shirt, socks and shoes? Honestly it would be like having no excitement in your life! No trying new things or having fun. New classes would be formed very quickly, between ones who keep the uniforms clean, and not, between ones with multiple suits, and only one. Another reason that we shouldn't have uniforms is that uniforms do not actually exist in the real world, and what is school for? Teaching kids about the real world, a world which doesn't have uniforms. School is supposed to teach, teach about the real world, Science, Math, History, and English, all real world things. The real world Does Not Have Uniforms. Studies have been made to prove that with uniforms will increase bullying within communities, making the classes of school even more distant. When you have uniforms, the only good points about it is the student will look all nice and united, but it is what happens behind the picture is most important. An example would be most people do not know when their friends are having marriage problems, and all of a sudden they are having a divorce or children are being beat at home but they are covering it up very easily, by covering the scars or wearing make up over the bruises. So uniforms just cover up the bad stuff, they do not erase them.", "qid": 9, "docid": "e9900875-2019-04-18T17:39:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8447566032409668}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: Ok, the title is pretty self-explanatory, this debate is whether or not school uniforms should be required nationwide. I am taking the con position, and my opponent has the objective of proving that school uniforms would be helpful to the nation in elementary and high schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "e02123c0-2019-04-18T19:26:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.844567596912384}, {"content": "Title: Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing not in favor of requiring students to wear uniforms in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "16833a0f-2019-04-18T14:31:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8437865972518921}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools Content: Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing not in favor of requiring students to wear uniforms in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "a54d8ac8-2019-04-18T14:32:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8437865972518921}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: Schools should have uniforms because it easier for the student in the morning. It takes less time to get ready because the student doesn't have to figure out what to wear. Also, parents save money on back to school clothes.", "qid": 9, "docid": "cf84402f-2019-04-18T12:30:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8432967066764832}, {"content": "Title: Should Schools have Uniforms Content: School Should not have Uniforms! Uniforms are not comfortable. It's like you're in the army.", "qid": 9, "docid": "7a462d3c-2019-04-18T16:52:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8421247005462646}, {"content": "Title: All schools shouldn't have uniforms Content: Those rules seem fair enough. While uniforms do give off a professional atmosphere for the children, I do not see how normal clothes can be distracting. Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? While I understand that we certainly don't want students coming to school in a bikini or a banana costume, a respectable dress code with no uniform should be reasonable for all schools. Also, parents shouldn't be forced to pay loads of money for uniforms which cost much more than regular clothes. Uniforms are simply not needed and do not affect the school at all.", "qid": 9, "docid": "55bb92f4-2019-04-18T13:47:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.841610312461853}, {"content": "Title: Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools Content: I believe that school uniforms should be required because they promote discipline, school spirit, reduce non-academic distractions, less stress on parents/ guardians, safety, and bullying. I will now explain my reasoning. Discipline: If an adult wore a slobbish outfit to work, they would not have the energy or will to behave professionally. The same goes for students. If a student is wearing whatever they find in their closet, they will not want to try as hard as they normally do. Wearing uniforms will cause students to pay better attention and \"earn\" the uniform. School Spirit: When all students are wearing the same outfit, they will feel a sense of unity, even if they do not know any other people. Reduce Non-Academic Distractions: \"As kids mature and begin to form self-identities, designer status symbols become more and more important as they try fit in with their peers. All too often, children are bullied if they can\"t afford the new designer jeans or the latest name brand shoes. Uniforms minimize socioeconomic status between students by removing the option for different types of clothing. In addition, school administrators spend less time tending to dress code infractions, as the rules are clear and concrete.\" See source. Also, it will prevent guys from ogling over a girl's cleavage, while preventing girls from staring at a guy's butt. Keeping the distraction off of the other gender will allow for kids to pay better attention on the assignment. Less Stress on Parents/Guardians: \"After taking a shower, waking up the kids, making breakfast, checking emails, putting in a load of laundry, making snacks for later, brushing teeth, and combing hair, the last thing any parent wants to do is have an early morning battle over what their child is going to wear to school that day. Uniforms reduce morning stress by making the process of getting dressed a no brainer. Students know exactly what they can and cannot wear leaving parents with only one concern\" when is the last time those pants were washed? Besides having one less thing to fight about, parents also benefit from not having to buy their children expensive, designer clothes for schools. In the cooler months, students simply add approved outwear and girls add tights or leggings to their basic uniform. And since uniforms do not vary from year to year, students can wear their uniforms for more than one year without fear that they are out of style.\" See source. Safety: In a school of standards, anyone who isn't wearing a certain color will stick out as an intruder. Also, on school field trips, any kids who get lost will be easily identified. Bullying: While I understand that wearing one outfit every day will not eliminate bullying, it will be one less thing to not have to worry about. Source: http://www.davidsonacademy.com...", "qid": 9, "docid": "6ae58551-2019-04-18T15:35:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8411860466003418}, {"content": "Title: School uniforms should be required by U.S. public schools. Content: I believe that public schools should be required for their kids to wear school uniforms.", "qid": 9, "docid": "a56d6e37-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.8409831523895264}, {"content": "Title: School Pupils Should Be Required To Wear School Uniforms Content: I was shocked to see that one of the most contested opinions on DDO were that pupils should have to wear school uniforms. I'm from the UK -- most schools require a uniform to be worn -- and this isn't even considered a debatable issue. I'm interested in hearing someone's opinion on this topic.School pupil: Any student below the age of 16You will be Con -- against school uniforms.I'll start this off with a quick list as to why I believe uniforms are beneficial.1. Creates a school identity/team spirit2. Kids can focus less on fashion and trends, and more on education3. Rich or poor, everyone is equal4. Sets the pupils up for adult life; office jobs, uniformed work, dress codes etc.5. Kids do not need to 'express themselves' through clothing; this is not appropriate in many jobs6. Kids wandering out of school without permision can be easily identified and the school informed -- this prevents possible abductions and other incidents where the child can blend in without bring detected", "qid": 9, "docid": "d75a0ed1-2019-04-18T16:35:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8399028182029724}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: It is shown that students do not have expression when they are required to wear school uniforms. Uniforms should not be required at any type of school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.8394278287887573}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: I believe school uniforms should be enforced upon all schools. They will help students focus more on school, they will lower crime and bullying, they will give a sense of unity to the school, they save class time, they can save money, increase attendance and can improve punctuality, save money for parents, and help students get to know each other better based on their personality more than their appearance.", "qid": 9, "docid": "2403550a-2019-04-18T14:02:10Z-00006-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.8392108082771301}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms should be allowed Content: i dont think that their should be any uniforms at school wat do u think???", "qid": 9, "docid": "c5bfbdb9-2019-04-18T17:32:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.838502049446106}, {"content": "Title: Every school must have a uniform Content: Thank you for accepting my challenge.I will be giving five reasons to support my motion that school uniforms are necessary in schools all over the worldFirstly: School uniforms keep students focused on their education not their clothes .This is applicable mainly for the older students who need to focus on their studies or whatever they are interested in, to achieve their goals rather than wasting their time in front of the wardrobe thinking about what clothes to wear. It is not necessary to take decision of choosing clothes while going to school. That does not make someone independent. If they really want freedom to choose their clothes then they can do it while going to parties, picnics etc. SecondlySchool uniforms does not allow students to distinguish themselves as rich or poor. When all students are dressed alike, competition between students over clothing choices and the teasing of those who are dressed in less expensive or less fashionable outfits can be eliminated. In a 2013 survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and uniform manufacturer Lands' End, 86% of school leaders said uniforms make \"a significant, positive impact on peer pressure,\" and 64% said uniforms reduce bullying.ThirdlySchool uniforms make students disciplined and a sense of unity is incorporated into them. They identify themselves as the part of a team by wearing a uniform.Fourthly School uniforms can save parents money. Parents can reduce their financial burden when their children are limited to wearing one simple outfit every day. A national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 94% of those surveyed believe \"one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel.\"FifthlySchool uniform makes the student punctual so that he or she may dress up quickly and reach the school at right time. I return this debate to my worthy opponent", "qid": 9, "docid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.8383978605270386}, {"content": "Title: School uniforms should be required. Content: Hello, Challenger. You will be taking the position as the Pro (for) person. You will describe the many ways that school uniforms should be in schools. The first round will be basic. You will give information on your side of things, and cite some evidence. The second round will be basic also. On the third round we will give questions to our opponent, and in the fourth round, we will answer those questions. Rules: 1) Uncited evidence is not allowed. PLEASE cite your evidence 2) You get two days to per round. 3) If you don't publish your argument in that amount of time, you forfeit. If you have any questions about the rules, post them below. Definitions: Uniforms: an identifying outfit or style of dress worn by the members of a given profession, organization, or rank. Required: to have of; need; School: an institution where instruction is given, especially to persons under college age:", "qid": 9, "docid": "e00774d1-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.8379214406013489}, {"content": "Title: Kids should wear uniforms Content: Hello Con, I'm glad that you have accepted my debate,I believe that kids should wear school uniforms for several reasons.Firstly, school is an institution for educating children(dictionary.com). School is not a place for children to wear what they want to, it's place where they are educated for their future lives. As you have mentioned:\"It teaches them from a young age that everyone should act the same, and dress the same.\" I am yet to find how wearing school uniforms can affect the children to act the same. Wearing school uniform makes the school look more organised and shows pride for each schools. Wearing school uniform also allows other students/parents to easily notice where a child is from. For example, this is probably a really bad one, a child is seen getting into an accident where his/her parents are nowhere to be found. If the child is wearing a school uniform, one can notify the school immediately. Of course there are variables to this, but what I am trying to prove is that wearing school uniform can reduce these from happening.Talking about your harsh reality, I think that judgements made by what a child wears is harsher than wearing the same clothes like everyone else. As children are not forced to wear school uniforms, they will, of course, wear different clothes than everybody. Some will wear fancier than others. This can lead to judgements made by other kids, and this leads to bullying. Sources: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...I look forward to your next argument to be made.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f6f33da9-2019-04-18T17:06:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.8370929956436157}, {"content": "Title: should we have to wear uniform Content: I believe that students should not have to wear uniforms. Uniforms take away our individuality. Confidence is much harder to achieve while wearing a uniform. Wearing them can get distracting during the day. Some schools say uniforms make us united as a school, but I don\"t think they do anything but bother students. Simple rules instead of a uniform could easily be put in place. Instead of having uniforms I believe we should just have simple guidelines as to what we can and can\"t wear. Part of being in school is learning to become responsible. How is telling us exactly what to wear teaching us responsibility. We should be able to know how we can and cannot dress without having the privilege completely taken away. Following the guidelines would help to make us responsible because when we get ready to have a career, our clothing will most likely not be completely decided for us. We will have to follow guidelines for that particular company. Having guidelines for how we dress will also help teach us to follow simple directions. With different rules in place we can reclaim our individuality. When wearing uniforms, it is a struggle to be an individual. Teachers are always saying how important it is to just be ourselves and not worry about what others might think. Having a uniform takes that away from us, and this may lead students to try to find other ways to be different. They might begin to act out so they stick out from the crowd. Without uniforms we can show everyone who we are through our clothes. Opinions shouldn\"t be based solely on clothing of course, but clothing is a fun and easy way to show who are. Being different is huge part of being in school and I think we should be able to have the privilege of wearing what we want. It can also give us more confidence.", "qid": 9, "docid": "720383e6-2019-04-18T14:09:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.8367087841033936}, {"content": "Title: uniforms in high schools Content: Kids in High School do not have to but should wear High School uniforms. Because it makes it easier in the mornings for dressing , and limits bullying, it also shows school spirit, to keep everyone equal, it's good on school trips everyone.", "qid": 9, "docid": "dfa24c10-2019-04-18T17:06:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.8367055058479309}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms Content: I think high school students should not wear uniforms, because it restricts their rights. They can make a decision by themselves, also they do not like when somebody requires it.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f8471401-2019-04-18T17:54:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.8353167772293091}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: I believe that there should be no uniforms in school. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want- it is their God given right. The first amendment establishes freedom of speech, which is hand in hand with freedom of expression. If you take away a persons ability to chose what they get to wear, you take away their sense of individuality and the things that set them apart from other people. As long as there is a reasonable dress code, what people wear to school should not affect learning of others in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "2403510b-2019-04-18T15:27:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.835293173789978}, {"content": "Title: Should schools require uniforms Content: I Believe that school uniforms should be in all schools. it would teach kids to accept each other more and help kids find themselves, instead of worrying about how to fit in as far as dressing goes, and it would help kids follow the dress code of their school. If more schools required that a student wear uniforms maybe they wouldn't be so expensive but there are places you can get them cheap, just like every other expensive thing in this world , and usually a school will offer a loan uniform to the kids who can't afford one.", "qid": 9, "docid": "c617f5ab-2019-04-18T14:18:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.8350019454956055}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms- should we have to wear them? CHANGE MY MIND PLEASE! Content: we should not have to wear uniforms to school. Somebody please change my mind about this", "qid": 9, "docid": "5c0d9fa0-2019-04-18T11:11:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.8337055444717407}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools Content: School uniforms do not help students an any way at all. The take away students ability to express themselves through their clothes and how do they reduce bullying at all? Also, we are entitled to a free education. Therefore, students should not be required to buy uniforms. There have been studies done on if uniforms help kids academically at all and almost all of them have shown that uniforms have absolutely no effect at all on kids academic performance. That's why school uniforms should not be required in schools.", "qid": 9, "docid": "b959db22-2019-04-18T18:05:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.8335853219032288}, {"content": "Title: students should not were uniforms in school Content: I think students shouldn't wear uniforms because kids want to be able to express there style. People say its going to help with the 'bullying' problem but its not. it will make the bull even more creative. They wont have to make fun of your cloths they will make fun of what you look like, what you think is fun, and how much money you have.", "qid": 9, "docid": "46c53f41-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.8334980607032776}, {"content": "Title: Teens and kids should wear school uniforms Content: Teens and kids should have to wear the same thing in school school might be for making friends but its supposed to be for learning discipline and manners and learning how to get a job with the things you learned having uniforms takes focus off of what your wearing and puts focus on whats really important...doing your school work so i think uniforms should be a law in schools mostly the uniform black blazer and red tie i think you should agree with me that school is for learning and not focusing on other things America could be one of the top smartest country's again if we learned our manners and focused more on school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "6f5c7d0-2019-04-18T15:43:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.8334041833877563}, {"content": "Title: Students should wear uniforms. Content: So to recap, students should wear uniforms because they help behavior, because they are more professional and because the students would be bullied less. Thank you for debating with me, I appreciated it. And with that, I am done.", "qid": 9, "docid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.8327203989028931}, {"content": "Title: High school students should wear uniforms. Content: I am arguing that students should not be forced to wear uniforms in school. First, if students have to wear the same thing as everyone else, then there is no way to express your personality. Your clothes are a way to show who you are to others. Next, this would be another thing to buy. People will say that you will not have to buy as many outfits, but although you do not wear these clothes to school, you still need clothes to wear around town and at home. You buy clothes as it is, so why not get more use out them before you outgrow them. You will never wear your uniform after you're done with school, so why not pay for clothes that you can re wear over sand over again. Also, some people may feel restricted and uncomfortable in these outfits that they are forced into. Everyone has a different body shape and type. Why should we force everyone to look and dress the same? Some people also say that clothes can distract students from learning, but if they are uncomfortable in the uniforms, they will not learn. We should allow student to dress in clothes that they are comfortable in. Lastly, I believe that it can draw away from school spirit. If you have to wear uniforms, you cannot wear a specific outfit with your sports team. You do not have the option to show team spirit when you are forced to wear the same outfit as everyone else. I believe that there are some pros to having uniforms, but the cons outweigh them. Your clothing is a way to express yourself and is a freedom that should not be taken away from you.", "qid": 9, "docid": "109aed09-2019-04-18T16:36:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.8324305415153503}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms should be worn in school Content: I will take up the challenge. The definition of uniform is: \"A distinctive set of clothing intended to identify the members of a specific group.\" [1] By this definition, I do not think uniforms should be worn in school, from the view point of improving the students' education. Wearing uniforms to school, such as karate club uniforms or basketball uniforms, encourages cliques and groups to form. Cliques lead to all sorts of problems, such as bulling, exclusion, and more. Also, flaunting social status becomes easier with uniforms. Therefore, uniforms should not be worn in school. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 9, "docid": "8156d8db-2019-04-18T13:53:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.8323029279708862}, {"content": "Title: Kids should wear uniforms in elementary schools. Content: The topic we are debating today is \"Kids should wear uniforms in elementary schools.\" I, Jacobie1121, will be taking the pro side of the debate. Definition: Uniforms are clothes that every student should be wearing when at school. Elementary school includes grades 1-6. ROUND ONE: Acceptance. ROUND TWO: Each debater will bring up a max of FIVE points. ROUND THREE: Only rebuttals and summaries, no added points. YOU MAY NOT STATE A REBUTTAL IN ANY OTHER ROUND BESIDES THE THIRD ONE! Thank you, Jacobie1121", "qid": 9, "docid": "653654bc-2019-04-18T16:18:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.8322324752807617}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: I do agree that uniforms should not be required in public schools, but with the youth as it is today, more strict dress codes are needed to disallow some of the trends in schools today. There is no reason why a 16 year old girl needs to show off her chest or have her butt hanging out of her jeans. The same goes for guys that wear their pants low enough that their boxers are barely inside of their pants. If kids today don't start cleaning up their looks, school uniforms are going to be enforced and people are going to have to front the money for them.", "qid": 9, "docid": "ef3bf44-2019-04-18T20:03:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.8311240673065186}, {"content": "Title: should public school students wear uniforms Content: Well, it doesn't matter if they wear uniforms or not. Students will still change the uniforms into a clothing style that they want. There will be no difference in how they do in school with or without uniforms. Uniforms is just a type of school spirit dress code. As my opponent said about being sexy, girls will do the same thing with uniforms. Its just like when you play soccer. You use pennies to differentiate teams. Players dont wear their pennies the right way. They wear it just like they wear their regular shirts. My opponent makes no point with this argument. Therefore I shall make a superior statement in the final round", "qid": 9, "docid": "7bf53995-2019-04-18T19:33:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.8306097388267517}, {"content": "Title: shold schools wear unarom Content: Schools should have uniforms for one reason being that when you wake up in the morning you do have to figure out what to wear for school, having a uniform makes it so that you just wake up, put it on, then go to school with no worry. It also makes you look better than when you would wear just ordinary clothes, and your school looks better.", "qid": 9, "docid": "92695cf-2019-04-18T12:23:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.8301404714584351}, {"content": "Title: Students Should Not Wear Uniforms At Memphis City And Shelby County Schools Content: As a student that is graduating from high school this summer, the question of whether or not uniforms should be permitted in school is one that is asked frequently and over the past twelve years of public education without a requirement with uniforms I feel that it would be best for uniforms in public school. As our country continues to develop as a nation of equality, there is no reason for there not to be a uniform requirement, in this case it would not be fair for wealthy students to wear more expensive clothes than other students. In this day and age, we have instant information and we are surrounded by Social Media Sites like facebook and twitter here we instantly get a look at the person we searched for. This is very similar to developing a first impression, when people go to school wearing edgy clothes, it subjects them to bullying from other students and criticsm from teachers.", "qid": 9, "docid": "eb9a4d4d-2019-04-18T18:18:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.8300920724868774}, {"content": "Title: School uniforms should not be allowed in schools Content: School uniforms are costly ( contrary to popular belief), destroys personality, the list goes on. The truths are self-evident that students should not be forced wear uniforms, and in the case were schools make uniforms mandatory the students do not even have a say in the matter. It is unjust to make students go through such an attack on their freedoms.", "qid": 9, "docid": "94533937-2019-04-18T17:03:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.8299242258071899}, {"content": "Title: Should Teachers Wear A Uniform Content: Yes, we're all equal. School Spirit, Right? I think teachers should have to wear uniforms because we, as students, wear uniforms everyday. When you walk in school you see navy and khaki on students. And then you see the teacher in a purple flowing dress or a green skirt. Our school colors aren't purple or green. Our colors are navy and khaki. And that's what the teachers should be wearing. Navy and Khaki. Show some school spirit, educators! also Setting aside cultural and religious issues that can arise from \"business casual\" dress.", "qid": 9, "docid": "991f1842-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.8298920392990112}, {"content": "Title: All schools shouldn't have uniforms Content: Contention 1:\"While ... Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? \" My opponent makes a non sequitur. Firstly, a dress code, a strict one might I add, is present in all formal establishments for the people that work there. Additionally, the repercussions for dressing in an immature or unprofessional way for a teacher can be very detrimental to their financial life. To state that a student's role in the school is equatable to the teacher's role, and that both have the same responsibilities and expectations is an absurd statement indeed.Contention 2:\"Also... and do not affect the school at all.\" If parents are not able to procure a uniform for their students, than the state can pay for it at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, it's much cheaper to buy 1 full set of a uniform that the student wears for the remainder of the year than to buy multiple sets of clothes that are switched out. Note that I have shortened the statements in the quotations due to the lack of room to write.", "qid": 9, "docid": "55bb92f4-2019-04-18T13:47:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.828877329826355}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms should be banned from schools Content: I stand against this argument, school's should keep the uniform policy. Uniforms give someone an idea of which school the student is from. It also keeps you safe in some ways and gives a sense of belonging to the student. It may also symbolise the age or grade level of the student. For example, let's take the school UWCSEA. For the infant grade they have light blue shirts, middle school green shirts, Junior high school, blue shirts, and senior high school, white shirts. That way we know which grade and that might be helpful to other students and teachers.", "qid": 9, "docid": "d03ac3d1-2019-04-18T15:44:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.828783392906189}, {"content": "Title: Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools Content: Accepted. I think school uniforms should be issued but only optional to wear.", "qid": 9, "docid": "6ae58551-2019-04-18T15:35:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.8285129070281982}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Content: Yes, they should. Schools that include school uniforms had a 51% less fighting rate, possibly because they didnt have anything to steal. School uniforms also keep kids focused on their education not their clothes. They also level a playing field so people dont think one person is cooler than another just because of what clothes they are wearing, they will think ones cooler than another because of their personality which is how it should be in the first place. They also prevent people from having gang sings on clothing. Also uniforms increase school unity and school spirit,", "qid": 9, "docid": "24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.828300416469574}, {"content": "Title: Students should be required to wear school uniform. Content: Hello, everyone, welcome to this debate. Today I would like to debate in affirmation of the topic that students should be required to wear school uniform. My first justification is that it creates an orderly, organized atmosphere which enforces discipline. My second argument is that it eliminates part of the popularity system. And my last argument is that it generates revenue for the government. Although this has no solid, tangible evidence, it is true that having uniforms creates an organized and orderly atmosphere. It is no secret that private schools and schools of high ranking all require their students to wear uniforms. When students are required to wear uniforms, discipline is in action. And discipline constitutes good education. A subpoint of this argument is that it gives the wearer a sense of honor and pride to wear such a uniform. My next point of analysis is that this eliminates the popularity system. Go to any school, and you could be sure to find some sort of clique or group ruling the school, or at least a complex system of factions. This is inevitable. And one of the main causes of this is fashion. At the initial first day of school everyone is at square one. No one knows no one, and there is no popularity system. So how does people know who's going to be popular, and who to be friends with? The first reactions is to look at their clothes. Do they dress nice? Do they wear this brand? Once a group of girls have established a clique, there is already a system of clans and gangs beginning to form. The remedy to this phenomenon is to eliminate a cause of popularity, fashion, by making uniform-wearing mandatory. Only this way will people consider others for who they really are, not by their clothes. My last contention is that this generates revenue for the government. When the uniforms are sold to the students, they have to pay taxes, which therefore generates funds for the government. This might seem pretty minimal compared to other revenue-earning tactics, but consider this: thousands of schools across the country, with hundreds of students flooding the campus every year, selling uniforms. After a decade or so, we would have cleared a significant portion of our national debt while giving leeway to other fund-needing programs. To sum it all up, my three main assertions are that: uniforms create a sense of conduct, uniforms eliminate the complex popularity system in schools, and lastly, uniforms generate significant revenue for the government. Thank you.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f1b2e4e-2019-04-18T17:48:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.8281714916229248}, {"content": "Title: Kids should wear uniforms Content: Kids should not wear school uniforms. It teaches them from a young age that everyone should act the same, and dress the same. Children should be able to wear what they chose because it lets them determine who they are and what they are trying to become. We shouldn't decide that for them. It also takes away from their childhood. Let them be unaffected by the harsh reality that we always have someone telling us what do or what to wear. There will come a time when they are adults and will have jobs that will come with dress requirements, but right now let them be children. Let them explore and dress how they want.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f6f33da9-2019-04-18T17:06:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.8280030488967896}, {"content": "Title: wearing a school uniform at school Content: For me, we have to respect each of students personality and fashion for style. Due to the fact, contemporary people are open-minded. So they have duty for show their fashion. Therefore, i think students don't need to wear school uniform at school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.8279563188552856}, {"content": "Title: should kids wear uniforms Content: kids should wear uniforms? that is nonsence", "qid": 9, "docid": "2ee9faf4-2019-04-18T15:42:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.8278675079345703}, {"content": "Title: it should be mandatory for teachers to wear school uniform Content: I accept the challenge. I will argue that wearing the school uniform should not be mandatory for teachers. The primary purpose of the school uniform is to establish a sense of order. That sense is fulfilled by creating a hierarchy between pupils and their teachers. If a person is seen wearing a school uniform, then that signifies them as a student in that school. A teacher should not be seen as a student, for that signifies that they are on an equal level with the student. This perspective might undermine a teacher's authority, as it might lead students to percieve teachers as students of the school just like them, and not an authority over them.", "qid": 9, "docid": "9b531995-2019-04-18T13:25:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.8278497457504272}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms Content: Uniforms in school are unnecessary. Uniforms are needed in the army where soldiers need to know who is on their side. In school, Uniforms won't help students learn more, But learning more is the purpose of school. Uniforms are too much trouble for very little benefit: schools would have to design special dress codes, Lots of students would get in trouble for not wearing uniforms, The schools would have to spend money on making uniforms, Etc. Uniforms in school violate freedom of expression. Students should be allowed to wear what they want as long as it doesn't distract other students. Coming to school in a bikini distracts other students, But not wearing a uniform doesn't. Students should be able to choose what they wear and be fashionable! School would be a very boring place if everybody had the same clothes. Wearing one uniform would be very problematic. If a student spills something on their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until it's washed. If a student rips their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until they get a new one. This is so much trouble that could have been avoided if there were no uniforms in school. Always wearing a uniform will make it dirty, And it will have to be washed all the time. It's better to wear different clothes. Making a uniform mandatory won't help students choose clothes. Nobody is forcing you to choose what to wear, You can wear one tracksuit for the whole year (very similar to a uniform, Heh). Nobody spends hours on putting together outfits, That's nonsense. Forcing others to wear uniforms because you can't choose what to wear to school isn't right. Other students aren't responsible for your issues.", "qid": 9, "docid": "df002939-2019-04-18T11:10:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.8276928663253784}, {"content": "Title: Should School Uniform Be Worn In All Schools SJS Content: school uniform should it be worn in all schools because if they don't have it they could get bulliedbut if they do then they wont will thay", "qid": 9, "docid": "4c13ddfd-2019-04-18T17:06:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.8274873495101929}, {"content": "Title: wearing a school uniform at school Content: To my mind, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students don't need to wear school uniform at school.", "qid": 9, "docid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.8271703124046326}, {"content": "Title: Uniforms In Schools K-12 Content: I am proposing an argument based on the necessity for school uniforms. The debate over whether or not school uniforms should be mandatory has been a long standing issue for school administrators, students, and parents alike. The pros and cons for each side have resulted in a split decision in which some schools adamantly enforce the uniform policy while others employ lighter dress codes. However, with the implementation of a dress code, as opposed to a uniform policy, students retain the freedom to dress as they choose within their means. While there are benefits to this freedom, there are unfair burdens that accompany this kind of liberty. Public schools should enforce a mandated uniform policy because, in doing so, they have the ability to minimize inequalities among students. In this debate, all I ask is that my opponent use the bullet system (as opposed to paragraph) when stating his/her arguments. *Policy Proposition: I advocate that students in K-12 public schools should be required to wear a mandated school uniform. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defining key terms: Mandate: \u2013verb (used with object) (1) to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law. (2) to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process. **Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... School Uniform- (1) A set of standardized clothes\u2014worn primarily for an educational institution (2) Traditionally, school uniforms have tended to be subdued and professional. **Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Examples- (1) Males: \"Navy straight legged pants, no larger than one size bigger at the waist and one inch off the ground. The shirts are white with a mandatory collar and have to be tucked in.\" (2) Females: \"Navy jumpers, skirts, walking shorts, slacks with a white blouse tucked in.\" **Source: http://findarticles.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Grounds: 1. School uniforms make getting dressed easier and less time consuming for both parents (who dress their children) and students (those who dress themselves). 2. Uniforms are less expensive than current clothing trends, thus they are more economical. 3. Uniforms would eliminate students being ostracized based on what they wear. 4. Uniforms provide a level of safety in schools - they make identifying those who do not belong at the school easy, in addition gang affiliations are eliminated. *Warrant: Because school uniforms are time efficient, economically beneficial, create appearance neutrality, and maximize school safety, K-12 students should be required to wear mandated school uniforms.", "qid": 9, "docid": "c1687cb3-2019-04-18T19:16:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.8268189430236816}, {"content": "Title: Kids should wear uniforms Content: Hello LadyLeader101, I have seen your opinion where you proved that kids shouldn't wear uniforms. I believe that kids should wear school uniforms for various reason.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f6f33da9-2019-04-18T17:06:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.8264018297195435}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Should not be Required Content: School uniforms should be required because they encourage discipline, help students resist peer pressure to buy new clothes, and diminish economic and social barriers between students.First of all, school uniforms encourage discipline by making students focus on studying and homework rather than new clothes. In the morning, instead of worrying on different outfits, students can do school related activities like organizing their backpack, double-checking their homework, or studying. Students spend a lot of time thinking about clothing, but now, since they have uniforms, they no longer have to go through tedious shopping or hours of decisions of what to wear.School uniforms also help students resist the urge to buy designer clothing. When everyone is wearing the same uniform, the only time new clothes are nexus are weekends, holidays, and summer break, which is a lot less clothes than the entire school year. Clothes can often be used to define social statuses, but if there are no different clothes, people will have to rely on personality rather than the outfit they are wearing. In schools, some students are poor while others are rich. Poor students may have scholarships in order to afford school and have ragged clothes, while rich students may be supported by very wealthy parents and have expensive, fancy clothes. These completely different types of clothes make a huge difference in their popularity at school. Instead of comparing each others clothes, students can compare each others personality and intelligence, which makes a much larger difference. Although you argue that school uniforms destroy individuality, there really isn't really a way to express yourself using clothes. Clothing is only something you wear and, in no way, can be used to define yourself. You also insist that school uniforms create robot-like unity and decrease independence and creativity, but this is not accurate at all. Uniforms cannot affect the way you think, except for in productivity and usefulness. I also do not understand how wearing the same uniform creates \"robots\", because \"robots\" are defined as 'a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically', but simply looking the same does not force them to somehow act the same. And since you also agree that uniforms do not affect how someone acts; this proves that uniforms will not harm how someone acts.Your turn, pro!", "qid": 9, "docid": "c7f51eb0-2019-04-18T16:19:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.8262537717819214}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms Are Good Content: Thanks for the response. Of course I'll accept you as my opponent! First off, I don't think that school uniforms are good because I feel that students are not able to express themselves well and that they would be more comfortable studying in an environment where they feel they can be themselves instead of being forced to wear a uniform. I understand that by wearing school uniforms, we are symbolising that all the students are the same but what we should be trying to do instead is to show them that despite their differences and cultures, they are all attending the same school and doing the same thing together. Schools should try to teach students that they can be different and still work together in harmony instead of forcing children to wear the same thing and try to make students see that they are all the same. They should let students embrace their differences and show them that despite these differences, they are all still one. Third, I don't think that school uniforms are good for everyone because some of them may be insecure about their bodies. For example, certain school skirts are quite short and this may cause girls who are insecure about their legs to feel uncomfortable studying in their uniform. Religious beliefs also play a part. Some religions do not allow the legs of girls to be exposed and sometimes require certain areas to be covered. This may be a problem for students who want to study in a certain school and are not allowed to because their religion does not allow them to wear the uniform that the school requires them to be in. Fourth, a particular uniform is not always flattering on every body. A certain uniform will not fit every student perfectly and this may lead to them being taunted by their peers. So this may also lead to bad behaviour. Once again, I say that students should feel comfortable in their own clothes and should not feel out of place in their school environment as this may distract them from their studies. They may be self-conscious about who is watching them and what others think about them, leading them to be unfocused during lessons. Fifth, uniforms can be quite costly. Poorer students may not have sufficient money to pay for their school uniforms and may have problems buying new ones when they grow out of their old ones. Wearing their own clothes would allow them to study without spending extra money on uniforms and instead wear what they already have.", "qid": 9, "docid": "23c2cf2-2019-04-18T17:39:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.824731171131134}, {"content": "Title: Uniformns Content: well i think that we should have school uniforms for many reasons. my main reason why we should have school uniforms so then there is less bullying in the school and other kids don't feel left out because of the way dress.", "qid": 9, "docid": "dd5403-2019-04-18T13:47:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.8243228197097778}, {"content": "Title: School Uniforms are unnecessary Content: Uniforms are necessary: 1.Many schools across the world especially government schools receive students from culturally, ethically and economically diverse back grounds and having a similar clothing provides the students with a sense of unity and equality. Having uniform makes all students equal representatives of the schools whereas wearing clothing of choice creates division among students and partiality from teachers. 2. It helps the school officials to recognize their student much faster in case of any emergency. School uniform is the best and safest way to avoid any sort of obscenity inside the school premises. 3.Embracing one\"s individuality can subdue others\". Uniforms prevent that. In competitions outside school uniforms create togetherness in students from the same school. 4.It also prevents students from wasting their time on taunting, teasing and/or admiring other students\" clothes or dressing style.", "qid": 9, "docid": "1f6b2834-2019-04-18T14:19:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.8241276741027832}, {"content": "Title: Should School Uniform Be Worn In All Schools SJS Content: Considering that Pro has failed to answer, or even post his own argument for that matter, I will issue one finial point. Who, in their right mind, actually wants to be told what to wear? Personally, in order for me to do well in school, I have to enjoy going. If I was forced to wear a uniform, I would not enjoy school therefore my test scores would drop. School uniforms are not good for anyone, and until Pro chooses to argue his points, I am done here.", "qid": 9, "docid": "4c13ddfd-2019-04-18T17:06:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.8240725994110107}, {"content": "Title: School uniform Content: As someone who has experienced both a school time with and without uniform, I think they are something most schools should have. A school uniforms removes the ability to judge a student on his or her clothes. And the need for parents to spend money on brand clothing, just so their kids can fit in. It forces the student to be creative and express themselves in their work rather than with provocative clothing. It would also cut time in the morning. Instead of choosing clothes you would always know what to wear. Many great minds uses the same clothes to remove the decision making process in the morning so they can come up with greater things during the day.", "qid": 9, "docid": "f380cbdd-2019-04-18T12:44:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.8238282203674316}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms should be mandatory Content: \"schools should be schools and not fashion shows!\" there I agree with you, my friend, that clothes help to express but somewhere down there students become intimated by the fact of dressing up well for the school. rather uniforms help students to concentrate more on studies rather than on clothes, it creates a uniformity and a discipline in the school campus. also it saves time in a way children don't have to think much.", "qid": 9, "docid": "17a336e8-2019-04-18T12:29:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.8236042261123657}, {"content": "Title: school uniforms Content: Introduction and ResolutionResolution Summary: Students should wear school uniforms when attending compulsory educational courses because (1) school uniforms reduce peer pressure and (2) consequently improve the educational environment. Greetings, Debate. org. As the Pro side of this debate, it is left to me to propound a resolution in response to my opponent's claims that students should not wear school uniforms. My opponent has suggested that school uniforms should not be adopted because (1) students don't like them and (2) school uniforms suppress expressions of individuality. I will not debate that students do not like school uniforms - I certainly was never fond of them, and I am sure many of you, who are students, are or were not fond of them as well. I will, however, argue that on balance, the benefits of school uniforms outweigh the perceived negatives of having them. Specifically, it is my contention that, where students are compelled to attend educational courses in an institution of learning, such as those schools supported by the public education systems found throughout the United States, uniforms serve the important purpose of reducing peer pressure and social stigmas, which in turn enhances the learning environment for all students. ArgumentArgument Summary: Studies have shown that students feel less peer pressure when attending schools that enforce a dress code. Consequently, students attend classes more often and focus more on learning than on social prestige. Inducing learning is the primary function of a school. Ergo, dress codes enable schools to better perform their primary function.A school is \"an institution for the teaching of children\" for the purposes of this debate, as we will be discussing compulsory education (i.e. education of individuals below the age of majority). http://bit.ly...;. The purpose of the educational programs being utilized within such schools (at least within the United States) is, apparently, \"to provide every child with a complete and competitive education that will enable them to succeed in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation.\" http://1.usa.gov..., emphasis added. Therefore, we can conclude that the primary purpose of a school is to teach children so that they have the knowledge and innovation necessary to succeed in a global economy. A school that fails to teach children for these purposes could be considered, under the relevant criteria, a failure. As no school should want to fail, schools must implement such techniques as are necessary to succeed at the stated goal of teaching children. Studies have shown that the use of school uniforms increases attendance and improves performance amongst the members of the adopting school's student body. http://bit.ly...;. Generally, every study performed seems to suggest some correlation between the adoption of school uniforms and reduced concern for social standing vis a vis attire. http://bit.ly...;. The reason for such correlation is probably best expressed in this study by Professor Richard Elliot - http://bit.ly...;. Elliot's study found that students perceived clothing as an indicator of social status, and that in some cases violence could actually occur to students perceived as not displaying the proper knowledge of social attire. As the factors implicated in Elliot's study are as much a matter of the American educational system as the British educational system (and as both are examples of compulsory educational programs), it is easy to understand how uniforms can provide the positive benefits they have been shown to produce. In an environment where impoverished students may face peer pressure based upon their limited attire selection, which peer pressure would in turn serve to disrupt their educational experience, it is not surprising that the elimination of attire selection would result in such students more readily attending school. After all, if there is no clear indicator of social status to mark them as outcasts (or to make them feel like outcasts in response to the greater wardrobe of other students), such students would have no reason to fear confrontations beyond those academic and ethical conflicts that arise even amongst a gathering of equals. This is not to say that reduced self-expression is good. It isn't. It is, however, a small price to pay for the safety, security, and comfort of the student body. In fact, regarding the safety of the student body, uniforms have been shown to help reduce educational difficulties related to students displaying gang-related attire. http://bit.ly...;Conclusion In conclusion, students experience a better educational environment in schools that utilize school uniforms. While uniforms may not be appropriate for all educational institutions, to the extent that students are compelled to attend a school environment where negative social interaction based on displays of prestige can be expected to interfere with the students' education, school uniforms should be encouraged.", "qid": 9, "docid": "cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.8228601217269897}, {"content": "Title: Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms Content: My opponent's drops nearly every single argument I made. In response to both of my opponent's points: Doesn't matter. Schools don't exist to entertain students. If the administrators find that implementing uniforms has positive affects, even if the students don't like it, they should implement uniforms.", "qid": 9, "docid": "573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.8224093914031982}]}
{"query": "Is drinking milk healthy for humans?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: Milk is good for you.", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8273264169692993}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8172813057899475}, {"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: R2 Rebuttals\"Milk is good for you.\" nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement \"milk is good for you\" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8122374415397644}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8110029101371765}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8097405433654785}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.", "qid": 20, "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8090837597846985}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow \"cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.\" [0]Milk\" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young.\" [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.808159351348877}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, \"milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash).\" Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)", "qid": 20, "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7818061113357544}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: \"Drinking milk is healthier. .. \" Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??", "qid": 20, "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7800676226615906}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00009-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7756285667419434}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.", "qid": 20, "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7740936875343323}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net", "qid": 20, "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7713927030563354}, {"content": "Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced \"Is milk Chocolate good for you\". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.764597475528717}, {"content": "Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: i think chocolate milk is good for you. debate with me and you will find out why", "qid": 20, "docid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7614414691925049}, {"content": "Title: is chocolate milk good for you Content: hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth", "qid": 20, "docid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7606968879699707}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: \"One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there\"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures,\" Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the \"milk mustache\", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. \"But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow\"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones.\" (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7515004873275757}, {"content": "Title: Milk is bad to the bone. Content: StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics\"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare.\" [0]Animals on so called \"humane\" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] \"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals \u201chumanely\u201d is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today\u2019s business standards.\" [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. \"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. \" [4]\" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. \" [5]\"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population.\" [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. \"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates.\" [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. \u201cTotal protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. \u201c [8] \u201c\" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ.\"\u201d [9] \u201cThe risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. \u201c [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7506780624389648}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: \"For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. \" I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an \"average, healthy person. \" Average is defined as \"typical; common; ordinary\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the \"average person\" that I was referring to. Also the word \"you\" can be defined as \"one; anyone; people in general\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified \"you\" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc\" because in R1 he says \"I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. \" Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a \"drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives\" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.", "qid": 20, "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7499253749847412}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.", "qid": 20, "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7494977712631226}, {"content": "Title: Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical Content: Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better", "qid": 20, "docid": "53a2843c-2019-04-18T17:59:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7468483448028564}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First off, my opponent looks at a possibly biased source to defend his argument, instead of looking and comparing the benefits and unhealthy consequences of chocolate. This shows that his rebuttal is invalid because he did not focus on the real evidence on hand, which is the pros and cons of chocolate. I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, \"milk does give benefits,\" but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate. In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison. As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7425445318222046}, {"content": "Title: chocolate milk should be wiped out Content: No. Cholate milk sucks, And it has more sugar than you are supposed to drink in a day! The vitamins you get ARE important-but milk is not the best place to get them!", "qid": 20, "docid": "fd4c46d1-2019-04-18T11:16:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7421673536300659}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7416725754737854}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Many children refuse to eat or drink healthy things because of the way they taste, adding sugar is just fine with me if it gets kids to drink milk. I believe that chocolate milk is not as unhealthy as my opponent makes it sound. If anyone has too much of it, it may become unhealthy, but that's with anything. If all they have is the little 1 cup then it will be perfectly fine for their health. In conclusion, schools should not remove chocolate milk. Thank you for debating with me.", "qid": 20, "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7409522533416748}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk should be served in school!!! Content: When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call \"yucky\" or \"too plain\". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!", "qid": 20, "docid": "40eccde7-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7401524782180786}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7390612363815308}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: The resolution for this debate is \"Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk\". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. \" . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.", "qid": 20, "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7372716069221497}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium \". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals\" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).", "qid": 20, "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7348178625106812}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not \"loaded\" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly \"sparked\" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion (\"Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse\") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an \"average\" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The \"asian flush\" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.", "qid": 20, "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.733758807182312}, {"content": "Title: Should we drink milk Content: I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol", "qid": 20, "docid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00008-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7321548461914062}, {"content": "Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than \"that other milk\" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of \"that other milk\". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or \"that other milk\" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both \"that other milk\" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.", "qid": 20, "docid": "f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7320564985275269}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7300835251808167}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!", "qid": 20, "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7300155162811279}, {"content": "Title: Milk is good for your bones Content: Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.729291558265686}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7291945219039917}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First and foremost, my opponent says that my rebuttal is false. This is an unnecessary argument because I just shortened what my opponent said. She begins with \"Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it,\" in round 2. I then said in my rebuttal that she said that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. This is literally the same meaning. In addition, this has nothing to do with the topic! Overall, this rebuttal is clearly useless. My opponent then says that milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. This may be true, however this does not bring down the fact that the two chocolates still give benefits! Lastly, my opponent says that her counterexample is valid and acceptable. As I said before, her vanilla example does not bring down the fact that chocolate is still good! Both are good and both give benefits. This is debate is not about one is better than the other.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7250948548316956}, {"content": "Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: . http://www.youtube.com... Explanatory Power and Burden of Proof Because no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive. Therefore, considering his argument versus mine, we must consider the merits of it as an argument itself. My argument naturally follows to it's conclusion albeit with an implicit premise and therefore my argument has great explanatory power, that is, if my argument hold strong no matter if my opponent likes it or any one does we have to concede the argument. My opponents argument however, has no explanatory power at all. Even if we grant all the premises he brings forward(which we will not be doing if you were wondering), it doesn't naturally follow that Cow's Milk isn't superior. At best it shows that Soy Milk has some advantages which I in fact never argued wasn't the case. My opponent offensive therefore really doesn't hurt my case at all, but nor does it strengthen his own. Hence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate. The Protein Issue While I was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest, it was because of an oversight of serving size, in which I deeply apologize. However, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein. He also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped. The Vitamin Issue So I mention 4 vitamins are essential for the growth and development of human beings as well as the maintaining of a healthy lifestyle and my opponent mentions two. Furthermore, Vitamin B-12 and Vitamin A are both essential nutrients and without them you will die. So his folate argument really falls short here. Furthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate. Anyway you look at it, four is still more than two. The Price Tag My opponent breezes past this point but he fails to say what he is saying. I would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk. Quality isn't determined by market value. Quality is determined by comparing characteristics and benefits of one thing over another, while the market is determined by what people are willing to pay for. While some things that are more expensive are of high quality, it does not follow that everything of a higher price is of higher quality. To illustrate this point I will further elaborate, a experiment was preformed by a youtube channel called Brad Hensen did a taste test of In-N-Out versus Five Guys. There was obviously slight bias here, since it was out of California nonetheless the In-N-Out fries taste test was near even with In-N-Out only winning by one point. When it came to burgers however, In-N-Out blew Five Guys out of the water with a score of 18 to 1. However, the price of one In-N-Out burger was much much less than Five Guys(about 5.39 versus 3.80). So my opponents argument is invalid and my premise stands to support the argument. Most people are not lactose intolerant Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant, what the case study shows is that if you eat excess lactose foods( 33 grams a day! !) you will suffer negative effects. There are only 5 grams of Lactose in a serving size of Cow's Milk. So unless you drinking 6 glasses of Milk a day, then this study is irrelevant. Another problem with the study was that it was only 21 days long and the short term effects were only shown. We don't know if there bodies would have adapted in the long term to this diet. If you change your diet dramatically in anyway you bound to have some negative effects. This includes with Soy. My opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy. Plus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains. And even if that were true that most people couldn't drink it, it would be irrelavent because we could only compare these two things in the realm of people who could drink both. Also steroid rage, only applies to the small number of people who take steroids and even then it's never been scientifically proven that steroid rage actually exists. The only cases of evidence are anecdotal not scientifically studied claims. Carbs versus Fats I would like point out he never argues aganist my points explicitly for carbs being worse he just says because it sounds like fat is what makes us fat therefore it must be what makes us fat. Obviously this is a vast oversimplification and he consequenitally drops my carbs portion of the case, so he must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake below. My opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index. My opponent just completely drops the point about carbs and only tries to punish me on fats. Nonetheless, just because nobody says \"your a carbo\" doesn't prove anything as my opponent fails to understand. It is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point. A analysis of 21 studies published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that \"a diet filled with saturated fat was not associated with increased risk. .. . [ of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease]\". The problem with carbohydrates is that it's very easy to binge on them because they satisfy us often more than the fatty counterparts, for example cheesy puffs versus pork chops(pork has more fat, cheesy puffs more carbs). Fat is actually the preferred fuel of the human body. Evolutionarily speaking, we have been eatting fat heavy fat foods for thousands of years and we only(relatively) recently started eating all these carbs. I mean meat naturally contains a decent amount of fat. Another problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat. If you are still doubting my position, think about this. We absolutely need fat to survive, lipids are absolutely required for making ATP while the body can produce it's own glucose. In fact, carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we can completely cut from our diet and be completely fine, eliminate fats or protein and eventually you will die from a nutrient deficiency.", "qid": 20, "docid": "cec03dc2-2019-04-18T16:50:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7238430976867676}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is healthy. Content: Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a \"feel good\" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7225416898727417}, {"content": "Title: Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life Content: I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "e2d731b-2019-04-18T14:43:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7201907634735107}, {"content": "Title: Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no Content: Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D", "qid": 20, "docid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7170296907424927}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: First and foremost, my opponent says that I stated \"chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what.\" However, this rebuttal is false because in my first speech I clearly stated, \"He says that, 'Chocolates have some health benefits.' This is true...\" This shows that I do agree that chocolate does have health benefits. Therefore, his first rebuttal is false. Secondly, he says that white chocolate can give calcium and milk chocolate has a high or medium level of cacao. I disagree with his white chocolate rebuttal because milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. As you can see, white chocolate is one type of chocolate that should not be praised, as its benefits can be achieved with healthier means. In addition, I also disagree with his milk chocolate argument, because he does not clearly explain what cacao is and how cacao affects the body. Therefore, his rebuttal is invalid. In my opponent's third rebuttal, he mentions how a counter example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, I disagree, my counterexample is valid and acceptable. The opposition's job is to knock down all of the proposition's arguments; the opposition is not arguing the opposite of the proposition. To sum up, my opponent's rebuttals are invalid, and you should vote for the Con/Opposition.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.711645245552063}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7110394239425659}, {"content": "Title: Veal Content: Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal", "qid": 20, "docid": "c70591bd-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00017-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7094714641571045}, {"content": "Title: Breastfeeding in public Content: Breastfeeding improves health of mothers", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce875d98-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00017-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7084442377090454}, {"content": "Title: Breastfeeding in public Content: Breastfeeding is best for the health and development of babies", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce875d98-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00020-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7077456712722778}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Pro i hope this will be a learning session for you regarding the benefits of Chocolate Milk vs Milk (Normal Milk as you call it). First let me state that Milk can be 1%, 2%.3.7% fat or powedered. All of these affect the Nutrition Values. But for the sake of the argument we will use the Milk 1% and the Chocolate Milk (not reduced fat). Chocolate Milk Nutrition Values Calories 83 % Daily Value* Total Fat 3.4 g 5% Saturated fat 2.1 g 10% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 1 g Cholesterol 12 mg 4% Sodium 60 mg 2% Potassium 167 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 10 g 3% Dietary fiber 0.8 g 3% Sugar 10 g Protein 3.2 g 6% Caffeine 2 mg Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 1% Calcium 11% Iron 1% Vitamin D 12% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 5% Magnesium 3% Milk Nutrition Values Calories 42 % Daily Value* Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Polyunsaturated fat 0 g Monounsaturated fat 0.3 g Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% As you can see from the above tables taken from google (just google search Milk or Chocolate Milk) you can deduce that Chocolate Milk has more Vitamin C, More Iron, more Magnesium, more Vitamin D (12% more) and more Vitamin A. Milk has 5g less sugar than Chocolate Milk (has 10g) in a 100g sample. If fat is a problem for you then choose reduced-fat Chocolate Milk. Therefore Chocolate Milk is far more nutritious than Milk. Drink Chocolate Milk pro. Its good for you :)", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7071695327758789}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: Greetings. I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. With that out of the way, let us proceed: In today's case, I (as the CON) will strongly negate my opponent's resolution that concerns Milk as being nasty. To counter this position, I advocate that Milk MAY be nasty. I define this position as being a position that takes the subjectivity of \"taste\" into account. Thus, I advocate that milk can taste \"good\" and \"bad\", but is not objectively nasty (as is my opponent's implication). It is the job of my opponent to conclusively prove that milk is objectively nasty. He has yet to provide an argument for this and I doubt he would be able to provide a valid one during the round. I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.", "qid": 20, "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7060734629631042}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don\"t get chocolate milk except in school. \"Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school\"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school.\" Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn\"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. So please don\"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.", "qid": 20, "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7053666114807129}, {"content": "Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent\u2019s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry\u2019s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let\u2019s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, \u201cIt is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk\u201d (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we\u2019re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7026410102844238}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate milk is bad for your health Content: Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7024080157279968}, {"content": "Title: Dairy is Bad For Your Health Content: I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). \"Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow\u2019s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed \u22652.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed \u22640.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women\u2019s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day\" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.", "qid": 20, "docid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7019935846328735}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: To start off with, I will refute my opponent's first argument. When I said chocolate should not be considered a healthy food, I meant this as chocolate has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits, so it should not be called a healthy food. I believe that there are healthy parts of chocolate, do not misinterpret my words, but there are still too many downsides. Although the milk chocolate does have a benefit, it is still not the best option. You also did not refute my milk chocolate point, so your statement, \"the two chocolates still give benefits,\" is false. As I have stated before, the opposition's (Con's) job is to refute everything that proposition says. Obviously, my counter example proves that chocolate is not good because there are other, healthier, and better options to chocolate.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7001506090164185}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: i think that choc. milk should be allowed in schools because it contains vitamins, minerals, and other objects that will get us through the day without falling asleep in class (trust i have done it the consequences are not good)", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6997952461242676}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Taking it out of schools won't help, a lot of parents only buy chocolate milk and so the children will get it anyway. Besides, it's a good way to get children who refuse to drink white milk, calcium. It does have a lower concentration of calcium, but it's better than nothing.", "qid": 20, "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6997238397598267}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Hello ladies, gentlemen, judges I am Forever 23 and I am on the behalf of the premise which is that we CAN NOT ban eggs, dairy and milk worldwide. So allow me to first refute my opponents claims and then rebuild on my own points. Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body. http://www.healthyeating.org... Cheese contains a host of nutrients like calcium, protein, phosphorus, zinc, vitamin A and vitamin B12. Calcium is one of the nutrients most likely to be lacking in the American diet. According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations. The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below. If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated. For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat\"\"found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils\"\"was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the \"saturated fat is bad\" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement. Even if saturated fat is less of a concern, calories still matter. To reduce calories, you can grate or sprinkle harder cheeses over your dishes or use small amounts of aromatic and sharp cheeses for their delicious cheese flavor. Many reduced-fat varieties of cheeses are also available. This 2014 article in the Food and Nutrition Magazine provides more information on the Charms and Challenges of Cheese. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that individuals ages 9 and older consume at least 3 servings of milk, cheese or yogurt each day; children aged 4-8 years need 2-1/2 cups per day. One serving of cheese is one and one-half ounces of hard cheese, one-third cup for grated cheese and two ounces for processed cheese. Their second claim was that meat dairy and eggs productions are unhealthy for the environment. However, cars are too! Do you see a ban on cars? No. But to get more topical, lets go over on the unhealthy production of vegetables and different herbs. I am sure that you know that pesticides are used to grow vegetables and fruits. http://www.toxicsaction.org... When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she raised public awareness about the effects of pesticide use on our health and our environment. However, almost forty years after Carson drew attention to the health and environmental impacts of DDT, use of equally hazardous pesticides has only increased. And all the time there is more evidence surfacing that human exposure to pesticides is linked to health problems. For example, in May 2010, scientists from the University of Montreal and Harvard University released a study that found that exposure to pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit may double a child\u2019s risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that can cause inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity in children. Acute dangers - such as nerve, skin, and eye irritation and damage, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and systemic poisoning - can sometimes be dramatic, and even occasionally fatal. Chronic health effects may occur years after even minimal exposure to pesticides in the environment, or result from the pesticide residues which we ingest through our food and water. A July 2007 study conducted by researchers at the Public Health Institute, the California Department of Health Services, and the UC Berkeley School of Public Health found a sixfold increase in risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) for children of women who were exposed to organochlorine pesticides. Pesticides can cause many types of cancer in humans. Some of the most prevalent forms include leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, brain, bone, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and liver cancers. In February 2009, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a study that found that children who live in homes where their parents use pesticides are twice as likely to develop brain cancer versus those that live in residences in which no pesticides are used. Studies by the National Cancer Institute found that American farmers, who in most respects are healthier than the population at large, had startling incidences of leukemia, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and many other forms of cancer. However, the pro doesn't just want to starve the planet... I wonder why? So judges, you should really consider how illogical it would be to ban the production of all meat, dairy and eggs. Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals. However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms. Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO! Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible. Now, as promised in my last speech, I will point out the health factor of each category. Second up, we have dairy. http://www.healthyeating.org... \"Milk and dairy foods are healthy foods and considered nutrient-rich because they serve as good sources of calcium and vitamin D as well as protein and other essential nutrients. They provide phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and vitamins A, B12, and riboflavin1. The calcium in milk, yogurt, and cheese is significant yet most people don't get enough calcium or vitamin D each day2. Getting the recommended three servings of dairy per day can help build bone mass, leading to improved bone health throughout the life cycle. To meet daily calcium requirements, most people should have two to three cups of milk or servings of dairy foods each day. There are many ways to ensure you are eating healthy and getting enough milk and milk products each day. Start with a healthy breakfast of cereal, milk and fruit or a yogurt parfait, include cheese in your lunch or afternoon snack and consider pudding or hot chocolate made with milk as an evening dessert. To learn more about the amounts of food to eat each day, use the Healthy Eating Planner. Some Key Benefits of Dairy Foods The calcium in milk is easily absorbed and used in the body, which is why milk and milk products are reliable as well as economical sources of calcium. A diet rich in protein and vitamin D contributes to bone health. Due to their high protein, vitamin D, and calcium content, dairy foods are a good choice for maintaining strong bones. A diet rich in fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy foods, with reduced saturated fat, is as effective as some medications in reducing blood pressure in people with increased blood pressure. It has also been shown to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and type-2 diabetes1. Cultured dairy products like yogurt contain probiotics which provide a wide array of health benefits. Probiotics in the diet can enhance the good bacteria in the gut, improve health and reduce the risk of certain diseases\" I just want to have a closing statement about one particular very healthy example of dairy. Yogurt. http://www.webmd.com..., \"First off, your body needs to have a healthy amount of 'good' bacteria in the digestive tract, and many yogurts are made using active, good bacteria. One of the words you\"ll be hearing more of in relation to yogurt is 'probiotics.' Probiotic, which literally means 'for life,' refers to living organisms that can result in a health benefit when eaten in adequate amounts. Miguel Freitas, PhD, medical marketing manager for Dannon Co., says the benefits associated with probiotics are specific to certain strains of these \"good\" bacteria. Many provide their benefits by adjusting the microflora (the natural balance of organisms) in the intestines, or by acting directly on body functions, such as digestion or immune function. (Keep in mind that the only yogurts that contain probiotics are those that say \"live and active cultures\" on the label.)\" Vote pro for health problems. However, if you don't want to loose your meats and dairies, vote con. A vote for con, is a vote for health. Thank you.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.698703944683075}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: My opponent says that chocolates has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits. I disagree, because according to http://cocoasymposium.com..., the website says that chocolate is not bad for your health. Because this is clearly stated, this means that they do more good that harm. Chocolate is good and gives benefits. After, my opponent says that I didn't refute her milk chocolate point. This is false, because I said that milk does give benefits- but so does the two chocolates! This means that she just gave another thing that gave some same health benefits. The two chocolates are still.. good! Lastly, my opponent says that there are better and healthier options to chocolate. This may be true, but it DOESN'T PROVE THAT CHOCOLATE IS BAD! Water is good for you, and apples are good for you. If I was talking about how water is good, and you put in a counterexample that apples are good, this doesn't mean that water is bad! This is what you are saying right now about chocolate. You are saying that milk is also good for you, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is bad. Your arguments are useless, and I have rebutted all of them. Overall, chocolate is great. Vote for the proposition side.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6982042193412781}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: I think that chocolate milk should be banned from all schools because I think that schools and kids are getting poisoned. By what you ask? CHOCOLATE MILK!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW JUST KEEP READING HAHAHA!!!!! I think that you should stop serving chocolate milk at lunch are Health problems, Too much sugar in chocolate milk, and how much you serve it Health problems Everyone thinks chocolate milk is good but did you know it can have major health problems for kids who drink it. Some might say that chocolate milk has no health problems but trust me it does. Some of those health problems are Cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.According to the American Institute for Cancer Research,\"Chocolate milk contains added sugars and therefore more calories that can lead to more overweight and obesity.\" In other words, it can lead to you dying and not being able to live a long life of playing sports and seeing the new technology.So those are the health problems of chocolate milk", "qid": 20, "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6952061057090759}, {"content": "Title: my milk shake is better than yours Content: Thanks and good luck to my opponent. Since the resolution isn't clear, I'll be arguing for both \"milk shake\" and \"milkshake. \" Definitions:Milk: \"a white liquid produced by a plant or woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people\" [1]Shake: \"to move sometimes violently back and forth or up and down with short, quick movements\" [2] Milkshake: \"a thoroughly shaken or blended drink made of milk, a flavoring syrup, and often ice cream\" [3]Better- \"More useful, suitable, or desirable\" [4] Therefore, to win this debate, Pro must prove that her milkshake is more useful, suitable or desirable. Refutations:1. SourcesPro commits a logical fallacy. The graph she provides says, \"My milkshake. \" However, she did not define \"my. \" \"My\" is \"he possessive form of 'I. '\" [5]Pro did not provide her sample population nor did she provide a location for \"the yard. \" For all we know, these boys (if we can call them that because we don't know if they really do exist) could be moving to another yard to get away from Pro's milkshake. 2. IrrelevanceI would like to enquire what the second picture has anything to do with this topic. Contentions:1. Chocolate MilkshakeSince we're arguing which is better, I shall argue for a chocolate milkshake. <img src=\". http://www.debate.org/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/25386/ \" height=\"300\" width=\"300\"/> P1: Chocolate milkshake is made from chocolate. P2: Chocolate has many benfits. C: Chocolate milkshakes have many benefits. This proves its usefulness, which is part of the definition of \"better. \" Chocolate has cardiovascular benefits and helps to lower blood pressure and risk of heart attack. [6]. I will get more onto why the chocolate milkshake is better in the next round. 2. My milkshake brings everyone to the milkshake stores to get one. My opponent has alleged that her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard. As seen in my defintion above, \"better\" refers to \"more desirable. \" Just because ALL the boys (which has not been proven yet) goes to Pro's house does not mean that her milkshake is more desirable or better. Again, she has failed to show that ALL boys are at \"the yard (which she failed to define or locate. )Sources:[1]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[4]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[5]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6]- . http://www.womenshealthmag.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "fa3ab278-2019-04-18T16:06:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6944018006324768}, {"content": "Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. \"The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever.\" A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) \"Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. \" \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdIt is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdAs chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. \"Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods.\" Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdFlavoring milk \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdis the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. \"It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk,\" said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdhttp://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6934717893600464}, {"content": "Title: Comment a Topic! Content: In reference to my experiences, I have always found the majority of people prefer vanilla ice-cream and white milk not only for of its succulent taste but also because it is a healthier option. Moreover, if there was a magical cow that solely produced chocolate milk, what's to suggest that people won't grow tired of chocolate milk with their coffee and cereal? In addition, wouldn't this cause a proliferation in health problems for the vast population?", "qid": 20, "docid": "82bdc687-2019-04-18T15:10:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6912459135055542}, {"content": "Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Boom? is all you got! White milk is OfficeMax better. she it has no taste but its more nutritious you can become obese and get chronics people die every 10 mints because of chocolate milk!", "qid": 20, "docid": "dca446e-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6900361776351929}, {"content": "Title: Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men Content: In this debate, my opponent has not shown any correlations. He has not understood what phytoestrogen even does, contradicting himself three times in three rounds. He is no longer making a big case out of the notion that if a lot of a food is bad for you, then eating that food in moderation must be bad for you. Apparently he's \"not conceding the other points\", which is problematic since he refuses to engage with them. Instead, he wants this to be all about the science, even if he cannot provide a coherent mechanism to explain it, and if he cannot show any other data to correlate it with.I find it amazing that my opponent can bring up 18 all-new pieces of evidence and about a dozen entirely new arguments in the final round, but I'll roll with it. Please don't penalize me if I bring up new evidence in response to totally new evidence.Scotland studyThis is where I proved that soy milk presents zero harm to adult men. When my opponent agreed with this, I extended that by saying the receptors in children are no different from adults. My opponent has failed to show why kids would react differently from adults.I also provided an excellent study showing that if anything, kids react BETTER to soy because they cannot metabolize phytoestrogen so well. This has been where my opponent has directed his attention. To \"counter\" this study, he cites a different study conducted around a decade earlier, saying that they are \"more susceptible\" to the sex hormones. First, that relies on them actually metabolising them, which they cannot do so well. And second, we now have empirical evidence that they are not \"more susceptible\", because just like adults, kids who drink soy don't turn out any different than kids who drink milk [1]. The differing results come about because pro's study looks at concentration, mine total absorption. Moreover, there is convincing evidence collected at the same time as my opponent's study that the isoflavones have the opposite effect in children's estrogen levels [2].The authors of that study concluded:\"In the absence of practical examples to support adverse effects of soy-based infant formulas, despite their use for > 30 y, it could be argued that long-term benefits may ensue from infant exposure to soy-based formulas containing isoflavones because this could confer protection later in life against hormone-dependent diseases. In this regard, we speculate that the low incidence of hormone-dependent diseases in China and Japan, where soy is a staple, may in part be a consequence of a lifetime exposure to phytoestrogens from the traditional diet.\" [2]Oh, and Fallon's article? She doesn't have any credentials at all (anyone can legally call themselves a \"nutritionist\"), other than that she wrote a book which presents more or less the same evidence as pro has in this debate. She's never done any primary research herself.Ultimately the question is whether studies on human adults or lab rats are better suited to determine the effects of soy on youth. Remember that I've also shown a number of meta-analyses that show where the preponderance of evidence really lies.Ohio Studyaka #9. Pro says it doesn't measure hormone stats. True, but that's not the only aspect of sexual development. The Ohio study basically proves that they did not have stunted growth or any other outward signs of retarded development.If \"during puberty\" is the only time my opponent thinks it's bad to eat soy, then that's a huge limitation on when it's apparently \"detrimental\" in some way that we haven't seen before. However, this also disproves my opponent's animal studies being relevant to humans, such as the one about muscle protein in pigs pro cited two rounds ago, since humans did NOT have the same effects.Italy studyaka #10. My opponent is right that it didn't measure hormone levels. What it measured was SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT independent of hormone levels, and it found that it's the same with and without soy. While it did not relate to soy consumption in adolescence, it proves that childhood consumption has no effect on adolescence. That's probably because adult hormone levels don't set in until after adolescence. If anything, hormones usually get stuffed up in adolescence, so hormone regulators like soy can help keep them under control.While a survey, it also checked their medical records [4] so the participants couldn't exactly lie..77 correlation is not huge, it's tiny. Lower is better for p-values, and anything above 0.05 is not normally considered significant [3]. Although this conclusion my opponent draws about T-levels is wrong, my opponent has yet to show ANY harm of a low T-value outside of sexual development (which soy does NOT affect), nor can he explain why soy would even affect T-values, since it only regulates estrogen.Italy study #2aka #11. I do have access to this study, and it's pretty good. However, my opponent concedes what it proves: young boys are not feminized. If he thinks the SERMs will stick around until puberty and then magically activate, he better provide some evidence. So far he has provided none.He claims \"the evidence we do have in infant soy feedings suggests negative effects.\" Not even his source claims that - in fact, his source ends by suggesting soy isn't even bioactive. This study directly contradicts that.Infant Marmoset StudyAfter I proved that infants develop normally and my opponent tried to restrict the debate to just adolescents, he cites a study about the infant development of chimps. If human babies fed soy develop normally at least until adolescence and monkey babies do not, then that proves what I've been saying all along - different species interact differently with SERMs.Dr MercolaDr Mercola is the very same guy who relies on \"slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics\" to make \"unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations\" [6]. My opponent speaks of this guy like he's ever done any research into soy at all. He has not - even Dr Phil is more qualified to speak about soy. He published this article right before promoting his own artificial breastmilk alternative.EliteFTSThis meta-analysis found that soy is no worse than whey at building muscle. While it did make some conclusions about T-levels, since soy doesn't hurt an athlete's ability to build muscle, this isn't detrimental either.Pro also does not show why not being a top athlete is \"detrimental.\" Taking vitamins won't build muscle, but that doesn't mean they're detrimental.SummaryThis debate is not all about the research, although it's the only thing pro has anything on at the end of the debate. But let me explain why I think the research supports me.I gave you six independent, peer-reviewed studies, including two meta-analyses of over 30 other studies, proving that soy is safe in people. Pro has given no reason why this should not be true for children.Pro gave you many studies that soy is harmful to animals. I showed in depth WHY these studies cannot be applied to humans.The question we should be asking is - what animal is a human child most close to? A human of course! Which is why despite the fact that we've had soy for 50+ years, soy-fed kids are developing normally. And it's why all the studies on human children support my position.And teens? That's a crazy hypothesis my opponent had. He presented no research to back it up, and not even a reason why it might be true.The actual science is still very much on my side.If that's what matters, then I think it's clear where the evidence is. If not, then pro has essentially conceded.Vote con.Sources1 - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...2 - http://ajcn.nutrition.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://jama.jamanetwork.com...5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 20, "docid": "e427f8a0-2019-04-18T17:46:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6899516582489014}, {"content": "Title: MILK IS NASTY!!!!!! Content: My opponent has stated that milk is nasty in his original round as well as in the resolution. Thus, it is still his job to counter my case which referred to milk \"tasting nasty.\" As for milking being nasty due to its origins, this argument suffers from the same flaws. To some, make me seem nasty due to the fact that it can come out of cow's utters, but to others, it most certainly doesn't. Thus, the flaw in my opponent's case is still the matter of \"subjectivity.\" Furthermore, his argument goes about assuming that milk can only come from cows, but this is false too. Many of you may realize that milk is produced by other living creatures, but it can also be artificially produced. Furthermore, even in cow milk, milk producers put it through the process of pasteurization (a process which eliminates all harmful bacteria) before selling it to the market. I now stand ready for my opponent's final rebuttal.", "qid": 20, "docid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6898754835128784}, {"content": "Title: should chocolate milk be served in school Content: Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamins than regular milk! I know you might think chocolate milk is like chocolate drink but it's not the same. Chocolate milk is to keep kids in a habit of not drinking soda Yes chocolate milk should be served in school because kids like it. Maybe they will quit drinking sodas if they start drinking chocolate milk. Chocolate milk surprisingly have calcium and vitamins. They have more vitamin", "qid": 20, "docid": "b81e7ad4-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6896881461143494}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: choc. milk tastes better and is better then white milk because it can get u through the day with some energy left for gym. plus some people cant do a single pull up without the energy from choc. milk", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6884177923202515}, {"content": "Title: Should you be consuming caffeine Content: I would argue that it is not best for humans to be consuming anything that is not naturally occurring in nature. To be more specific, I believe in the Paleo ideaology which believes that if humans weren't consuming certain things 15 thousand years ago, They shouldn't be consuming it today as our bodies have not yet effectively addapted to using these foods, Drugs, Or chemicals for energy. Just think of all of those people who can't consume milk because there bodies reject or cannot tolerate it. Humans should not be consuming painkillers as painkillers are very hard on our bodies and inhibit our bodies natural ability to sense pain in response to an outside stimuli. Any drug that affects your brain chemicals should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. Thousands of people die every year as a result of accidents with prescription pain killers and prescribed medication. Bringing attention back to caffeine, Caffeine I'll admit for most people is ok as in they will not be debilitated by it at least in the present. But that does not mean that caffeine is safe on our bodies long term health. The effects of caffeine on our bodies in the long term is unknown and therefore should be avoided.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3707b42f-2019-04-18T11:21:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6859115958213806}, {"content": "Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: chocolate milk is so much better though. i asked a teacher and a friend and a couple of other people. they would prefer to chug down a whole container of chocolate milk in a milk drinking contest than drink regular milk. so BOOM!", "qid": 20, "docid": "dca446e-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6846915483474731}, {"content": "Title: It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use. Content: I accept. Milk and tea are marvellous things. A cunning mix allow one to pretend that one is not drinking scotch before 9.", "qid": 20, "docid": "a32f2d93-2019-04-18T18:26:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6835811138153076}, {"content": "Title: Breastfeeding improves health of mothers Content: Nancy Solomon. \"Breastfeeding in Public Is a Basic Civil Right.\" WEnews. August 7, 2002: \"breastfeeding offers significant health benefits to nursing mothers, including reduced risks of breast and other types of cancers, as well as osteoporosis.\"", "qid": 20, "docid": "ce875d98-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00024-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6832334995269775}, {"content": "Title: The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk Content: The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk. The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3). Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, \u201cHigher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength\u201d (5). Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7). Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children\u2019s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk. Conclusion: Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task. References: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.choosemyplate.gov... http://yaleruddcenter.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ajcn.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...", "qid": 20, "docid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6824279427528381}, {"content": "Title: All children are entitled to a healthy start in life Content: The World Health Organisation, a collection of internationally qualified doctors state that breast milk naturally contains all the nutrients that a child could need for the first 6 months of its life [[http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/index.html]]. From iron to zinc, calcium to protein; everything that is vital for a healthy young life can be found in these natural given milk ducts. The Government should make it compulsory for mothers to breast feed to ensure that every child is allowed to benefit from this. Not one child should ever be disadvantaged due to their mother\u2019s selfish choice or lack of effort. To make breast feeding compulsory is the only way to ensure this fairness. If we want equality, this is what we must do.", "qid": 20, "docid": "c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00010-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6821584701538086}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------", "qid": 20, "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6820985078811646}, {"content": "Title: Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk Content: I think chocolate milk is better because it tastes better and people drink it more than that other milk.", "qid": 20, "docid": "f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6815779209136963}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that \"moderation\" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels \"protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones\" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.", "qid": 20, "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00007-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.680670976638794}, {"content": "Title: Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Content: R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...", "qid": 20, "docid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6803305149078369}, {"content": "Title: choc. milk in schools Content: Regular milk provides the same benefits, without the excess sugar.", "qid": 20, "docid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6800679564476013}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff Content: What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called \u201cliquid candy\u201d, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids\u2019 diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children\u2019s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily \u201cbudget\u201d of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day\u2019s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it\u2019s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children\u2019s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn\u2019t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts \u2013 New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California \u2013 have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit \u2013 more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie\u2019s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don\u2019t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the \u201cRenegade Lunch Lady\u201d, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don\u2019t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by \u201cRaise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.\u201d4 Science and common sense don\u2019t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that\u2019s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days\u2026 *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It\u2019s the place kids get flavored milk. \u201cFlavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.\u201d \u2013 Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University", "qid": 20, "docid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6778302788734436}, {"content": "Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: \u201cBecause no explicit of burden of proof was stated in the rules and neither me or my opponent claimed the other had burden of proof, we must assume a shared burden. This is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent does attempt to show the superiority of Soy milk via his offensive.\u201d So I've taken some of your burden proof onto my own shoulders just because I provided both rebuttals and offensive arguments? That doesn't make sense. Your position is that Cow's Milk is superior to Soy Milk; I merely need to prove that Soy is at least equal to win this debate. \u201cHence even if you say my argument is completely invalid at best you should award us a tie in the arguments portion of the debate.\u201d So if your argument is completely invalid, and mine isn't, you deserve a tie? That makes even less sense! \u201cI was mistaken on the protein portion of the contest\u201d Thank you. \u201cHowever, my opponent drops my portion of the argument about biological values and different types of protein and therefore concedes that even if they have the same amount of protein, Cow's Milk is still far superior in types of protein.\u201d Both Cow's Milk and Soy's Milk contain all the EAAs and have individual traits thought to offer a unique advantage for muscle growth.1 \u201cHe also never addresses the fact that Soy is a plant protein and therefore not a complete protein. I will consider this dropped.\u201d According to a 2009 paper called Soy: a complete source of protein,2 \u201cSoybeans contain all of the essential amino acids necessary for human nutrition\u201d. It goes on to clarify that Soy actually \u201cis a complete source of protein\u201d. (emphasis mine) \u201cFurthermore, there are many many sources of folate. You don't need Soy Milk at all to get folate.\u201d And you don't need Cow's Milk at all to get any vitamins. \u201cI would ask my opponent, are cigarettes of higher quality and importance(emphasis) than say his Soy Milk. Because it would seem that it costs more. We could also ask if a Big Mac is better Quality than Soy Milk.\u201d That's the fallacy of False Analogy; comparing a Big Mac with Soy Milk is like comparing apples and oranges. I compared two types of milk, and it's a perfectly valid analogy. People pay more for Soy Milk because it's superior to Cow's Milk. I won't waste time rebutting your YouTube experiment, since you already did that by clarifying that it was biased. \u201cMost people are not lactose intolerant[...] Anyone who clicks on his source will see even if you read the entire case study it never ever says that most people are lactose intolerant\u201d Sorry, I must've cited the wrong source. Here is the source I meant to site: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... You will find that this government page agrees that most people are, indeed, lactose-intolerant, as the number of those with reduced lactose digesting ability is \u201c65 percent of the human population\u201d. The Nottingham Institute of Genetics backs this up, stating that \u201cMost people cannot drink milk as adults without the symptoms of lactose intolerance\u201d.4 \u201cMy opponent is being dishonest when he says that Soy Milk can be drunk by everybody. There two distinct groups that cannot drink Soy that can drink Cow's Milk. People who are allergic to Soy.\u201d \u201cOverall, soy is well tolerated\u201d.2 Furthermore, according to this graph from EuroPrevall, an EU-funded project about food allergy, it's clear that far more people are allergic to Cow's Milk than Soy Milk5: \u201cPlus people who are bodybuilder because it lowers testosterone and raises estrogen. This is because it reduces muscles gains.\u201d That's a myth. Soy Milk has never been shown to reduce muscle gains. Also, you are completely ignoring the fact that Cow's Milk has estrogen too. According to the Harvard News6: \u201cAmong the routes of human exposure to estrogens, we are mostly concerned about cow's milk, which contains considerable amounts of female sex hormones\u201d. The paper goes on to say that Dairy \u201caccounts for 60 percent to 80 percent of estrogens consumed.\u201d So most of the estrogen that you are worried about actually comes from Cow's Milk, not Soy Milk. \u201c[Con] must concede Soy Milk does contain more carbs even if he doubts the importance which I will explain is a mistake\u201d I do not doubt the importance of the presence of healthy carbs in Soy Milk, which Cow's Milk does not have. That's because, as I already pointed out in the previous round, Soy Milk has fiber, a type of carbohydrate needed for healthy digestion.7 Cow's Milk doesn't have any! \u201cMy opponent says bodybuilders eat tons of carbs. While many bodybuilders do eat many carbs and no one would argue they don't , however they are referring to complex carbohydrates with a high glycemic index.\u201d No, they are not only referring to complex carbohydrates, and you've given no reason for anyone to believe that's the case. Besides, I already showed a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger consuming a massive pizza, which is composed almost entirely of simple carbohydrates with a high glycemic index! \u201cIt is laughable that they show the California governor instead of the bodybuilder Schwarzenegger to support their point.\u201d It's laughable that you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and bodybuilder Schwarzenegger aren't the same person. Mr. Schwarzenegger is still bodybuilding, as evidenced by this photo taken this year8: \u201cAnother problem with carbs is that they are hard to digest in comparison to Fat.\u201d Completely wrong. \u201cAlmost all carbohydrates[...] are the quickest to digest and absorb [\u2026] Fats take the most time to fully digest and absorb because they are the largest molecules\u201d.9 Cow's Milk is not superior to Soy Milk. Vote Con! 1http://www.dartmouthsports.com... 2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... 4European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 267\u2013269. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201297 5http://www.europrevall.org... 6http://www.news.harvard.edu... 7http://www.sciencedaily.com... 8http://www.shockmansion.com... 9http://woman.thenest.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "cec03dc2-2019-04-18T16:50:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6774470806121826}, {"content": "Title: Cows Are Evil Content: May i respectfully say to my opponent that this debate is over whether or not cow are evil and in no way over how we should treat them. Next, i will refute my opponents argument. I will speak in first person. Cows, your argument is invalid. Milk does not come out of the cow's penis, it comes out of the utters, obviously. To continue, cows like splattering us with their white milk. They know that milk contributes to the development of facial acne and also that some people will die if they drink it. Also, cows are huge. Obviously, if cows are huge then they want to roll over us and destroy our organs so that they can reclaim all the grasses and then form a milk republic founded under the principles of the ancient Bovan republic, so if we start feeling for these cows they will take advantage of that and kill us all. Yes, you too you fat cow. Who do you think you are raping my sexy wife and then eating my children to contribute to you obesity? Your Turn.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8f6c92ca-2019-04-18T15:44:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6772340536117554}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate is good. Content: My opponent says that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. I believe that this argument may be correct, but it still gives benefits. Chocolate, like any other food, is bad if you have to much. However, this does not mean that it is bad. For example, if you have too much water, it would be bad. Though that may be true, water is still good for you. About the same goes for chocolate. Chocolate may not be a food you want to eat too much, however it does give benefits. Chocolate is still good. In addition, she says that chocolate can cause headaches, however, according to http://www.everydayhealth.com..., coffee can do the same. Yet people still drink it! Thus, chocolate is still something good you can enjoy, like coffee! My opponent then says then says that not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Though this may be true, the chocolates each do have at least one thing. White chocolate, for example, can give calcium, while milk chocolate can give a medium or a high level of cacao. She then gives a counter example, which doesn't really relate to the topic. Vanilla and chocolate are both good, and we are arguing about how chocolate is good! She believes that chocolate is not good, and I believe it is. This is not chocolate vs vanilla. Thus, this counter example is useless. In conclusion, chocolate does give health benefits.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8668e35f-2019-04-18T13:12:55Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6771177649497986}, {"content": "Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: Yeah but you are not drinking chocolate milk 24/7! That doesn't mean that . im saying that it is better because it has that sweet taste for every person who has a sweet tooth and want that taste instead of eating candy like crazy!", "qid": 20, "docid": "dca446e-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6768513917922974}, {"content": "Title: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. Content: Resolution: Cow milk is superior to Soy Milk. This seems to be a giant debate over the value of Soy in the bodybuilding community as well as in the average population. I have come to bring us from the chains of our Soy overlords :) 1. No direct plagiarism 2. No intentional fallacious arguments 3. General Debate etiquette 4. Have fun! No exceptions :) Violation of the rules will result in a 7 point forfeit.", "qid": 20, "docid": "cec03dc2-2019-04-18T16:50:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6763527393341064}, {"content": "Title: Tea making. Milk should go in after and not before the tea. Content: I assume my opponent has come round to the idea that tea is best made milk last. Good luck and more importantly good tea in the future!", "qid": 20, "docid": "a873e667-2019-04-18T15:24:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6758828163146973}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Pro says that eating meat and dairy products is wrong because we can live on a vegan diet..I Con disagrees. Con believes eating vegan is not healthy.For example a study stated that 83% of vegans are b12 deficient..And this can cause many problems including. amenia,neurological and psychotic problems,and fatigue...Here's the linkhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There are lots of studies that say vegans have deficiencies for many nutrients. I'm out of time,will be back for round 5.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3471cac1-2019-04-18T14:10:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6750659942626953}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate be banned in elementary and middle schools Content: Too much sugar in Chocolate milk There is too much sugar in it and some may think it is healthy milk but it is not it has disease teaspoons of added sugar and 27 total grams of carbohydrates.According to Michigan State University Extension\"In fact, when sugars are added to otherwise nutrient-rich foods, such as sugar-sweetened dairy products like flavored milk and yogurt and sugar-sweetened cereals, the quality of children\"s and adolescents\" diets improves, and in the case of flavored milks, no adverse effects on weight status were found.\" So those are my reasons and quote on There is too much sugar in chocolate milk.", "qid": 20, "docid": "61b1ed2-2019-04-18T12:19:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.67496657371521}, {"content": "Title: Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Content: Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. \"My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones\" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: \"The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent.\" The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: \"Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.\" (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: \"The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?\" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the \"Human Health\" section, is one big \"citation needed\" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues \u2013 a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier.\" and it also says \"The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food).\" (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. \"I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders.\" Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) \"Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly.\" I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. \"The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times.\" Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: \"Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk.\" In the section labeled \"Cancer,\" the word \"milk\" shows up five times. \"This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable\" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. \"You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage.\" Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) \"In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate.\" It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? \"Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free.\" That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste.\" and in R2 I defined milk as \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc.\" You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.", "qid": 20, "docid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6744165420532227}, {"content": "Title: Lowering US drinking age from 21 to 18 Content: Drinking is healthy in moderation.", "qid": 20, "docid": "dabcc311-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00011-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6742604970932007}, {"content": "Title: Plant-Based Diets are just as good if not better than Animal-Based Diets/diets with animal products Content: Why? After much research, it becomes surprisingly simple (however, there is always so much to learn). I'm not citing sources because I don't feel like looking all of them up -- however, I do feel confident that my opinions have been fairly well-researched. I'd be happy to look up anything and find the source that someone else can't find when they look it up, though. 1) Dairy is completely unnecessary for anyone living in a developed country. Cow's milk, which is made for baby calves much the same way human women produce breast milk ONLY for their own species, is known as a healthy drink. But is this really necessary for a country (I'm from the USA) that has access to virtually unlimited sources of protein and calcium? Milk is the food that is raved about for its protein and calcium -- I'm not impressed. I have concluded that the only humans truly in need of this source of protein & calcium are those poor third-world countries that have very little hope of meeting their daily needs in these categories. Everyone else who has easy access to markets and grocery stores and doesn't realize there are so many other sources of protein and calcium is simply making an uninformed statement. 2) Although meat is the only food source of Vitamin B12 that we know of, B12 is added to many foods that don't include animal products, and from the research I've read, there appears to be no huge difference between how the body absorbs this added B12 (if anyone has research to the contrary, please inform me). So far as I can tell, B12 is THE ONLY nutrient in meat that can't easily be found naturally in other foods. 3) Factory farms help produce and kill 56 billion animals per year for human consumption. Factory farms are very often places operating with highly unethical practices. From gestation crates (pigs that can't turn around in their crates for their 2.5 years of existence), to artificially inseminated cows (they're repeatedly impregnated unnaturally so they will lactate and we can thus take their milk), to bigger animals via hormones and antibiotics (all of which are likely in the meat/dairy when you eat them) who produce far more meat and milk than they're naturally supposed to and live far less as long as they naturally would because we abuse and then kill them for our consumption, to chickens who get a max of 5 minutes of fresh air, to baby calves being taken away from their milk-producing mothers at birth and then killed for veal, to...you know what, there's a lot more. Go find out. 4) Western society eats too much meat. Straight-up. It's very obvious when you begin to look at chronic disease charts and when you look at the correlation between meat/dairy and disease. It's clear that small amounts of lean meat and dairy CAN be very healthful...but the reality is, most people with modern diets eat too much of these products to the point that it is unhealthy. If, for the most part, meat and dairy are unnecessary, then it just doesn't make sense why we eat so much of it. 5) Excess animal protein actually INCREASES risk of osteoporosis. Definitely not what they taught me in school or in that stupid food pyramid thing. But yes, this is true. It's likely that even the recommended levels of protein (around 70 grams, I believe) are too high, and the number I've seen for typical dairy American consumption is an average of over 100 grams of protein per day. Most of it is animal protein. That is INSANE. So, complete plant proteins and other incomplete plant proteins which can be combined, are actually healthier than animal proteins in the long-term when considering this fact. 6) Plant-based diets are more likely to be healthier overall. This is a statement made with a bit of speculation, but I want to point out that vegetarians/vegans aren't estimated to live a few years longer than omnivores because they don't eat meat, but more likely because they're overall more aware of what they're eating. Trust me, that is really the main goal for overall nutrition and health. Awareness! Where is your meat/dairy coming from and how was it produced? Do you know? That is my problem with an animal-based diet, in addition to it not really being even necessary to consume animal products. 7) Plants, in general, have fewer calories and 400X the micro-nutrients than meat/dairy do. Micronutrients are far more helpful to the body than excess/unnecessary/small amounts of vitamins, protein, and calcium. Many vegetables, fruits, grains, and pseudograins are very high in not only protein and calcium, but also Vitamins A, B, C, D, K, and also iron, magnesium, and much more. Going back to the first statement of this point, the reason why this matters is...well, look around. Obesity is now a disease in the US. Weight, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic problems related to lifestyle choices can be relieved by taking a look at our diets. If plants have fewer calories and WAY more nutrients than meat and dairy, it will DEFINITELY benefit overweight and unhealthy people to cut it out! Literally! 8) Nutrient deficiencies are just as likely to happen in omnivores as vegetarians/vegans, except for B12. Iron is more likely to be a problem based on your sex instead of whether or not you eat animals. Females have much more trouble maintaining iron levels than males. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly found in omnivores and vegetarians alike. We are all supposed to be eating \"well-planned diets,\" not just vegans. Silly. 9) Most people who switch out vegetables/other plants for meat, even if they don't completely cut it all out of their diet, eventually report feeling much better. It's like a load lifted off the body. For some popular/pretty credible examples, check out Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres (ok, she's just a talk-show host, not a high-performance athlete or politician, but she had some great things to say about changes in her diet), Brendan Brazier (former Ironman triathlete), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), and oh so many more. 10) Eating meat/dairy contributes to world hunger. About 1/3 of the world's grains and crops produced are fed to livestock bred solely for human consumption -- this food could and should actually be going to HUMANS. It is well known that 1 pound of beef costs an ungodly amount of resources to produce compared to 1 pound of grain (the grain would go straight to humans instead of the animals, which are then fed to humans). It is well known by informed people that we have all the food and resources to feed all the hungry and starving people in the world. But we're not, and simply, we could if first-world citizens would just cut back on their meat/dairy intake. It's that simple, guys. If we would be less selfish and gluttonous, we could feed every single hungry person on this earth. It is pretty mind-blowing. Then everyone else would have a shot at getting the bare minimum of their protein and calcium needs, too.", "qid": 20, "docid": "829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.673586905002594}, {"content": "Title: White Milk is Better Then Chocolete Milk Content: White milk has more Vitamin D than Chocolate milk and kids love it because there's sager! Kids love Chocolate and they wanted for kids to drink more milk so they made it together!", "qid": 20, "docid": "dca446e-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6735072135925293}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory breast feeding will reduce the level of child pain. Content: Breast milk not only contains nutrients, it also contains many of the immunities that the mother has accrued in life. This means that upon being breast fed, the child will begin to become immune to many the things that the mother is immune to. This will prevent the child being sick. Given that babies are weak and are susceptible to illness we should try and reduce their pain by making breast feeding compulsory. This will ensure that the child is ill less often. This is the most human thing to do, to stop child pain and suffering.", "qid": 20, "docid": "c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00012-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6727855801582336}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans.", "qid": 20, "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00025-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6722421646118164}, {"content": "Title: Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans Content: This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: \"Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. \" \"In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. \" \"Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. \" \"Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. \" _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.", "qid": 20, "docid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6717932820320129}, {"content": "Title: Chocolate Milk Content: Chocolate Milk is a sugar itself. It is full of fat, and cholesterol. I hope this argument will provoke a spark of awareness, for people who are not aware of this hot topic issue.", "qid": 20, "docid": "b544d4d1-2019-04-18T11:30:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6717132329940796}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. Your examples are of omnivore diets; eskimos eat fish, and game, amazons insects, fish, livestock, and game. Being omnivores is what allows us to eat such a wide range of nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. You are right. You could eat 33 cups of baby spinach, or 5 to 6 cups of cooked spinach to get the same calcium as 8 oz of milk. My point was more that no one really eat this much. You would have to eat all day long. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' Most of them never make a peer viewed study. They are not scientist because they are not trying to change the minds of scientist only the general public. if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. Actually there has been scientist that have claimed this; as a reason behind lactose intolerance. There was not much of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is we are getting used to it, because we have drank goat\u2019s milk and not cow\u2019s milk though out most of human history. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren Can you site a source for even one Indian tribe that is vegan? however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. Did you know talking to a plant makes it grow more? That there is a field of science that are studying plant this kind of stuff, it is called plant neurobiology. Also plants have a perceivable pain response. Many plants will recoil when you hurt them. http://www.discovery.com... My opponent as locked them self into it has to be livestock or plants. There are more options than just these to. The best argument on my side currently is that insects solve all of my opponent\u2019s arguments so far and still have humans not being vegetarians. My opponent as yet to give a rebuttal to this point.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6717040538787842}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Outline I. Summary of Con's arguments and flaws II. Line by line rebuttal III. Links I. Reading Con's arguments Con seems to focus on undernutrition. That meat and dairy has x, y, and z nutrients and these are essential to health. Which is true, undernutrition can cause many dilemmas. \"A form of malnutrition resulting from a reduced supply of food or from inability to digest, assimilate, and use the necessary nutrients.\"[16]. \"This undernutrition starts early in life\"more than a third of African children under the age of five are stunted in their growth and must face a range of physical and cognitive challenges not faced by their better-nourished peers.\" [17]. \"overnutrition [-noM3;oM3;trishR42;\u0259n] a condition of excess nutrient and energy intake over time. Overnutrition may be regarded as a form of malnutrition when it leads to morbid obesity.\" [18]. When eating meat in moderation, the problem is not undernutrition but overnutrition. Overnutrition of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal proteins. [19]. There are plenty of ways to get the nutrients Con mentioned through a plant based diet, without over consumption. II. \"Their first claim was that dairy, meat and eggs are unhealthy. However, meat has a lot of proteins. Proteins are necessary for cells and overall growth of the body.\" Con This statement is true. Meat has a lot of protein and the body needs a lot of protein. Yet, Pro has already proven that a person can get enough protein through a plant based diet. Con's claim is no longer relevant to the discussion. \"According to government statistics, nine out of 10 women and six out of 10 men fall short of calcium recommendations.\" Con Please provide a source for these statistics Con. Pro contends its unfair for a debater not to list his or her source. Adequate calcium can be gained from a plant based diet as seen in round 2. Con's argument on undernutrition and calcium is irrelevant. \"The high-quality protein in cheese provides the body with essential building blocks for strong muscles. For a complete listing of the nutrients in cheese, see the table below.\" Con Another undernutrition argument that is irrelevant. \"If you are lactose intolerant, many cheeses, particularly aged cheeses such as Cheddar and Swiss, contain little or no lactose and are often well tolerated.\" Con Lactose is a sugar without fiber nor phytonutrients. Lactose therefore is unhealthy. Cheese has lots of fat, thus overnutrition. [20]. Only one cup of cheddar has 532 calories, 72% from fat and only 2% from carbs. 28g of Saturated fat. 139mg of cholesterol, that's nearly 50% of your daily cholesterol intake. Not to mention the sodium. \"For the past 30 years or so, saturated fat\"\"found in meats, eggs, cheese, butter, whole milk, lard and some oils\"\"was considered a primary cause of heart disease. New research, however, is showing that saturated fat has a minimal impact on heart disease risk, which is changing the \"saturated fat is bad\" paradigm and allowing people to enjoy more cheese and other favorite foods. Further research is needed showing significant scientific agreement.\" Con Con makes a strong argument. Not strong enough though. Con gives no reference to outside sources. There are many ways to mislead information. For example, trans fat is considered to be more unhealthy than saturated fat. If the two are compared one might receive the illusion that saturated fat is healthy. Also, medium chain triglycerides saturated fat found in coconut oil tend to be much healthier than long chain triglycerides found in animal products. \" A new study suggests dietary substitution of saturated fat in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCT) for polyunsaturated fats can prevent progression of NAFLD-associated liver injury and that MCT containing oils could be a new NAFLD therapy.\" [21]. Even so, saturated fats increase LDL levels, increase blood viscosity, and gut permeability. Higher blood viscosity forces the heart to work harder. \"A diet high in saturated fat is linked to an increase in low-density lipoproteins\"[22]. Saturated fat increases blood viscosity. \"Eating saturated fat has been linked to viscous blood and risk for high blood pressure, according to the World Health Organization\"[23]. Gut permeability \"A single meal of meats, eggs, and dairy can cause a spike of inflammation within hours that can stiffen one\"s arteries. Originally this was thought to be the result of saturated animal fat causing our gut lining to leak bacterial toxins into our blood stream leading to endotoxemia.\" [24]. Con then discusses pesticides. Pesticides that are sprayed on grain that livestock eat and then the pesticides are transferred to humans via consumption of animal products. \"Their third point was that farming is cruel. However, farming is not cruel. It is true that many factory farms can be cruel to animals\" Con Factory farming is cruelty incarnate. All factory farms are cruel. Here's a video to demonstrate. [25]. \"However, the family, mom and pop farms treat animals with kindness and even respect. \" Con The mom and pop farms do not treat animals with kindness and respect. Is slavery kind or respectful? No! Is the killing of an innocent sentient being kind? No! [26]. Watch the slideshow for [26] and tell me that mom and pop farms are kind and respectful. \"Perhaps instead of completely banning animals and all animal products, we could come up with a much more radical solution. An example of which could be to lower how much we rely on factory farms.\" Con Pro refuses to compromise. \"Their fourth assertion was about production agitating world hunger. He said that we should feed humans what we are feeding animals. However, lets assume it like that. We will now replace the animals in this food chain. We will eat all the grain and will the poverty issue be solved? NO!\" Con Although poverty won't be solved, a partial solution is almost always better than no solution. This is a Nirvana Fallacy on Con's part. \"8. The Nirvana Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when you reject a partial solution because it is not perfect. Obamacare doesn\"t cover all Americans, but it does get most insured. It would be a Nirvana Fallacy to say, \"because it doesn\"t cover all Americans, it should be rejected.\" A partial fix is better than no fix; something is almost always better than nothing. \"[27]. \"Now to quickly repeat my arguments. 1. The three food are extremely healthy. 2. They help the economy 3. This plan is not feasible.\" Con 1. Pro has already proven that these foods are unhealthy. 2. Yes, but morals take precedence over money. 3. How so? This isn't about feasibility, this is about morals. It might seem unfeasible to try to save every human life, yet we have to try. Pro deliberately left the implementation broad. Change doesn't have to happen overnight. Non-vegan foods could be banned slowly over the next ten to fifty years. This would give plenty of time for people to adjust. Think of incandescent light bulbs and how they are being phased out. The same could be done for meat, eggs, and dairy worldwide. Con's arguments become redundant about receiving enough calcium and vitamin D. Yogurt and bacteria. This is a good argument. In fact the best argument Pro has seen in this series of debates. Yogurt's health benefits are a lie \"We think it is one of the worst fake diet foods on the planet. There are so many foods out there that are healthier, tastier and far more filling than a tiny cup of lactose. If you are a yogurt addict wanting to drop those last five pounds, here are some things to think about next time you're in the dairy section. \" [28]. If you want bacteria they are plenty in the Earth. Bacteria are just about everywhere. In conclusion, Con has failed to make an effective counter-argument. Pro has further proved the benefits of a plant diet and adverse health effects of consuming animal products. Meat, eggs, and dairy should be banned worldwide. Vote Pro. III. Links 16. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 18. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 19. https://www.youtube.com... 20. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 21. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 22. http://www.livestrong.com... 23. http://www.theatlantic.com... 24. http://nutritionfacts.org... 25. 26. http://www.humanemyth.org... 27. https://docs.google.com... 28. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 20, "docid": "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.671692430973053}, {"content": "Title: we should make chocolate our president Content: well you see as long as we have cows there will always bee chocolate milk so we should keep our dairy cows in good health and the supply of milk flowing. As the milk spoiled we could replace it with more", "qid": 20, "docid": "c3d75414-2019-04-18T13:31:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.671569287776947}, {"content": "Title: Vegan Diets are Healthier Content: We are getting into the meat of this debate. Things are sizzling. A Low-Meat Diet is Best for Health My claims at the end of the last round have gone unrebutted. Studies show that people who consume modest amounts of meat or fish have better health than vegans. The National Institute of Health, American Heart Association, and World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a balanced diet that includes meat. The longest-lived populations consume meat. Pro persists in comparing unplanned diets having meat with a theoretically optimum vegan diet. The planning for the idealized vegan diet is beyond the average person. Also, comprehensive studies show that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat-eaters, and that the best health is achieved by those with low-meat and low-fish diets. Vegetarians who consume dairy are somewhere in between in overall heath. Pro responds that he will get to the planning issue in the next round, but indicated no intention to dispute the rest. The Cancer Study Controversy Pro's Case is Negated if the Study is Accurate. Suppose the WCRF/AID study is 100% correct. Pro's case is still negated, because the Study did not recommend the vegan diet that Pro advocates. They recommended a low-meat diet. The American Institute for Cancer Research summarizes, \"Studies show we can eat up to 18 ounces a week of red meat without raising cancer risk. Research on processed meat [preserved by smoking, curing or salting] shows cancer risk starts to increase with any portion.\" http://www.aicr.org... A vegan diet also extrudes white meat, fish, and dairy not subject to the claimed risks. The dispute is about whether there is proved causal relationship between meat consumption and cancer above the 18 ounce threshold. It's About the Science, not the Authors The review of the WCRF/AID study was done by Exponent. Exponent is an independent organization of 900 professionals. Their website http://www.exponent.com... notes \"Our multidisciplinary organization of scientists, physicians, engineers, and regulatory consultants performs in-depth investigations in more than 90 technical disciplines. We analyze failures and accidents to determine their causes and to understand how to prevent them. We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions.\" Their reputation depends upon their integrity. Pro objects that Exponent was paid by the Cattlemen's Association. Suppose you are accused of a crime, and you believe that you can be proved innocent by showing that someone else's DNA was at the crime scene. What you do is hire an independent forensic expert to investigate and report. That's what the Cattlemen did. It plays out in Court by each side presenting the evidence they uncovered. Arguing that the defendant paid for his defense does not dispose of the evidence, the evidence must be examined directly. If the hired expert finds nothing, the defense fails. In Pro's ref R3.14, a professor summarizes the Exponent findings: The report omitted a comparison of several groups of socially matched meat-eating consumers and vegetarians in which there was no difference in mortality from colorectal cancer between the two groups; The WCRF/AICR report omitted 13 cohort studies involving 1.6 million people -- including a large study conducted by the American Cancer Society -- in which 11 of the studies found no significant association between eating red meat and cancer; The report did not refer to follow-up work by certain of its research sources that drew different conclusions, and The report did not refer to recent work by researchers that involved more subjects and reached different conclusions. The full Exponent report is on the US Department of Agriculture web site. According to R3.14, the results of the exponent study were discussed non-confrontationally with WCRF/AID who agreed to make revisions. Pro objected that the website I cited reporting the Exponent study was inadequately qualified. Pro's R3.14 has the same info, plus more detail. At some point, WCRF complained that they couldn't comment because the report had not been published and was not publish. However, WCRF was soon given a copy of the report and it was published on the USDA website. That makes who made the initial summary irrelevant. WCRF/AID ultimately responded by making corrections to their report, posted at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org... While they admitted errors, they said that the errors did not substantially change their conclusions. Exponent did not back off. Keep in mind that the WCRF/AID study was a metastudy. Neither WCRF/AID or Exponent generated the underlying data, both are analyzing data collected by others. In WCRF's fervent denial of having made significant errors (Pro's ref R3.16) they show bias, saying \"Our 2009 Report on public policy implications of our recommendations also points out that current industrial methods for meat production are very wasteful of scarce energy and natural resources such as water and diverts grain needed for human consumption into animal feed.\" They are assuming that conserving resources is more important than meat production. That's an anti-meat public policy agenda. (In the US, 40% of the corn crop goes to making ethanol, a value system that places fuel over food.) WCRF's bias does not negate their report. As with Exponent, their work stands on it's own. I think there is a good case that processed meat poses cancer risk. The risk for fresh meat above 18 ounces per week is in doubt, but since the most healthful diets are low-meat, it's not important for the present debate. A properly-planned diet with meat limits quantities and avoids processed meats, just as a properly-planned vegan diet avoids tropical oils, fried starches, and other things. Obesity, etc. Pro establishes that obesity is bad for health. We are comparing properly planned diets, and a properly-planned low-meat diet avoids overeating. I pointed this out in R1, and Pro has not responded. The planning for that is easy; the realization is more difficult because meat tastes good. Both the planning and the realization of a vegan diet are much more difficult. Iron Pro persists in comparing an unplanned meat diet with a perfectly-planned and executed vegan diet. The data shows that in practice vegans have no better health than indiscriminate meat eaters. It's important to understand why vegans fair so poorly, despite vegans having an easier time of reducing calories. The answer is that vegans have trouble maintaining the required intake of protein, iron, B12, and other nutrients. That relates to our debate because Pro must prove that the vegan diet can be correctly planned by an average person. B12 Pro claims that the B12-producing bacteria in animals are contaminants. I claim that the B12 bacteria are compatible with the human digestive system, which is loaded with bacteria. Pro has presented no data showing harm from consuming B12-producing bacteria is harmful. I presented data that avoiding supposed contamination too rigorously may lead to allergies and asthma. The resolution is negated.", "qid": 20, "docid": "8781b711-2019-04-18T18:56:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6706506609916687}, {"content": "Title: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Content: Thank you judges for reading this debate. I really appreciate your feedback. So now, let me summarize the main points in this debate. I will then show why the con deserves the win and finally state some killer statistics to if you have any doubt clear the clouds. Now here are all prop points:1. Meat, eggs, and dairy are unhealthy to consume.2. Production of animal products causes excessive environmental damage.3. Production causes animal cruelty4. Production agitates world hungerDear audience, you have seen how I refuted all of these claims. Starting from their first assertion which I refuted by stating how many health benefits all of these foods have. Their second point, that production of vegetables is also harmful and that we are making animal production healthier. And ending with their last point that really, meat does not agitate hunger. Now onto my own assertions. And the PRO HAS FAILED TO REFUTE EVERY SINGLE ON OF MY OWN ASSERTIONS.1. Meat, eggs and dairy are required to maintain a healthy diet. 2. Most of the population consumes these products. 3. This is not feasible. 4. Meat has many health benefits.5. The use of pesticides in farming is also unhealthy.6. The right to body.7. Will take jobs of millions8. Yogurt, a dairy, is healthy.9. Eggs are necessary in the diet. Judge lets quickly weigh this round. On the con, we are trying to ensure jobs for everyone. We are trying to keep a safe, healthy environment. And that is what every single human being needs. On their side, we have the illogical, absurd, out of place assertions. They talked about ending world hunger with this ban. However, in my previous speeches, I have pointed out multiple times the TRUE causes of poverty. Not the lack of food, the lack of money. Now onto some killer statistics which will clear the clouds, if any for the judges. Thank you . http://www.medicaldaily.com.... Benefit 1: Since meat contains a large amount of protein, this could be beneficial to the body as the need for protein is an important one for the body. Since protein is said to improve the overall health and well-being of one\u2019s body, there are other benefits such as the repair and building of body tissues as well as the production of antibodies that will protect the body from infections, thus strengthening the immune system as well. Most importantly, since meat contains all the essential amino acids, it definitely ranks as one of the best sources of protein. Benefit 2: Of the many nutrients that meat contains, it is rich in iron, zinc and selenium. While iron helps in forming hemoglobin that transports oxygen to different parts of your body, zinc helps in tissue formation and metabolism as well as selenium breaks down the fat and chemicals in the body. Benefit 3: Vitamins are also a big part of the one\u2019s diet, and Vitamin A, B and D are commonly found in meat as well. Not only do these vitamins promote good vision, stronger teeth and bones but it also support the central nervous system thus promoting mental health as well. Another big benefit of eating meat is the maintenance of your skin\u2019s health. Next onto supplying some points on the benefits of eggs and dairy. Thank you, . http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org..., Research has long shown that dairy\u2019s nutrients are vital to the development of strong bones and reduce the risk for developing rickets and osteoporosis. In fact, the U. S. Surgeon General\u2019s Report on Bone Health and Osteoporosis (2004) recognizes the role of nutrients in dairy foods that work together to help protect bones. See below for fact sheets, educational materials, and research that illustrate how the nutrients in milk, cheese, and yogurt help build strong bones. Thank you, . http://authoritynutrition.com... Studies show that eggs actually improve the cholesterol profile. They raise HDL (the good) cholesterol and increase the size of LDL particles, which should lower the risk of heart disease. Whole eggs are incredibly nutritious, containing a very large amount of nutrients compared to the calorie load. The nutrients are found in the yolks, while the whites are mostly protein. Whole eggs are incredibly nutritious, containing a very large amount of nutrients compared to the calorie load. The nutrients are found in the yolks, while the whites are mostly protein. Eggs are an excellent source of protein, with all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. Eggs are very high in the antioxidants Lutein and Zeaxanthin, which can drastically reduce the risk of Macular Degeneration and Cataracts. In one study, 30 overweight or obese women consumed either a breakfast of eggs or a breakfast of bagels. Both breakfasts had the same amount of calories. The women in the egg group felt more full and ate less calories for the rest of the day and for the next 36 hours (20). In another study that went on for 8 weeks, eating eggs for breakfast lead to significant weight improvements compared to the same amount of calories from bagels. The egg group (21):\u2022Lost 65% more body weight. \u2022Lost 16% more body fat. \u2022Had a 61% greater reduction in BMI. \u2022Had a 34% greater reduction in waist circumference (a good marker for the dangerous abdominal fat). Now let me just point out.", "qid": 20, "docid": "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6703466176986694}, {"content": "Title: Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar West Village Content: My opponent makes two claims: (my opponent holds the BOP, he is making a claim in his argunment) A. Wine and chocolate is good for you B. Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar is the best/is good Let's rebut this, then show my case. A. Wine and Chocolate is good for you Hundreds of lives could be saved if we cut alcohol consumption. One glass of wine might be too much, if all of the UK switched to only half a glass a day 4,600 deaths would be prevented [1]. And really? Who drinks half a glass? A standard US drink is 5 oz. of wine, which is more then one glass [2]. If this is the case then many lives are being lost to alcohol. Other studies have been looking into wine and its effect on teeth, it has been found white wine is extremely bad for ones teeth. They concluded, \"In the lab, adult teeth soaked in white wine for a day had a loss of both calcium and another mineral called phosphorus to depths of up to 60 micrometers in the enamel surface, which the researchers say is significant.\"[3] Now is even chocolate good? Many people, a surprising amount actually, are allergic to chocolate. And many of the effects of eating chocolate can directly or indirectly lead to death [4]. Even Dark chocolate is bad for you, even if your not allergic, only 1-2 square a day are recommended [5]. --> I guarantee this bar thing causes people to have more then 1/2 a glass of wine or 1-2 small squares of dark chocolate (less is recommended for other types, and I doubt the bar gives you less). B. Its the best!! I would like to note the way my opponent phrased his argument here is against the terms of service. The TOS states, \"Will not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service.\"[6] The way he phrased it then put the link under is saying come to the bar and look at the website. This argument is illegal and should be discarded. => Case <= Look at rebuttals [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.neatorama.com... [4] http://www.healthology.com... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 20, "docid": "5366cfd9-2019-04-18T18:13:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6684689521789551}, {"content": "Title: Should chocolate milk be banned in schools Content: I think that schools should serve chocolate milk. Kids are attached to chocolate milk. Schools lose it they don't get the calcium and protein that they need. Also, milk gives kids strong bones and chocolate milk is milk with like 3 teaspoons of added sugar, not a lot.", "qid": 20, "docid": "c7b83259-2019-04-18T12:23:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6683266162872314}]}
{"query": "Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Yes, I agree with Pro's sources in Round 5 that list all of the ways in which human activity plays a role in affecting global climate. Unfortunately, Pro failed to acknowledge the issue of \"Attribution of Recent Climate Change\" which I brought up in Round 4. Without doing so, it is impossible to conclude that \". .. Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming\" as Pro has done. To further bolster my argument, I will reference the 376 page scholarly book (published in 2015) \"Climate Change, Multidecadal and Beyond\" . https://books.google.ca... which flatly states outright in the introduction \"Many questions concerning the nature and causes of climate variability on the multidecadal time scale are still unresolved. \". This book also references a Technical Summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report which acknowledges \"Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales less than 50 years. \" (Solomon et al. , 2007). While generalist websites for the public (such as the ones referenced by pro) may ignore the issue of attribution, clearly scholars and climate scientists cannot and do not. The book I referenced demonstrates that scientists are working very hard on the attribution issue, and may resolve it in the near future thanks to ever improving technology, statistics and modeling. However, being that the world's top scientists have not resolved the issue of climate change attribution, it is far too premature for \"pro\" declare a victory or a conclusion that humanity is the \"main\" cause of climate change (based on the information contained in generalist websites), especially in the context of a Multidecadal view. I was very much hoping that Pro would address the issue of 'Attribution of Recent Climate Change' which I introduced in Round 4.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8269460201263428}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: I will be arguing that global warming is not significantly impacted by human activity, and my opponent will be arguing that humans are the cause/have a big effect on global warming. Please begin your argument.", "qid": 21, "docid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.817543089389801}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: The word 'main' as used in the debate heading presents the position that humanity's contribution to global warming is greater in magnitude than any other factor. The definition of 'main' could be explained as: chief or principal in rank, importance, size, etc. Therefore, Pro must prove that the human portion is in fact the largest of factors. Of course, the human portion needn't be greater than 50% of the total effect if there are multiple elements/factors at play. I also agree that it is more than possible that human activities could affect, change or initiate natural processes, but again, that would have to be quantified (what portion of a natural system has been altered by human elements versus natural change). Natural and human effect can be intertwined and extremely complicated, if not impossible to differentiate and separate. This is referred to as the \"attribution of recent climate change\". I will reference the following scholarly article: https://gfdl.noaa.gov... \"Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report\". The authors make several important conclusions in this comprehensive study: \"Greenhouse warming alone is insufficient to explain the observed pattern of climate change.\" and \"The most probable cause of the observed warming is a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources (see also Tett et al. 1999). But given the large model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot currently be given. In short, we cannot attribute, at this time, with a high level of statistical significance, the observed changes in global and large-scale regional climate to anthropogenic forcing alone.\". This research contradicts Pro's assertion that human causes are definitively more important than natural ones. In addition, to say that our current warming trend was caused solely by the industrial age based on the chart I presented (in round 3) would be to dismiss the fact that the sharp rebound from the Little Ice Age and commencement of our current warming trend (1600-) was initiated and occurred well before human activity was a relevant factor. I agree with much of the content contained within the two sites referenced by pro, but none of them contains information that establishes that human activity plays a greater role than natural variability. The CO2 now website asserts that \"The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.\" and lists several of the unique contributions and circumstances associated with human activity and greenhouse gasses. It also states that \"the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.\" These are grand statements, but there is no attempt to quantify them unlike the formal research document I presented above (which contradicts these sites). There is also no mention on Pro's sites of the fact that our current warming period was initiated well before the industrial age and human influence by natural forces. Even the IPCC continues to protect its reputation by using vague terms such as \"...likely\" regarding the position of humanity's \"...dominant role in global warming\". I acknowledge that we currently are experiencing global warming. For those who lived in 1100 BC and 1300 AD, they also experienced global warming on a larger scale than we do today, even though human activity had little correlation to that warming. Thus, to say that Global Warming is unique to the industrial age is false. It is also very likely that scientists will one day be able to prove/quantify what portion of Human Activity is attributable to global warming. Presently, it is not possible as my opponent acknowledges. This is why no scientist(s) or scientific body has declared a victory on this issue (A quantified attribution of recent climate change). In fact, a very large amount of money and large amount of research continues to be spent on this very issue because it has yet to be proved or resolved. I also agree that the current warming period presented on the on the chart I referenced is abrupt and is likely a reflection of the influence of human activity. Being that this warming period has yet to exceed several recent warming periods in effect and duration, we need more time in order to be able to place our current warming period into the context of other prior larger warming periods. It is simply premature to state definitively that human activity is the main factor in global warming. My statement is reflected in the current feverish rate of research being performed into the Attribution of Recent Climate Change. If a definitive conclusion had been reached, this research would not be needed to such a degree. Keep in mind, that I am not advocating that humanity should not take responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8074724078178406}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I will restate, than in order to establish that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, it is necessary to quantify the amount and effect (not qualify). No scientist or scientific body to date, to my knowledge, has been able to do so. Specifically, anyone making the assertion that humans are the primary cause of global warming must scientifically establish/prove what percentage is human as compare to natural variability and natural causes. It is not good enough to use terms such as \"significant\" and \"substantially\" as they are extremely vague inconclusive terms. An even worse approach is to take the line of reasoning presented on the timeforchange.org site referenced by my opponent, which virtually ignores the question/possibility of natural factors. I will reference the following chart by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann to illustrate my position: http://www.longrangeweather.com... Note that on this chart there have been two periods with higher and more prolonged global warming periods in 1100 BC and 1300 AD (up to two-fold greater). My opponent also dismissed the importance of the naturally occurring little ice-age, yet its effect was over three-fold greater than our so called current \"human\" caused warming period. Being that natural causes are scientifically established to have created global temperature swings 3 times larger, and hundreds of years longer in duration than our current warming period (as recent as 1600 - 1800 AD), it is complete pseudo-science to claim that natural cycles play an insignificant role in global temperature change. In fact, being that we are presently in a period where we would naturally expect to see a warming period in the natural global temperature cycle, one would expect that human activity would have created the largest warming event in the last 5000 years. The chart/link I presented establishes that this kind of warming simply hasn't happened. The evidence I presented could even be used as an argument that Mankind's impact on global warming is negligible as compared to natural variability. Lastly, I acknowledge that my sources attribute a portion of climate change to human activity, but again, \"significant\" and \"substantially\" is not a quantification as I asserted earlier. I would ask that my opponent reference scholarly material that definitively establishes that human activity outweighs all other possible natural elements and variables in global climate change.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.799676775932312}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7966535091400146}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans Content: I'll start this off with a background of the issue. *** Background: Some disagree on the degree to which global warming might also be caused simply by natural changes in the earth's climate. Some claim that humans are the chief cause of the warming that has occurred over roughly the past century, while others claim that our role has been relatively insignificant as compared to natural forces. Therefore, the debate roughly defined here centers on the question of whether human are the \"chief\" or \"most significant\" cause of the recent global warming trend seen over the past century and today. This debate is important in the way of determining policy responses. If, for instance, the human cause of global warming was concluded to be relatively minor, then some would argue that policies attempting to address these human causes (carbon emissions regulations. .. ) are misplaced. Conversely, a conclusion that humans are the chief cause of global warming would provide valid support for efforts that attempt to stem these human-causes. Of course, conclusions that humans are, for instance, 30% of the cause would create a more challenging set of questions in the way of how to prioritize a human response. Still, the undeniable fact that the earth is getting warmer leads to a range of separate debates that need not consider the underlying cause. *** (Start off borrowed and edited from Yvette) Start off, Thank you for accepting this debate. If you accept this debate, you agree to the rules and formats of the debate. Breaking the rules and formats of the debate is considered forfeiture. I will claim the burden of proof. However, we must both prove or show evidence of our claims. Rules: 1. No insults or ad hominem. 2. The scientific position that no thing can be proved 100% and can only be shown to be closer to the truth and/or more likely to be true is the basis of our discussion. 3. The purpose of our debate is to determine whether or not is is reasonable to say that the phenomenon known as Global Warming is not caused mostly by humanity. There may be evidence both ways showing reasons why it is likely or unlikely. It must, on the whole, be more likely than unlikely. 4. The CON must argue that Global warming, the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation, is caused by human action. 5. No arguments will be presented in Round 1. As the burden of proof is on me, I must make the first argument. My opponent must simply agree to the rules in Round 1.", "qid": 21, "docid": "9416a94c-2019-04-18T19:03:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7915859222412109}, {"content": "Title: Official May Tournament Final: Global Warming Content: HOUSEKEEPING1. In my Round 2 argument, I mistakenly wrote, \"I have now established that [human activity] is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%.\" I meant to write 65%, which is the actual number. That is an approximate estimate, and my estimate is closer to 62.5% of the warming (which means human activity has caused 85% of global warming since 1975, indicating a climate sensitivity of around 2 degrees C).2. Con writes, \"My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.\" Note that I couldn't have dropped anything, since this *is* Con's C1, R2. CON's CASEOverviews1. Con's first contention is a defense. It doesn't give any offense, i.e. does not provide a reason for judges to vote for his side. Con argues that CO2 does not have an effect, which merely preempts an argument that asserts that CO2 does have an effect. I ask judges to take this into consideration. I will refute that argument anyway. 2. The second contention Con presents is a \"kritik\" of the topic. A \"kritik\" is defined as an argument that challenges an assumption in the resolution. The second contention says global warming doesn't even exist, therefore is not man-made. Therefore, its topicality is indirect, making it a \"kritik.\" Rule 6 prohibits \"kritiks.\" Please note this violation. C1. Carbon Dioxide and TemperaturesCarbon dioxide does not exactly correlate with temperature. However, the radiative forcing of CO2 and the sun allows for a direct correlation. The sun drives much of modern climate change. The most recent spurt of global warming was caused by the sun, thus carbon dioxide drives climate change and is a major forcing. [1] The below graph illustrates a correlation between the forcings of the sun and CO2, and the rise in temperature. [2] The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years. A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6] Robert Berner and Zavareth Kothavala argue, \" The exact values of CO2...should not be taken literally...[O]ver the long term, there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature.\" [7] The following graph shows the uncertainty of values of CO2. [8] Furthermore, I can turn the entire argument against Con. This is primarily because many of the greenhouse gases mentioned - with high global warming potentials - act as positive feedbacks. Water vapor, the greenhouse gas that has the highest effect on climate, as conceded by Con, also acts as the largest positive feedback. Brian J. Soden and Isaac M. Held write, \"Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response.\" [9] This means the effects of water vapor help my case. A positive feedback loop would also allow CO2 level increase to cause an increase in the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. \"When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect...Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1 degree C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3 degrees Celsius.\" [10] This is affirmed by the research of Soden and Held, who find that water vapor is the primary atmospheric feedback on Earth. [11]C2. The Temperature of the EarthAll my opponents studies are faulty and unreliable. These are the reasons. Firstly, my opponent's first graph shows the temperature of the Earth in relation to the temperature of the Earth millions of years ago. This can be discredited, because \"global warming\" only began in the 19th century, after the Earth was relatively normal. The definition of global warming given in the debate concerns the 19th century. Discredit the first graph. Secondly, the idea of the \"global warming hiatus,\" which my opponent brings up, is flawed. My opponent's data is largely based on TSS data. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [12, 13] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or \"La Nena\" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [14] Thirdly, the heat content of Earth is actually increasing. \"This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year.\" [15] The below graph represents this. [16] Also, \"Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Ni\u00f1o Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2), and found that the underlying global surface and lower atmospherewarming trends have remained very steady in recent years.\" [15] The below graph portrays the data. [17] Con then reiterates the argument from water vapor, which is addressed above. He then straw-mans my position, since I did not present the hockey stick graph. SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://www.jamstec.go.jp...4 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...9 - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...10 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...13 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...16 - http://www.ess.uci.edu...17 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!", "qid": 21, "docid": "e62a5fda-2019-04-18T14:23:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.789337694644928}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether \"human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change\", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what \"human activity\" is and what level of change constitutes \"Climate Change\". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.", "qid": 21, "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7890040874481201}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "qid": 21, "docid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7870956659317017}, {"content": "Title: Impromptu Debate Content: I'll be CON the resolution \"Global Warming is a sham...\" First, I'd like to note that global warming refers to an increase in the earth's temperature. Evidence indicates that the earth's temperature has actually increased by 1.4 degrees around the world since 1880, so technically the resolution has already been affirmed. However most friction pertaining to this subject questions whether or not human activity is to blame for global warming. I'd like to note that I don't have to prove that global warming is man-made, only that it is happening (based on the resolution). Regardless, I definitely think there's evidence that human activity has contributed to this problem. Most scientists throughout the world acknowledge the problem of global warming, and more importantly, note humans as avid contributors. \"This conclusion is shared by the national science academies of developed and developing countries plus many other organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with 'a clear scientific view' on climate change. The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done, as a result of human activities that produce heat-trapping CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions\" [1]. A basic understanding of elementary science helps reveal why human activity and global warming is evident. For instance, pollution, deforestation, and industrialization have increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface; it's no wonder the earth's temperature will therefore inevitably increase. Another problem is that humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it, which will obviously affect the way the earth heats and cools itself [2]. Excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet [3]. One thing to keep in mind that weather cannot be confused with climate; in other words just because some places experience frigidly cold weather doesn't mean that the overall CLIMATE of the earth is not changing [4]. Various forms of evidence prove that climate change (global warming) is occurring and has been steadily increasing gradually over time. Atmospheric temperature measurements taken from orbiting satellites show warming; records of coral proxy and trees indicate global warming; the drastic rise in sea level indicates global warming; the glaciers melting at an alarming rate signifies global warming; records from scientific organizations such as NOAA, HADCRU, JMA and even NASA show that the earth's temperature on average has been increasing since the 1800s [5]. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore all of the blatant evidence and scientific proof, as well as committed statements by the most revered scientists themselves, all taking a firm stance on the issue that global warming DOES exist (and humans contribute to the problem). [1] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.pewclimate.org... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.environmentaldefense.net...", "qid": 21, "docid": "de2ef8ea-2019-04-18T18:59:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7825503349304199}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7824941277503967}, {"content": "Title: Humans are responsible for global warming Content: It's been said that humans are responsible for \"Global Warming\" due to our carbon emissions and high atmospheric pollution rate. While I agree that we are polluting the atmosphere at an extremely high rate, I disagree that, our carbon emissions are to blame. According to Science Magazine, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Also, A 2005 study published in Nature found that \"high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100\" in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, any human produced CO2 is re absorbed by the oceans, trees and plants, preventing the CO2 from gathering in the atmosphere. I look forward to debating you, and good luck!!", "qid": 21, "docid": "74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7820217609405518}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Skepticism Content: I hope my opponent will be able to post during the final round. Since he has challenged none of my contentions above, I will go on and post my closing arguments. === Conclusion === That opponent has produced no evidence to show that the climate change that has occured during the past 200 years is due to any human activity. For all he knows, it could be caused by an increase in volcanic activity, a change in the output of the Sun, or a change in the earth's orbit. Likewise, he has not illustrated why it is nessecary for human beings to act to combat global warming. If global warming is not caused by humans and we act regardless, the human race will waste huge amounts of resources on an unstopable problem. Recent events such as \"climategate\" has shed doubt on global warming research and data from the past decade. When all of this is cobined the resolution stands: the human race should remain skeptical of global warming. I thank my opponent and everybody who took the time to read this. I would like to highlite that my opponent had terrible conduct, he forfeited a round and resorted to relentess attacks. He also has produced no arguments of his own, reaffirming the resolution.", "qid": 21, "docid": "3793e2aa-2019-04-18T19:11:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7816613912582397}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement \" human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change\" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.", "qid": 21, "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7815146446228027}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I will be debating against (Con) the idea that 'Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming', I do not doubt that we are a huge factor in this, however I am arguing that we are not the leading cause of Global Warming, or known better recently as, Climate Change.I would like to start talking about what Climate Change is.- a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.This is the typical definition of Climate Change for the public, the use of fossil fuels and other carbon based structures that inevitably end up in the atmosphere, making a greenhouse effect and holding in more heat. My argument is, ~ Humans and natural cycles is why we have Climate Change ~Each year through our generation of electricity through coal [4], our consumption of petrol and oil and exhaust of our transportation [3], our destruction of natural filters such as plant life, phytoplankton [1] and bodies of water [2] have made our world a slightly different place that will radically change in the near future.The science behind the principle of Climate Change is what we want to know. How does Climate Change work?If we look at the moon, the temperatures vary from -170C to 100C [5], however, on Earth we have a stronger gravity, this pulls our gaseous atmosphere closer to our planet through its mass. Gravity is a force and puts pressure on everything it can affect, as a result, everything becomes heavier; this means that the centrifugal force also applies more pressure due to the rotation of the axis [6]. Since our atmosphere is a lot closer and denser then the moons atmosphere, heat is locked in.The question now is, how the atmosphere correlates to increased heat. In order for our atmosphere to absorb radiation, it must have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around. Although most of the gasses in our atmosphere don't have a negative charge, instead, they have an equal distribution between both negative and positive charges. However, there is one good part about the placement of polarity, Water (H20), Ozone (O3) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) which all have their negatively charged particles on one side allowing infrared radiation to absorb and reflect easily.[7]Carbon Dioxide (C02) and Methane (CH4) move and shake continuously allowing the same result as the previous three elements. [8]As a result, having these gasses enables more heat to be held together leading to hotter days. I will not be going into Ozone Depletion however I will be going into how the real reason we have climate change is due to our oceans.Opening statement.The human use of elements that promote the greenhouse effect on the world has created a slight discourse in the typical cycles that would otherwise naturally occur. The waters are getting hotter, rising, and expelling carbon dioxide instead of holding it in, this has occurred in the past naturally without human intervention, the natural filters are being removed and as a result, more carbon dioxide is entering our atmosphere enabling Climate Change. This is the man made climate change that will affect the patterns of temperature cycles that have been happening for the last 4.5 billion years. Mankind is affecting the part of repair or restoration within natural filters. If we look at graphs that are 542 million years ago, we can see a general pattern, we are about to go into a cold spell soon too. The next ice age is on its way. Currently I have no option to upload the graph so I will post it in the reference. I do apologise for my incredibly short argument, it\u2019s really late, and I did not have much time to work on this. I will finish my argument, address your rebuttals and complete round 2 and 3 off successfully in the next round. Thank you.Kryptic.References:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [2]http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3]http://www.powerscorecard.org... [4]http://www.space.com... [5]http://quest.nasa.gov... [6]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [7]http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu... [8]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [9] http://theresilientearth.com... [Graphs that were unable to upload] Again, I apologise for any inconvenience. If you would like to render this arguement obsolete and start over, I would be more than happy to at a later date; this is a fun topic of discussion for me.", "qid": 21, "docid": "70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7803766131401062}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I do not dispute the existence and reality of Global Warming. I do assert, however, that it is impossible to quantify on a global scale, what part of global warming is attributable to Human activities as compared to natural change. Therefore, to state that humanity is the main cause of global warming is, at time present, impossible to prove. Geographers and Geologists consider the state of the Earth at time present to be in an ice age, albeit a late stage. This means that there have been periods in the history of the earth with less ice coverage, higher sea levels, and warmer mean global temperatures. As an example, a major component of the Glacial retreat we are witnessing today is attributable to natural rebound from the little ice age (approximately 1300 to 1850). Certainly human activity has amplified this rebound, but to what degree is indefinable. There are also many other potential amplifying factors, a few of which are listed on the Environmental Protection Agencies Website: . http://www3.epa.gov... Note, that even this reputable website is unable to quantify human contribution vs natural causes. I will also cite an article on the little ice-age for the benefit of my opponent: . http://www.britannica.com... I would also refer my opponent to the regional research of Glaciologist Dr. Johannes Koch regarding glacial retreat in Garibaldi Park (and other regional locations) which document the geological evidence of glacial retreat since the Little Ice Age glacial extant. The immense role of the Little Ice Age on climate is well established in this research. . http://kochj.brandonu.ca... or . http://kochj.brandonu.ca...", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7802103757858276}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to \"atmospheric circulation changes\" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's \"carbon sinks.\"Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7795677185058594}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: First of all I would like to apologise for themy forfeiture, as my internet connection was not available for a few days. I hope that voters disregard the forfeit. My opening statements. 1) Humanity IS the main cause of global warming.The IPCC Report of 2015 states: Its extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 wascaused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period . Anthro-pogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica.. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0\"\"700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s.\"One of the major contributions to global warming is caused by automobiles, a man made i.e. anthropogenic industry.Other include garbage disposal, factories, burning of leaves , bonfires etc. All of these are anthropogenic causes. 2) One could argue that global warming would take place with or without humanity , but that is not and would not have been the case. Global warming is not JUST the warming of the Earth , it is the EXCESSIVE warming of the Earth's atmosphere. 3) The following site also concludes that mankind is the main contributing factor of global warming. http://timeforchange.org... My Rebuttals 1) Con's source itself says that human activities have contributed substantially to climate change I.e. global warming. 2) I didn't know that global warming consisted of parts. Global warming, simply put is the heating up of the earth, which is mainly caused by greenhouse gases which are emitted by both anthropogenic and natural sources. But the amount is substantially more by man made sources. 3) Another reason given by Con's site is the sun's reflectivity , which can also be altered by human activities. 4) This debate is not whether this is the Little Ice Age or any other age. Its about mankind's impact on global warming. 5) Even if the role of Ice Age is as important as it is alleged, it cannot overtake the impact of civilization and development.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7764017581939697}, {"content": "Title: Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Content: I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really. Greenhouse gases trap heat and human beings are pumping out excessive amounts of ghg's into the Earth's atmosphere. I am not certain that human caused global warming is as big of a threat as the scientific community and popular media purport. Specifically, I am not convinced that the following claims are true: 1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years). 2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years). 3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe. I believe that BOP is on con to prove that the above statements are true. alternatively, Con can also argue that no one actually makes such statements about human caused global warming, and/or that there are other more serious effects that merit even greater media attention. My position is that human caused global warming is 'overhyped' because statements like 1,2, and 3 are regularly made but all of these predictions are difficult to back up with science because our current understanding and knowledge of climate patterns is very limited. Admittedly, there is a lot I need to learn about global warming and my primary aim here is to find out what I am missing.", "qid": 21, "docid": "7011cf2f-2019-04-18T16:47:48Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.775286853313446}, {"content": "Title: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Content: Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.", "qid": 21, "docid": "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7740495800971985}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: In this debate, I ask you to reject any past assumptions regarding global warming because this resolution may be affirmative favored in that the majority of society assumes that humans are already the cause of global warming. --------------------- I will first analyze the resolution, then reaffirm the negation side of this debate, and then refute the opponents' arguments. Now let's look at the resolution word for word \"The human effect on global warming is significant.\" I agree with the opponent on the definition of the human effect. The key word in this debate falls on the word significant. Princeton word net defines it as \"important in effect or meaning\". |-Burden-| The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate. |-Contention 1-| {The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor.} Now you may be confused at this point, thinking how exactly does water vapor contribute more to global warming? Well first off I need to relate to scientific analysis. The earth's rotation moves on an oscillating orbit meaning it does not move in the same elliptical shape each and every year. Therefore each year, the elliptical orbital path of the earth shifts little by little. Scientists argue that every thousands of years, the earth goes on an orbital path where the sun shines the most on the Earth. Yet the increased intensity of heat is still not the main cause of global warming. What happens is that the sun increases its intensity of light, thus increasing the evaporation rate of water particles. The increased evaporation rate causes the global warming by trapping heat on the Earth. S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming. He found that water vapors (H20) were 95% of the problem. Furthermore, CO2 was 3.502% of the cause for global warming. The same study is backed by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). My opponent has conceded that human emissions relate to increases in the CO2 level, and by showing you that CO2 gas is only 3.502 % of the cause of global warming, the human effect on global warming is insignificant. |-Contention 2-| {I will add later in the debate} Now let's look at the opponent's contentions His first contention argues that CO2 levels have been increasing and that human emissions have been increasing; therefore humans must be the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)I will cross apply my first contention, showing that CO2 gas is only 3.502% of the cause of global warming, to prove that even if humans are 100% of the cause of CO2, their effect on global warming is still less than 50% (refer to burden) therefore their first contention falls. 2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other. His second contention (part I) argues that because many scientists and scientific agencies agree that humans are the main cause of global warming then it must be true (by following the majority rules ideals of a democracy) I have 3 responses to this 1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair. By weighing the issue on a mindset that many people may not believe in is unfair to those who view the opposite. I could hypothetically say that I can look at the issue on a stance that I believe in an all powerful god, instead of a democracy, and say that God made global warming happen and not humans. Therefore in this debate, we cannot look to who agrees with what or how many people believe in it and instead look to warrants, facts and validation. 2)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is actually real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. 3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea \"have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so.\" (quote from a scientific article) Because scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum, the amount of people who actually state that humans are the cause of global warming, thus appeasing the majority of society, is bound to be more than the scientists who are discouraged to look at the other side of the debate (where humans are not the main cause). His second contention (part II) argues that Science magazine found that the majority of scientific articles say that humans are the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. (repost) 2)Many of these articles and papers, found by the Science magazine, assert that humans are the main cause of the sudden increase in CO2 levels, and therefore causing global warming. I could similarly link turn this because global warming is only 3% caused by CO2. Therefore I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic. Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence. What the opponent has brought you is assumption, in regards to his first contention, and bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true. No where does he give how much of an effect humans have on global warming, nor show why humans are the main cause. What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts showing that global warming is not mainly caused by humans (thus appeasing the burden) and warrants for all my points. Therefore because I have followed the burden, and refuted all the opponents' points, you should vote for the negation in this debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7725058794021606}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: Resolved: That Global Warming is not significantly affected by humans I thank the opponent for the debate challenge. As the opponent has not defined any terms, the definition of the terms shall go as follows: Global Warming: Noun The unequivocal rise of the global average temperature; also attributed to the unpredictable climate in the world. [1] Significantly: Adverb In a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention. [2] Humans: Noun Mankind, homo-sapiens, Affected: Adjective Influenced or touched by an external factor. [2] Since this debate resolution is a normative resolution, the Burden of Proof is shared. For the opponent to win, he has to prove that humans have almost no responsibility in causing global warming. With this said, the introduction and the proof that global warming exists shall be shared first, as this debate cannot go on with the assumption that it exists, as assumptions are inherently detrimental. Axiom One: Global Warming Necessarily Exists Global warming is no longer a possibility, but it is indeed a necessity. There has been an increase of 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years, with 0.7 degrees Celsius of this increase happening in the last 30 years [3]. From 1880, the temperature of the world was recorded via NASA meteorological stations; this data proved vital in identifying a change in temperature. From 1980 upwards, one can see a very high increase in the mean temperature of the world; the running average of global temperature from 1980 has increased by almost 100%. This graph, compiled by NASA GISS from data provided by many sources, confirms that Global Warming necessarily exists, as can be seen via the sharp increase of the running average from 1980. Global Warming exists; there is no doubt. Then what causes Global Warming? It is us, humans, that cause Global Warming. Proposition One: Carbon Dioxide Release from Multiple Sources Global warming has been allegedly caused by an excess of Co2 release from the ocean and multiple other sources. Accordingly in 2000, 29.5% of Co2 emissions came from power stations, 20.6% from Industrial Inputs/Outputs, 11.3% from residences and 9.1% from land use/biomass. [4] In 2008, 8.37 billion tons of Co2 was released from multiple of human based sources. However, one might object; \u201cwhat\u2019s wrong with the increase in release of Co2?\u201d Quite simply this; the sun emits ultraviolet radiation and light into the earth as energy. The earth absorbs and the re-emits some of this energy as infrared radiation back. However, greenhouse gases on the atmosphere absorb this temperature and releases it in arbitrary directions; henceforth, the earth is 33 degrees warmer than what it should have been, causing life to exist on this planet. However, this 33 degrees Celsius is the equilibrium; for it to go lower would be positive feedback, as the equilibrium could easily be restored in a short period of time, but for it to go higher would make this positive feedback and would threaten to turn our planet into a \u201cVenus\u201d like planet (not suitable for life). This positive feedback is more dangerous than the negative feedback, for it requires intense study of the origins of the causes. [5][6] The causes of this release are the anthropocentric human lifestyle. To support our life, we humans have taken means to extract resources from mother nation in a Machiavellian manner. Humans are egoistic, hence the development of Capitalism and the government. From the following graph, we can see a correlation; from 1980, Co2 release sprouted and so did gas production. If oil production is increasing, then clearly oil is also in demand; the burning of 4 liters of oil creates a shocking 8 kg of Co2. [7] 73 million kg of Co2 is henceforth released by the increase consumption of oil/diesel fuels; with these increases of Co2 emissions from fuel burning and usage alone, we can see that there is no reason to believe that humans are not causing this increase in Co2 emissions. This graph also shows how the Industrial Revolution, in around 1840, has caused the dramatic rise of Co2 concentration. The Industrial Revolution was the basis of all industries; it revolutionized many industries and increased outputs via machinery. However, the Industrial Revolution had its basis on coal and electricity. Apart from natural gases, coal is also a huge factor in Co2 release. The usage of anthracite coal releases 920g of Co2 per kW/h, whilst the usage of lignite coal releases 990g of Co2 per kW/h. Coal is burnt for one reason only; to supply us with the electricity that runs this computer, this website, and this world. In South Africa, for example, 74% of all Co2 emissions is caused by coal burning; it would be doubtful that if humans were present, this figure would not be present. [8] As stated via the first graph of this proposition\u2019s defense, the correlation between oil production and Co2 released is further supported by the fact that burning fuels for human usage causes the increase in the release of Co2. Proposition Two: Deforestation This second proposition is based upon two fundamental premises. 1. Trees absorb Co2 and release oxygen 2. Forest Fires increases Co2 release The first of these two premises is based upon the fact that trees absorb Co2 and release oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis; trees, for so long, have sustained our life through this process. A single tree can absorb 21kg of Carbon Dioxide! That is enough to absorb the burning of 12 liters of oil! \u201cOnly if there were more trees\u201d one would say. [9] The existence of trees means that excess Co2 could be processed and could possibly be eradicated in large amounts. However, deforestation has created a very sad and woeful dilemma for us; we are releasing more Co2 than eve, and yet we are cutting down the mechanisms that fate gave us to counter this Co2 release. It is estimated that 20% of all Co2 in the atmosphere right now would have been absorbed and would be non-existent if it weren\u2019t for massive deforestation. [10] The second of these premises are based upon the mere process of global warming; the warmer the temperature, the more likelihood of fires turning from small fires to huge fires. Forest fires are one of the most feared disasters in the world. Forest fires, apart from killing a plethora of citizens, can release as much Co2 as cars do. A study was released that demonstrates that in these United States of America, 290 million tones of Co2 was released due to forest fires, which is 4-6% of the entirety of Co2 released during that year. [11] Humans, due to their anthropocentric interests, have caused forest fires to appear more often due to the reckless burning of grass, wood, and other resources can cause forest fires. There is also a considerable amount of cases where forest fires started with someone carelessly dropping a cigarette on the forest grounds. This evidence shows that humans are highly responsible for the creation of global warming; we are deferring how we absorb Co2 as well as releasing more of it. This is significant in such a manner that this issue cannot be ignored. Our planet will become Venus in the following years if this issued is not cared too. The resolution is therefore negated. Citations: [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.livescience.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] Wikipedia [2] Oxford Dictionary [6] http://climate.nasa.gov... [8] http://www.iea.org... [9] http://www.arborenvironmentalalliance.com... [7] http://www.eia.gov... [5] http://www.skepticalscience.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7714470624923706}, {"content": "Title: The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening Content: The biggest collection of specialist scientists in the world say that the worlds climate is changing as a result of human activity. The scientific community almost unanimously agrees that man-caused global warming is a severe threat, and the evidence is stacking.", "qid": 21, "docid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7710896730422974}, {"content": "Title: Global warming is occurring and it is the fault of humans. Content: A major claim among environmentalist groups lately is that man made global warming is destroying the Earth. My opponent must show how the Earth is in fact getting warmer and how humans are the direct cause of this warming trend. I will be arguing that climate change is a natural process with very little influence from humans. First round is for setting up arguments and agreeing to terms of the debate. All other rounds are for actual debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "89a0c1f4-2019-04-18T18:45:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7710258960723877}, {"content": "Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption \" that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming. First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. \"The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that \"the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. \" There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse. [1] This graph shows just one of the lags: [1] Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. \". .. satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. \"[2] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature) Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: \"If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. . .. report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s. \"[2] To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing: [3] Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. \"The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. \"[1][4] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: [4] Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fifth and most importantly, the predicted \"hot-spot\" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. \"The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong. \"[1] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: [1] The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years: [1] Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era. Considering My Opponent's Arguments I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against. Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming \" that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming \" not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered. So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming. I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments. Sources [1]: . http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [3]: . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... [4]: . http://joannenova.com.au...", "qid": 21, "docid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.769740104675293}, {"content": "Title: Global warming is a hoax Content: Despite the fact that my opponent is the instigator and Pro for the resolution, he has requested that I start the debate. I have no problem with this as long as he acknowledges his burden of proof and presents some arguments of his own, rather than merely rebutting mine. _________ Definitions. My opponent has not provided us with any definitions and I feel that it is imperative that we at least define the key terms in the resolution if we are to have a meaningful debate. 1. Global warming. The issue of global warming can be interpreted many ways as discussed on the DDO fans Wiki page. . http://ddofans.com... Wikipedia describes global warming as \"the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. \" When most people speak of global warming however they are generally referring to the well accepted theory \"that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... I can't be sure if my opponent wishes to limit the discussion strictly to global warming or include wider examples of climate change. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Similarly I can't be sure if he's referring to the existence of global warming/climate change or the assertion that its effects are exacerbated or caused by human actions. I will assume that my opponent wishes to discuss human contribution to climate change but whichever of these ideas of global warming he refers to, I believe the word 'hoax' is an inaccurate description. 2. Hoax. There is much less room for misinterpretation with this term. Although some hoaxes may be playful and others more malicious, implicit within every reliable definition of the word is the notion of intentional deceit. . http://www.google.co.uk... ________ I do believe that the planet is getting warmer and that the climate is changing. I also believe it is quite probable that the primary cause of this is human and that human actions are affecting it. However these beliefs are quite irrelevant to the debate at hand. My opponent is claiming that the scientists who believe this (and they are very much in the majority) are not merely mistaken, not merely incorrect and not even merely deluded but that they are wilfully misleading the public and the government with this information. I see no basis, suggestion or motive for the level of conspiracy that this would entail. According to the 2007 UN report \"Evidence is now \u2018unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming\" . http://www.un.org... Even the US government has accepted the truth back in 2002 . http://news.bbc.co.uk... and it is also acknowledged by NASA. . http://www.nasa.gov... The denial of climate change and its human causes is essentially the propaganda of big businesses who don't want to risk compromising their profits for the sake of something as insignificant as sustaining the planet for future generations. It is no secret that major political parties are funded by these companies, yet according to my opponent, it is the mainstream scientists rather than the skeptics with a political agenda that represent the conspiracy. The scientific consensus on global warming is clear. \"the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities\" . http://www.sciencemag.org... \"a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. \" . http://logicalscience.com... I have no idea what my opponent means by \"believ[ing] in carbon footprints\" but it doesn't seem to affect the resolution. A carbon footprint is simply a term for the amount of carbon pollution caused by an individual, a company or a nation. It is an abstract concept rather than a tangible object but I don't see how one could \"disbelieve\" it without also disbelieving in the existence of carbon itself. I will now hand over to Pro for his arguments on how and why \"global warming is a hoax\". Thanks. Con.", "qid": 21, "docid": "ebbad649-2019-04-18T19:15:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7695821523666382}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.I don't intend on reposting any of my opponents graphs, or data. However it is important that I enumerate his graphs.Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 for 650,000 yearsFigure 2: Global Land-Ocean Temperature IndexFigure 3: Greenhouse ExplanationFigure 4: Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice August 1979 to 2013Figure 5: Sea Level ChangePart 1: DoubtIt's telling that my opponent makes the claim that it is irrefutable, and then uses Figure 2. Even NASA, and NOAA would refute that graph since in June of this year they published serious corrections in an attempt to remove the hiatus from the argument.Figure 6: Corrected Figure 2 Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014[2]. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction.Part 2: Methodology BiasUnderstanding instrument, and methodology bias is needed to understand what was done in Figure 6, and understand if we should accept the graph at all.The data that is being corrected is the Ocean temperature measurements done by volunteer ships in the early half of the data. By itself this isn't a problem. The ship data has a higher inaccuracy, but all the ship data would have similar errors, and when compared to the same methodology there wouldn't be an issue. When you mix in other methodologies this error can become a big problem. What caused these differences isn't hard to understand. Think of a time where we collected temperature data without the aid of a machine. If someone has to go out, and check the temperature, and record it there is always the possibility they missed the true high, and missed the true low. When we get to machine aided recording missing that true high, and true low is drastically reduced. Furthermore the error is unidirectional. Missing the true high will only result in a lower value. Just as missing the true low only results in a higher value.We can actually see this type of bias in weather station dataset call the GHCN Data: [3]If we didn't accept the methodology bias Figure 7 would present an interesting problem since the average high increase about 4 degrees C, and the average Low decreases by about 6 degrees C. If that was global warming the decrease in the low would seriously outweigh the increase in the high.Figure 7: All GHCN High and Low Temperature Yearly Averages Part 3: Addressing BiasTo address bias the bias must remain as constant as possible. Part of the reason for only debating the last 115 years is that the bias for weather station methodology hasn't radically changed unlike in the seventeen, and eighteen hundreds where changes in methodology were much more common. By just comparing a station to itself, and only looking at the stations delta from hits own average we can show that the abrupt change around 1900 was actually an illusion caused by a large number of stations following a similar methodology, and not an actual change in temperature.We can see in Figure 8 that the change is more gradual like the low temperature in Figure 7. The disagreement between the two graphs implies that the change is due to method changes, and not due to real changes.Figure 8: All GHCN Station High Temperature Average Delta Figure 9: All GHCN Station Low Temperature Average Delta It would be an error to accept either Figure 7 or 8 as the truth. Both still suffer from a change in methodology bias, but they reflect that change differently. They both also high the noise in the data by utilizing a yearly, and 5 year mean. However, if you do accept Figure 7 as the truth you'd still have to reconcile the issue that Figure 9 shows that the Low temperature being higher than our modern time.We also have an issue with sample size. At the earliest part of the data there is only 1 station. It's not until the 1870's that we start to get a decent sample size to start to remove statistical sampling errors, but even then it's only at a minimum. At the peak of the data in 2005 we have nearly 14 thousand station, but by 2015 we only have 10 thousand stations. This radical change in sample size can cause. Just as in 1893 we only had 563 stations but in 1894 we had 1353 which is responsible for the abrupt change in Figure 7.The methodology below is what I will use to address each of these issues.Methodology GHCN Data Analysis: 1. To process this data the first step is to convert each stations monthly 31 day values into a single monthly median value for each station.2. Then each stations monthly median values are averages to create the average median for the life of the station.3. The station average median is then subtracted from the station median to create a delta that represents that stations change away from the average median.4. Stations are then selected based on the date of operation. For analysis starting in 1900 all weather stations that were operational in 1900 and operational at the end of the analysis must be used. Weather stations that were not operational at the start of the analysis cannot be used because they will induce a change in the region bias.5. From there the data can be graphed, or each months delta for the year can be averaged to create a yearly change for a simpler graph.Part 4: GHCN Data AnalysisFigure 10 below is the above analysis applied to the Global Historical Climatology Network Data. The blue dots represent the monthly noise that Figure 2, and 6 hides. We can now see that the average temperature varies by +- 4 degrees from normal, and not the few tenths of a degree that the yearly mean implies. As a note the two largest positive deviations from the mean are March 2010, and 2012 by 6.1, and 6.6 degrees respectively. They are separated by nearly a century, and show that the high temperatures of 2012 are hardly abnormal.If you notice in the graph between 1930, and 1940 you'll notice a clear bulge in the 5 year mean about zero. This is of note because it correlates with the known heat waves of the 30's that attributed to an climaxed with the Dust Bowl in 1936 as seen in the EPA Heat Wave Index[5]. Anyone looking at this data in the 50's and 60's might actually believe that we were heading towards a global cooling event since in the 70's the median clearly drops below zero. Conversely anyone starting their analysis in the 70's is starting at a low, and thus only see a movement upwards. Which may also explain my opponent's Figures 4 and 5 which start with the low 70's era, and lack any data for the early half of the 115 year period this debate is over.We can even apply a trend line to see if there is a trend upwards over the time period. There is a slight trend of 0.0009 degrees celsius per year, but this is with an R Squared of 0.0004 which means the significance of that upward trend is almost nothing, and can't be used for any real future predictions. For those unfamiliar with R Squared we really want to see a value as close to 1 as possible. A value of 0.5 is ok for some things like predicting erratic human behavior, but the more significant the claim the closer to 1 it needs to be. 0.0004 is so close to zero that it may as well be zero.Figure 10: GHCN High Monthly Average Delta 1900 - 2015 I'd present A figure on the Low, but it would be redundant with Figure 10, and given the time and text constraints I will cut it from my argument.Part 5: Is Temperature the Appropriate Measure?When we say that CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise what we really mean is that the increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more energy. The Pan Evaporation Rate can be used to measure the energy in the atmosphere. If you take a look at Figure 11 you'll notice it significantly deviates from a rather consistent trend. I've reduced the time range to 1980 to 2015 to give the largest possible sample of 156 pans in the GHCN dataset.Figure 11: Pan Evaporation to Sun Spots If we accept the increase is due to an abnormal warming due to solar storms that track with sun spots then we have a problem from the lack of any significant change during the man made ramp up of CO2 over the last 3, and a half decades. Since the sun's solar output varies by about 0.1 percent[6] it could be that even adding more CO2 has little effect because we've long since been able to absorb nearly all of the available solar energy.So why is there a spontaneous increase after 2005? In 2008 NASA announced a discovery of an odd phenomena. They observed a Northern polarity Coronal Mass Ejection rip open our Northern Magnetic pole, and thus exposed the entire day side of the planet to solar storms that it doesn't normally get[7]. This resulted in the prediction that solar cycle 24 which would send more northern polarity CME's towards the Earth would, and subject us to an unusually high volume of Solar Storms that our Magnetic field usually protects us from. This would also explain why the shape with many of the same peaks and valleys visible in the data.[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://time.com...[3] ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/[4] https://en.wikipedia.org... (Only as a reference to a historical fact)[5] http://www3.epa.gov...[6] http://www.dailykos.com...[7] http://science.nasa.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7693722248077393}, {"content": "Title: developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries Content: The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change", "qid": 21, "docid": "a05d84f6-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7673157453536987}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Real and is Manmade! Content: In ROUND 3 I will continue my ROUND 2 response, where I will show the link between carbon dioxide emitted by human activity and the increase in global surface temperatures. In the final ROUND I will go over the effects of climate change caused by global warming.Carbon Dioxide (and Other Green House Gases) are Causing Global Warming and Climate ChangeWith the advent of the industrial revolution, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations and other green house gases [1][2]. However, climate scientists overwhelmingly pin the blame of global warming on carbon dioxide because it is the most widely and most abundantly emitted green house gas of human activity [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for more than 84% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of green house gases [3]. The remaining percent of warming can be attributed to green house gases like nitrous oxide and flourinated gases [3]. By itself, the IPCC has affirmed that carbon dioxide is reponsible for 54.7% of the global warming caused by green house gases; that's because it is the most abundantly produced green house gas of human activity and because it has an enormous radiative impact compared to other green house gases when accounting for its abundance in the atmosphere, its indirect heating effects, and because of the CO2 molecule's long lifetime in the atmosphere [3][4]. In fact, only water vapor has a stronger green house gas effect than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but unlike CO2 water vapor isn't being emitted naturally by any known source at a large enough scale to be blamed for global warming [4]; water vapor does contribute to global warming, but this is because of a feedback loop caused as other green house gasses in our atmosphere increase in concentration and heat up the Earth's lower atmosphere [5].As the Earth's atmosphere and surface become warmer because of green house gas emissions, this drive's more water vapor to be absorbed into the air, further heating our planet; this water vapor loop is well-understood and contributes to anthropogenic (human induced) global warming [5].However, other green house gases emitted by human activity drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. As the statistic above shows, carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of human activity. As I demonstrated with the graph on carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere in ROUND 2 (and as I reported in ROUND 1), never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high as it is today! Ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration (the highest concentration) of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million--and that was 300,000 years ago [1]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 398 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [1]!This unprecedented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to human activity, such as through large-scale deforestation, land use changes (such as methane emission from ammonia-based fertilizers), and the burning fossil fuels (which include coal and gasoline) [2]. The IPCC reports that in the last 150 years, human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 398 parts per million today [2]! According to the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), humans largely emit carbon dioxide and other green house gases from the production of electricity and from transportation; in the U.S. these two behaviors contribute to 60.8% of all the nation's emitted green house gases in a single year [3]. Other behaviors, such as those of industry, businesses, of agricultural, and of energy use in homes, contribute to the remaining 39% of the nation's green house gas emissions [3].Global warming is produced when green house gases in the atmosphere--water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing the sun's radiative heat and warming the Earth's surface [2]. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. This is exactly what's happening now and generating planet-altering climate change (these effects will be explicated in the final ROUND).Volcanes and Changes in the Sun's Solar Output are Not Contributing to Global WarmingSome skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [6]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[6]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [6].Some opponents of manmade global warming claim that the Sun's solar output is responsible for the current rise in atmospheric temperatures--that humans are not responsible for the modern warming trend. But this is a view that the scientists firmly dispute, based on a variety of evidence (2):--Scientists point out that, since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased only slightly.--If the warming were caused by increased radiation coming from the sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead what they observe is a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Scientists say that this is a strong indication that green house gases are responsible for global warming, because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere.--Computer climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in green house gases.All of these bits evidence demonstrate that solar irradiance is not responsible for the rise in Earth's surface temperatures over the last century or more.Elevations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations have been responsible for Prehistoric Rises in Global Surface TemperaturesScientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [7]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [7]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [8] [9]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [8] [9]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[10].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [11]. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[2] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[3] (http://www.epa.gov...)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[5] (http://www.nasa.gov...)[6] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)[7] (http://news.softpedia.com...)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://smithsonianscience.org...)[10] (http://www.livescience.com...)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "qid": 21, "docid": "5d920354-2019-04-18T16:11:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7666175365447998}, {"content": "Title: Climate change Content: I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans \"drive\" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining \"stable\" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc. ) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one \"imposed\" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the \"secret agenda\" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc. ) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was \"something\" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the \"all this happened before and it will happen again\" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc. ). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] . http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] . http://www.newsweek.com... [5] . http://www.geocraft.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "ab411006-2019-04-18T19:20:25Z-00007-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7658036947250366}, {"content": "Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat Content: I accept. Pro asks me to begin arguments in the first round. I will assume a uniformitarian scale. I will argue against the resolution, not against GW per say. Historical Context: Global climate change (GCC) has been occurring for a long time [1]. Temperature measurements show that the Earth was much hotter in the past. This is evidently shown in the graph [1]. The Earth was also much colder in the past [2]. It occurred around 200,000-100,000 years ago. At these periods in time, humans were unable to emit greenhouse gases. Thus, GCC was not caused by humans. If GCC was not caused by humans then, it is logical to conclude that something else can cause it now. There is also the case of the medieval warm and cold period [3]. The planet was warmer in many places, and cooler in others. Vikings were able to settle Greenland and plantation of grapes in YorkShire occurred. There was also the case of the European coldsnap earlier this year [4], which made me think, \"global cooling!\" Current Global warming trend: Global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.2 degrees celsius each decade for the past 30 years. [5] Effects: Rising sea levels: There have been a gradual rise in sea levels over the years [6], at about 3.5 mm/year. Glacier melting: There is evidence that glaciers have been melting ever since the last \"little Ice age\" of 1850. Greenhouse effect: What is a greenhouse gas? Methane, water vapor, Carbon dioxide, and ozone. The water vapor is easy to understand. As the Earth heats up, the oceans evaporate and vapors scatter into the air. Methane is harmful to the environment, but is not in such great quantities as Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is my favorite, I produce it every second. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually helps vegetation growth [7] by an almost 30% increase in productivity. Human activity supposedly linked to GW: Burning of fossil fuels: The usage of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with the rise of temperature. Conclusion: I do not dispute that the Earth is growing warmer. It was so much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs than now. This could not have been due to man. There were Ice ages. These were certainly not the result of man\"s activities. The globe has been warming ever since 1850, the last mini ice age. It was warm several centuries before that. This shows that temperature is cyclic. I will now argue that there is a correlation between human activity and the current rise in global temperatures. If we plotted a graph showing how much greenhouse gas humans emit through their activity, alongside a graph of the rise in sea levels, and a graph of temperature rise for whatever data we have from 1850, the correlation is obvious. Now I will contend that human activity is not the cause of rise in temperature. No experiments has been made to prove this. If there was, I would like to know which other planets were used as experimenting ground. 1. http://www.grida.no... 2. http://geography.about.com... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.pnas.org... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.sciencedirect.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "17fbbe0e-2019-04-18T18:04:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7642906904220581}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: You have a good argument, and it is truly disgusting what humans are doing to this Earth, BUT they are not the cause of global warming, as I will argue. My opponent spends most of his argument explaining the process of global warming, which I find unnecessary, but at least now all the voters know exactly what's going on. Now, my opponent mentions the greenhouse gases (CO2 in this case) and that with humans, their concentration increases, therefore causing global warming. While humans do, in fact, increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (as my opponent proved), this does not significantly impact the process of global warming. http://upload.wikimedia.org... (I request that the voters take a look at this as well) These graphs clearly show that even hundreds of thousands of years ago, when humans were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures regularly cycled. They peaked about every 100,000 years before dropping back to a minimum. This correlation shows that even without the effect of humans, global warming is a natural process that occurs about every 100,000 years before subsiding once again. It is evident that humans do not significantly affect the process of global warming and it is only a big deal right now because we are reaching a peak (as shown on the graphs). I await my opponent's response.", "qid": 21, "docid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7638195753097534}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Content: I must say that global warming is true but it is not humanitys fault. There is evidence that the Earth has gone through multiple dramatic climate changes with both extream heat and cold through out its existance and what is happening now is simply the Earth following the pattern.", "qid": 21, "docid": "f1e6a226-2019-04-18T18:53:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7637166976928711}, {"content": "Title: Humanity will fail on the environment Content: With regards to global warming, ocean acidification, deforestation, and a few other environmental issues, I say that humanity will NOT change its behavior in time. I want an opponent arguing that humans will take appropriate action to save the environment. First round is for acceptance only. Also, If you believe that global warming does not exist, is not caused by humans, or is not a bad thing, please do not accept this debate;. Same goes with other environmental issues. I don't want to argue about whether or not we are destroying the planet but whether we will fix it.", "qid": 21, "docid": "87da1933-2019-04-18T14:43:30Z-00008-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7615121603012085}, {"content": "Title: Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity. Content: *Exists and significantly contributes to overall global warming. RulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only. Round 2- Constructive Arguments only. Round 3- Free choice. Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points. Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points. Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared. For the sake of this debate, Pro must argue that Mankinds interference with nature is a significant cause of the general upward trend of average global temperatures. Pro must also argue that this general upward trend will have effects that are seriously detrimental to humankind. Con must argue that Human-Action does not significantly contribute to the general upward trend of average global temperature. Con must also argue that this general trend will not have seriously detrimental effects to humankind. No arguments of semantics are acceptable. No arguments that question the premise of the debate are acceptable. DefinitionsGlobal Warming- The general upward trend of Global Average temperatures. Man-Made Global Warming- a force that contributes to general global warming that is caused by the greenhouse effect, and other forms of human interference with nature. Greenhouse effect- An effect that results from CO2 and CH4 pollution (there are also other chemicals that contribute, these are called greenhouse gases). Causes heat to be trapped in the earths environment. Serious Threat- Anything that could potentially kill a large number of people, wipe out a species of animal, or ruin any sizeable economy constitutes a serious threat for this debate. Significant Cause- anything that has a noticeable impact on the overall force.", "qid": 21, "docid": "70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00009-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7602399587631226}, {"content": "Title: Global warming a \"Human cause?\" Content: \"Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans.\"-My opponent -answer:no. Climate change is both natural and human. It can in no way,shape, or form be just humans because the Earth has natural cycles, which is what both Global warming and Cooling are; cycles. The climate is ALWAYS changing not yearly, not weekly, but every second of the day. -The link provided was a mere match up in opposition to what I stated, it included nothing to support the claims, like where the received data is from. I could state anything statistically but SHOULD be able to provide where the statistic or model/piece of data came from. Especially, since scientists have been \"caught\" much too recently messing with data in order to prove global warming is a Human-made cause strictly. http://www.paulmacrae.com... this link on its first page when opened shows where data came from and out it was altered or misinterpreted, it also included analysis on alarmist theories. 2. Cooling of 1940-70 \"Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.\" and yet you are using the aerosol issue to (attempt to) definitively explain the cooling of the 40s-70s? *shakes head* This has never been scientifically backed up. It was mere experimentation. My opponent also neglects to answer why then were their ice ages? Whaaaa? Climate change? Yes. but wait.. there were no humans to cause it with their excess amount of c02? CORRECT. My contender has not refuted anything and has yet to come up with a legitmate argument as to why we are the reason if their were far greater changes without the high c02 levels back millions of years ago! As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (http://www.skepticalscience.com......) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo. Back to this website again...sigh -This statistic is negated due to the fact that that cannot possibly be measured!", "qid": 21, "docid": "2c7b65bb-2019-04-18T18:16:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7593277096748352}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Was NOT Caused By Humans Content: it is acknowledged by the global warming theory that man is accelerating the process of the warming of the earth and that it is not ONLY due to human activity so pretty much, by what you are saying in your statement, you agree with the global warming theory so is this a debate?", "qid": 21, "docid": "f600de9a-2019-04-18T20:00:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7593101859092712}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: Thank you. I do not think it is only human-caused that title is put there, because I wouldn't want to put such titles as, \"Climate change is sorta man caused\". What I am arguing is humans do have a fairly large affect on the rate it is going at. Now for my reliance on NASA for my source, well I used it specifically because it is more well known than than the other sources I found and if you want them then tell if so in your statement and I will happily send you some of them. A scholarly article written by Thomas R. Karl (a climatologist that is the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\"s National Climatic Data Center.) states, \"The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.\" Now another source I used which granted is from the EPA (but I didn't want to use NASA for my only source) states that the temperature is rose at 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit last century, however it also states small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Also 2014 was the hottest year on record according to multiple sources (listed bellow) and the 21st century is officially up to date the hottest century. I wish my opponent luck Sources Karl, T. R. \"Modern Global Climate Change.\" Science 15.1 (2003): 1719-723. Print. \"Basics.\" EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov...; Hottest Year/century on record sources: \"21st Century 'hottest' on Record as Global Warming Continues - UN.\" UN News Center. UN, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.un.org...;. \"2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record.\" Time. Time. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://time.com...;. \"2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record.\" Scientific American Global RSS. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7592422962188721}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: Thank you for that last round. 1. While a rise in global temperature is undeniable, I disagree that the greenhouse effect is the cause. I repeat my original point that the recent warming of the Earth has to do with solar cycles and that a 2013 study proved that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century [2], and the recent rise in global temperature are within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years [2]. Additionally, to address your point concerning the declining Arctic sea, it's true that it was slowly descending, but since 2012, Arctic ice has gone up by 50% [4]. Even the increase between 2012 and 2013 was visibly significant [5]. This increase is equally as important as the decrease. I again repeat my original point concerning receding glaciers. They have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes [2], and the recently receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to atmospheric circulation changes, which is the \u201clarge scale movement of air\u201d [3]. 2. My opponent has argued that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activities.However this is not entirely true. David Henderson went through everything that Cook et all claimed and found that only 64 out of the 11,944 scientists that were examined claimed explicitly that global warming was a cause of humans. This number brings the 97% down to 1.6% [1, 2]. Here is Henderson\u2019s list providing all the numbers: While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that human activities have caused global warming, there are still many scientists who disagree.In 2010, a report by Climate Depot claimed that over 1,000 scientists (many of which were form UN IPCC scientists) disagreed that humans are \u201cprimarily responsible for global climate change\u201d [2].Again, in 2014, 15 scientists declared that the US National Climate Assessment\u2019s declaration of human caused climate change to be \u201cNOT true\u201d [2]. Conclusion:It remains that many scientists agree that global warming exists only as a solar cycle and is not caused by human activities. Thank you for reading! Sources:1. http://econlog.econlib.org...2. http://climatechange.procon.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://townhall.com...5. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7590272426605225}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: (Paraphrased from http://www.debate.org...) I'm not sure how well I worded the debate resolution, so I will explain further. This is a scientific debate about whether humans are driving global warming and whether it is a problem. Not all evidence has to be inherently scientific, but all evidence should give reasons to believe that the human effect on global warming is significant (PRO) or insignificant (CON). Definitions Human effect: Effect caused by unnatural human actions; this includes sources such as factories and power plants but excludes sources such as natural respiration. Global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric and oceanic temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. (dictionary.com) CO2: Carbon dioxide. AGW: Anthropogenic global warming; global warming caused by human activities. ======================== Contention 1: Basic Scientific Argument ======================== (I have purposely left out some information; I cannot fill all the holes in 8000 characters, and will therefore only fill the holes that my opponent pokes at.) The sun radiates electromagnetic waves onto the earth. They pass through the atmosphere, but are absorbed by the ground. When molecules on the ground absorb the electromagnetic radiation, they then re-emit it as infrared radiation. Infrared has a longer wavelength, so some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\" namely water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd\u20ac\" absorb it and turn it into thermal energy (a.k.a. heat). This traps heat, causing the earth's temperature to increase. Because of the greenhouse effect, the more greenhouse gases there are, the hotter it gets. This effect isn't much like a greenhouse, but I will nonetheless use the term. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels remained in the 180 to 300 ppm (parts per million) range [1]. But as of 2007, CO2 levels were at 390 ppm [2]. The environment was relatively stable for hundreds of thousands of years, so why the sudden change? Human emissions can only be responsible. Humans have been emitting CO2 in vast quantities since the mid-70's: our cars emit it, our factories emit it, even our homes emit it. ======================== Contention 2: Scientific Consensus ======================== It is important to remember that science is not a democracy. But if nearly all scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. And nearly all scientists support AGW. I: Scientific Societies Many scientific societies have advocated for AGW. At this time, it is important to remember that scientific societies are not advocacy groups. But these societies found AGW so important that they felt they had to endorse it. The national scientific societies of 21 countries have endorsed AGW: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Caribbean, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South, Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States [3]. The following societies have also endorsed AGW: Network of African Science Academies, National Research Council, European Science Foundation, World Meteorological Organization, Federation of American Scientists, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science [4]. This is far from a complete list, but is meant to give an idea of how many scientists support AGW. This list represents hundreds of thousands of scientists. II: Peer-Reviewed Papers Perhaps more important than the endorsement of scientific societies is peer-reviewed papers. In 2004, Science magazine conducted a search for scientific papers on the topic of global warming [5]. They searched through all papers with the keywords \"climate change\", for a total of 928 scientific articles. Here is a quote from [5]: {quote} The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. {/quote} *** I thank my soon-to-be opponent and look forward to a fun debate. *** References [1] http://www.newscientist.com...... [2] http://www.newscientist.com...... [3] http://logicalscience.com...... [4] http://www.aaas.org...... [5] http://www.sciencemag.org......", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7584989666938782}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7580851316452026}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me. EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month. My Starting Arguments: Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 \"C (1.4 \"F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1] Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature. \"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural \"sinks\" involved in the carbon cycle.\"[2] Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video) http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00009-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7579840421676636}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming Exists Content: == INTRODUCTION == Con sent me this debate challenge, though apparently had no intention of defending his position. Technically I don't have to say anything at all in this round considering Con is the instigator of this debate, and thus has the burden of proof. I have nothing to respond to, meaning I can/should leave this round blank. However since Con decided not to say anything at all, I guess I'll provide a few opening statements. == OPENING ARGUMENTS == Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, then the definition of what global warming is has already been affirmed. Most people acknowledge that global warming DOES exist (and is occurring); the main conflict is whether or not humans are responsible for it. While there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning \"Global Warming\" again exists. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. This is undeniable. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Another fact. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1]. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation... meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions... so obviously there is going to be an impact. I'll leave it at that for now. == SOURCES == [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "d147265-2019-04-18T19:06:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7574154138565063}, {"content": "Title: There is no anthropomorphic global warming Content: \"There is no anthropomorphic global warming Global warming has occurred in the past hundred years. This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century, counter to the period when there was more co2. Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature.\" As Pro there is still a burden of proof on your behalf outside of simple refutation. \"Global warming is caused by human activity.\" \"No it isn't.\" Doesn't really cut it. No: 4 : to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement http://www.merriam-webster.com... Anthropomorphic: 1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes. 2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am assuming the error is on your part in saying that global warming is 'not human like' as opposed to 'not being human caused'. If I am mistaken round two will be interesting. :) ================================================================================ \"This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century\" \"The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. Overall land and sea surface temperatures for the world were second highest in 129 years of record keeping, trailing only 2002...\" (NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: 2008). Our influence on Earth's climate did not begin a few decades or centuries ago, but 8000 years before; with the birth of agriculture (see anthropocene). In a study at the University of Virginia, ancient human activities have shown to have affected the climate. Key discrepancies in levels of greenhouse gases revealed by ice cores show that during the previous three periods between ice ages, levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the air fell in lock-step with decreases in summer sunshine caused by cyclical changes in Earth's orbit. However after the most recent ice age, which peaked around 12,000 years ago, both gases broke the set pattern. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide began to increase 8000 years ago, followed by methane 5000 years ago, even though summer sunshine has been decreasing. \"Both gases followed the expected trend for a while but then went up instead of down.\" After removing possible natural causes for the greenhouse gas increases, it is probable that early farmers who cleared forests in Europe, India and China accounted for the surge of carbon dioxide, while rice paddies and burgeoning herds of livestock produced the extra methane. Over time this activity laced the atmosphere with about 40 parts per million of carbon dioxide and 250 parts per billion of methane, enough to produce nearly 0.8 \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdC of warming before 1700, around the dawn of industrialisation. Which just about equals the warming humans are thought to have caused since then. http://www.newscientist.com... http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca... \"Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature.\" For as long as I have been alive, global trend of temperatures has risen. This is a strong correlation. :P The sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been brightening since. For most of this time, Earth has been warmer than today, (faint sun paradox). The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases which trap more of the sun's heat. Solar fluctuations and other factors such as dust ejected by volcanoes - and average global temperatures may well have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, leveling off during the mid-century cooling. However there is no positive correlation at all between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu... The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of inter-glacials can only be explained by rising temperatures (i.e. temperature and CO2 levels are reciprocal), the full measure of temperature increases can only be explained by inclusion of the human influenced rise in CO2 levels.", "qid": 21, "docid": "dc9f0311-2019-04-18T19:41:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7572307586669922}, {"content": "Title: Anthropogenic global climate change. Content: In my debate I will be trying not to persuade you that humans are totally responsible for global warming, but the major cause is from animals etc, with still little help from the humans. It would be totally biased if you wanted me to defend humans completely out of global warming for such as a fart contributes. At the end of this debate I hope to have abolished the Anthropogenic title from your moot, and (as seen from the previous debate) from your stubborn mind. No need for any clarifications. Thank You and good luck!", "qid": 21, "docid": "61b465af-2019-04-18T12:27:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7564371824264526}, {"content": "Title: Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans Content: Dude i understand the resolution. Warming is a continious action. Global warming is therefore a continuing action. \"almost all Atmospheric global warming is not caused by humans.\"The resolution your really asking \"Almost all of the atmospheric global heat change is not caused by humans.\" Global warming is ongoing and therefore constantly changing and you agree with me here. \"Do not be confused though. I agree that the 0.85 degrees Celsius change was caused by human industrialization. I also agree that it occurred over a relatively short period of time, and that this is alarming. I also agree that unless immediate action is taken, the consequences may be severe.\" You should have had the resolution that: \"almost all of the atmospheric heat is not caused by humans.\" This thereby dodges the continuity of global warming itself. The key thing to remember when voting for this debate is should we take warming as a constantly changing state, or take data from two points; one without an atmosphere and then with one with an atmosphere and call that \"warming\" when actually just measuring the temperature the difference of something aside from what global warming really is, a continous change. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, i have better evidence", "qid": 21, "docid": "4b594354-2019-04-18T15:15:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7563493251800537}, {"content": "Title: A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line. Content: My opponent stated: Alright, to kill the suspense, the topic is \"Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions.\" I negate of course. Since PRO has the burden, I'll let him go first. ----------- Technically, you still have the burden, since you instigated the debate. But, lets play your game. The topic is \"Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions.\" note the topic is not: Global Warming is solely caused by mankind's actions. Therefore, I state: As the UN climate committee continues to finalize language in the last installment of a four-part study on global warming to be released Saturday, its draft says there no longer is any doubt mankind is causing global warming and that it is a developing human disaster that needs to be dealt with. SOURCE: http://www.nj.com... Need more? Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft report by the world's leading climate scientists. The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity. A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years. It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels caused by man-made emissions. These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of \"positive feedbacks\" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the acidification of the oceans. The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version is ready for publication next year. However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail request for a password to access the area on its website. The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the draft IPCC report. The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online, according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change and its impacts. Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon. \"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans,\" it says. \"It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years. \"And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors.\" Since its last report in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence showing that climate change is already happening. It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed. \"2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005),\" the report says. Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent during the warmer summer months. \"The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest Arctic year,\" the draft IPCC report says. \"An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation,\" it says. Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure. Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report. \"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century,\" the report says. \"Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise,\" it adds. Evidence of climate change * Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months. * Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record. * Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003. * Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years. * Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years. SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org... --------------------------- I have sufficiently proven that mankind's actions are causing global warming. I'm not sure that there is any rebuttal, but I am willing to see any points my opponent wishes to make.", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb9b0a88-2019-04-18T19:39:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7554264664649963}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is both real and a serious issue Content: I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause \"great floods\" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "67064b1f-2019-04-18T12:27:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7552768588066101}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: \"The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate.\" I disagree with this conclusion. Importance in effect or meaning does not imply that it is 50% or more of the cause. Something can be under 50% of the cause and still be a driving force. If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed. \"The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor.\" My opponent claims that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. I do not think this is so (and my opponent cites no source). If 3.502% is a correct figure, there should be some relevant results when I Google search \"3.502%\", but I did so and got no relevant results. But that's not the main point I want to make. My point is this: though water vapor is prominent, CO2 is where the real problem arises from. Though water vapor is more prominent, the increase in CO2 triggers a positive feedback effect [2]. Temperature increase leads to increased levels of water vapor. And the greenhouse effect increases temperature. So when CO2 levels are rapidly and unnaturally increased, temperature increases. Water vapor levels increase, and temperature increases further. The relatively large recent increases in CO2 have led to a positive feedback effect, magnifying the severity of the warming. \"S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming.\" I looked on Friedenreich's website and could not find this chart. Could my opponent provide a link to it? ***** \"2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other.\" For several hundred thousand years before the 20th century, CO2 was in the 180 to 300 ppm range. But in 2007, CO2 levels reached 390 ppm. What could be responsible for this incredibly unlikely increase? The only variable in recent decades is human emissions. \"1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair.\" In what way is a democratic scale biased? \"2)Scientists are not always right.\" This is correct. But they are right more often than anyone else. If so many scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. Sure, scientists have been wrong before, but when choosing who to trust, the safe bet is to side with the scientists. Should I instead trust the deceitful pseudoscientific producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle? Additionally, it is not just that the scientists are more likely than not to be correct. It is that these scientific societies have advocated for global warming. They have reputations to uphold. If they turn out to be wrong, it will put a dent in their reputations. They would only advocate a view if they were very sure of its validity. \"3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea \"have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so.\" (quote from a scientific article)\" This is not from a scientific article. I searched for the quote on Google Scholar, and did not find the quote [3]. In fact, the quote is from a blog [4]. And it's not even a scientist's blog; it's a PASTOR'S blog. This is simply not a very credible source. By claiming that it was from a scientific article, my opponent has blatantly deceived his audience. I ask the judges to please give me the conduct vote, due to my opponent's deceitful intent. In response to the actual statement, it is not very accurate. Plenty of people listen to global warming skeptics. The Great Global Warming Swindle was widely popular and was aired on national television. Many websites such as junkscience.com openly disagree with global warming. Plenty of other people (such as my opponent) debate publicly on the issue of global warming, without worrying about their reputations. Others have televised debates on global warming (for example, [5]). \"scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum\" A scientist who provides evidence for a controversial viewpoint will receive a great deal of attention, and will likely receive more grant money to investigate the new and controversial findings. Additionally, every oil company (actually, every company whose business relies on releasing greenhouse gases) would jump at the chance to support any scientist with findings that deny AGW. \"I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic.\" The articles do not say that humans are increasing CO2 levels. They \"explicitly or implicitly accept[] the consensus view\" that the human effect on global warming is significant. \"Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence.\" -I gave a relevant explanation of the greenhouse effect. -I explained why my opponent's contention about water vapor is irrelevant. -I gave facts and sources. -My opponent claims that I provided no facts or important evidence, but my opponent has cited literally zero sources. For all I know, he completely made up all of his facts, and I know for a fact that he lied about one thing. \"bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true.\" -Belief of the general population is very frequently wrong. Belief of the scientific population is much more accurate. -It is not that it must be true; it is only more likely to be true, since scientists know what they are doing more than I or my opponent do. \"What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts\" The only fact that my opponent has provided is that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. I challenge my opponent to find the scientific paper proving this. I look forward to my opponent's response. ***** [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://scholar.google.com...'t%20so.&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws [4] http://royalfarris.wordpress.com... [5] http://www.ewire.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7549906969070435}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Man-Made Content: ==Clarification== I will be arguing that mankind IS the cause of global warming, my opponent will be arguing that mankind is NOT the main driver of modern climate change. My opponent, therefore, is arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. This is pretty straightforward. Abbreviations which might be used: AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming CR -- cosmic ray[s] TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval Warm Period SSN -- Sun spot number PDO -- Pacific Decadal Oscillation LIA -- Little ice age ==Definitions== Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, \"changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)\" [1]. Definitions are pretty common knowledge. Please, no trolling. ==Rules== 1. As stated above, no trolling 2. All arguments should be visible in the debate. However, sources can be posted on an external link. 3. A forfeit is a concession. If you PM me before you forfeit with a legitimate reason, I will discard this rule and ask voters to vote a tie. 4. The structure, rules, or definitions cannot be changed after you accept the debate (no semantics). However, if you wish to change the rules, or something else, for clarity, ask in the comments. 5. BOP is split evenly! ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. NO REBUTTALS R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion --> I have made this debate impossible to accept. I will directly challenge the person who is willing to accept this debate. Good luck! 1. http://www.grida.no...", "qid": 21, "docid": "8006a72b-2019-04-18T15:24:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7537842988967896}, {"content": "Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I never said that Mankind is the sole cause of global warming. I'm saying they are the main cause of global warming. According to the chart provided by Con in the previous argument, we are supposed going through a clod period. Then how come that 14 of the 15 hottest years are in the 21st century? This is shown in Wiki page of Global Warming. Therefore I respectfully say that the site might be wrong. Its true , there have been cold periods every year. But I think those are called winters. Another reason. Global Warming is primarily caused by emission of GHGs, or Greenhouse gases. The primary sources of GHGs are factories and automobiles . Which are human sources. The only major contributor from the natural side are trees which only emit CO2 during the night. Whereas human sources include, CO, CO2, nitrous oxide, methane and other synthetic chemicals emitted is vapour form by humans. And with the tree population declining, and not many volcanoes in the past 10 years, the GHG emission by nature are not that significant as mankind. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... And contrary to common perception there has not been any cool period, the average surface temperature of the planet has been constantly increasing. The concentration of CO2 has been up about 20% from 650,000 years ago. Con has failed to rebut the argument of radioactive forcing which was in one of my sources. Just because its contribution cannot be quantified, doesn't mean it is not the major contributor. http://www3.epa.gov... In the above site, research has indicated that natural causes do not explain the recent climate changes . ( Ever since the Industrial Revolution). The site also gives the natural causes of climate change. 1)Variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth 2)Changes in the reflectivity of Earth\"s atmosphere and surface 3)Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth\"s atmosphere 1)Its true that there have been changes in the Sun's energy reaching the Earth but none big enough to cause such a change in surface temperature ALONE. 2) The constant GHG emissions have damaged our ozone layer and are causing UV rays to enter the atmosphere which is also increase the temperature of the planet. Again . A human source. 3) The changes in the GreenHouse effect, is that we humans have been constantly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere in our quest for development and comfort. A human source. 4) There have been no volcanic eruptions, atleast not big enough for the atmosphere to change and for the aerosol count to become so high. Therefore one can conclude that a human source is now behind almost every natural cause that MAY have caused this spike in temperature. Therefore Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming.", "qid": 21, "docid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7536191344261169}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Numerous alternate causes to global warming prove that humans are not the primary source. Adopt a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, the affirmative must prove beyond correlation and doubt that human cause warming. The Pro must win that mankind is the \"principal [and] leading\" meaning that if I win that there is an alternative cause that is more responsible for warming than humans, or at least humans are not a major cause, then I win the debate. (First Pro speech)As the Con, I may contradict myself as my sole purpose is to disprove the Pro's statement. The Pro must remain consistent to prove their position.First, 1,500 year climate cycles. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with a PhD from Princeton who founded the the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and Dennis Avery, a agricultural analyst who was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement, agree that there is substantial evidence around the world that climate cycles easily explain the warming we currently see. There is already a scientific consensus that cooling cycles (Ice Ages) exist, so it already not unreasonable to assume that warming cycles also exist. From 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age caused the earth to be about 2.5 degrees Celsius cooler than average. The Modern Warming portion of the cycle began in 1850, and \"warming will continue for some time in the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.\" Thus, today's warming can be explained by these climate cycles. These scientists gathered data from North America to Asia, and they use the ice caps in Greenland to further prove that by the way the ice formed, there must have been 1,500 year warming cycles. Sea sediment core in Ireland also shows the 1,500 year cycle. Fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings, and mountain tree lines all provide evidence to this theory because scientists can find how they were created or observe differing distances of tree rings to find the amount of warming that these objects underwent while being created. It's important to realize that completely dismissing 1,500 year cycles dismisses \"human histories from the past 2,000 years...and a variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers.\" (1) The Vostok ice sample that the rise and fall of CO2 correlate with natural cycles. Temperatures correlate with Ice Age minimus and maximus. There is a 420,000 thousand year cycle of carbon emissions. Given that humans release very little of the total carbon ouput, the correlation is between the carbon cycle and temperature cycle. (5)Secondly, human emissions of carbon dioxide are specifically not to blame. Patrick Moore, a former member of Greenpeace and an ecologist said the following while testifying in front of Congress: \"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years.\" In fact, carbon dioxide levels were 10x higher during the Ice Ages than they are now. This was also true 500 million years ago before evolution had created humans. Not only does this empiric disprove that humans are a major cause of increased carbon dioxide, but it also disproves that CO2 causing warming. Regardless of the theoretical examples the Pro provides, empirics trump. Third, the industrial revolution began in 1750, yet only from 1910 to 1940, there was an increase in .5 degrees Celsius of the global temperature. There was more than enough time for factories to produce enough carbon dioxide to have resulted in warming before those 200 years. This delay in increase prove that humans are not the main cause and is evidence of the climate cycles. (2) During this time, temperatures were much higher than today, but CO2 levels were lower. This places doubt in the significance of anthropogenic CO2 release. (7)Fourth, the climate rapidly changes to different stimuli. Anthony Lupo, assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and an expert reviewer for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang, discusses the fact that regional climates tend to experience much more change than globally. However, climates change rapidly, so if human emissions of CO2 really are responsible for warming, then 1) there should already be a much larger change in global temperature given the huge increase of CO2 emissions and 2) even when there were smaller amounts of CO2, this should have been enough to trigger an environmental change (3).Fifth, climate models fail. There was an increase in global temperature of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This clearly disproves the numerous computer models that the Pro cites as CO2 had increased after 2000 (2). Many believe that there will be an increase of anywhere from 2-11 degrees Fahrenheit due to info from computer models. Misinterpretation of results and models lacking the complexities of the fundamental global processes mean that these cannot be trusted. Consistently, politicians like Al Gore have predicted that the world would have literally ended by now. Prefer direct facts and empirical examples rather than theoretical results of greenhouse gases. Thus, do not automatically trust that greenhouse gases cause warming without direct evidence from changes in temperature \u00e2\u20ac\" the facts don't support this conclusion. (3) Though the Earth is warming, it's cooler than expected. There should have already been a two degree Celsius increase 100,000 years ago. (5) [Insert pie graph from this source]Sixth, fossil fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 levels according to the most accurate NASA data. From 1940 to 1950, CO2 levels flatlined. The only change was roughly .8 ppm downwards. World War II caused a massive increase in fossil fuel levels, yet this did not change CO2 levels. Prefer empirics. (4) Also, the Vostok ice core sample proves. CO2 increases did not increase temperature for 800 years. This sample also explains why a fall in temperature and a fall in CO2 correlate \u2014 cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. Even more, temperature falls around 800-1,000 years before CO2 levels rise or fall giving water time to absorb the CO2. (5)Seventh, even if humans do increase CO2 levels, they're only responsible for a 3% increase. Even that released CO2 is not all directly released into the atmosphere given that the oceans absorb so much of it. Limestone, chalk, and other rocks have 100x as much CO2 as the atmosphere. This 3% is responsible for .27% of the greenhouse effect. \"If we were to cease all transport and industry right now, it is very unrealistic to assume that it would have any impact on global warming.\" (5) Eighth, solar radiation is the single largest cause of warming. NASA repeatedly releases articles explaining the importance of the sun and sun cycles on the Earth. The near infrared and visible light waves are absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. Thus, these areas heat resulting in a higher global average temperature. Even more, absorption of UV rays heats the stratosphere. There's a general scientific consensus that this increases temperatures in the troposphere. Additionally, sun spots serve to reduce or increase warming. These can sway warming either way considering that these are 11 year cycles. This can explain why times of higher CO2 did not increase temperature. Scientists believe that the sun is responsible for at least half of all the climate change seen in the past 110 years. Even the IPCC, an organization devoted to creating response to globa warming, agrees. (6)The 100,000 year cycle of radiation resulting from the elliptical orbit of the Earth is at a peak and will be for the next several thousand years. This radiation is consistent with spikes in CO2 methane. The melting of ice caps has happened with each of these cycles. The huge volume of these gases is too high to be anthropogenic but is consistent with previous cycles. Mars is also increasing in temperature due to the recent increase in solar radiation. Dr. H. Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory, believes that the Earth has hit a temperature ceiling and will enter a cooling period despite fossil fuel use. This explanation accounts for the lack of increased greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. (7) [Insert Figure III]ConclusionSolar radiation, solar cycles, and multiple terrestrial temperature cycles are greater and more probable causes of warming. Humans produce very little emissions given the oceans' absorption and solar radiation cycles. The Earth has consistently changed temperatures before humans populated the planet. Even more, multiple empirics and evidence from around the world disprove the importance of humans on warming. 3% is a ridiculously small number when compared to multiple other emittors. CO2 levels were higher in the Ice Age when the Earth was substantially cooler. By placing some amount of doubt in the significance of mankind's importance on warming while promoting several other causes, humans are at least not the main factor of warming.(1) http://www.ncpa.org...(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(3) http://www.napsnet.com...(4)http://www.americanthinker.com...(5) http://www.collective-evolution.com...(6) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...(7) http://www.americanthinker.com...**I'm going to advertise my surveillance debate here: comment on that page if interested! :)", "qid": 21, "docid": "70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7534276843070984}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: Note: [x, y] indicates source y from round x. For instance, [1, 4] is aaas.org. \"the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW.\" My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important. ======== \"1)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree.\" I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is \"not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty\" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions. \"2)(...)Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden.\" 1. I do not have that burden of proof. See above. 2. Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). My opponent's data I presume is from that site which I hope I succeeded in discrediting. Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2. ======== \"The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans.\" The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular. Since we could argue about the article all day and I can't quote the whole thing, I recommend that the judges read it. ======== \"No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming.\" That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]. \"2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule.\" 4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate \"CO2 is still only 3-4%\", since 4.703% is outside of that range. Additionally, my opponent's level of precision is incredible -- and I mean \"incredible\" by the word's original denotation. ======== \"Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant.\" -One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect. ======== \"1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%.\" -I misunderstood what was being measured. It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2. -(2) and (3) have been rebutted at least once already. ======== 1) I am using studies as evidence. If many scientists think something, it is more likely to be true. 2) There is disagreement in society about GW. There is consensus among scientists. ======== \"They actually found a substantial amount of data.\" Please link this data. \"since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise.\" -Seven years is too short-term to draw any real conclusions. -Temperature rose and fell many times [5]. ======== \"4)\" I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. We do, on the other hand, know that my data is from a peer-reviewed source. ======== \"1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll.\" This is a fair point. I do not suggest that I should win outright; I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community. ======== \"1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans.\" -CO2 is 9 to 26%, not 5%. -CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback. \"2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it.\" I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]. \"3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden.\" Significance does not imply majority. When a cause is insignificant, it does not mean that it contributes to less than half of the effect. It means that without it, the effect would not be noticeably different. \"6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW.\" No I have not. CO2 is 9 to 26% of GW. When I said that CO2 is around 4% of GW, I had gotten mixed up by the different factors inherent in GW. I admit that that was a false statement. ======== [1] http://www.edf.org... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu... [4] http://www.realclimate.org... [5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7533291578292847}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine. regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause \"more than 50%\" of global warming. in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that \"an inconvenient truth\" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual. my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :) moving to my side of the argument my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around thank you.", "qid": 21, "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7530465722084045}, {"content": "Title: Humans are not causing global warming so Kyoto can't solve it Content: Natural causes are principally responsible for global warming today, making Kyoto irrelevant. Every 100,000 years, a cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods occur. We are at the peak of the 10,000 year interglacial warming period before the next 100,000 year ice age. Our warming now is part of this cycle. Only planetary interactions between the sun and earth can cause such regular, but lengthy cycle's. This leads to the conclusion that the sun is most responsible. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol bases its carbon-cutting objectives on the assumption that humans are chiefly responsible for global warming; a false assumption.", "qid": 21, "docid": "b58ff37e-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00074-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7524904608726501}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped! Content: You just admitted that humans DO cause climate change, you said 3 main ways humans DO cause climate change INDIRECTLY, but they still do CAUSE IT! I am going to add to your argument in favor of the idea of climate change being caused by humans! By the way, your making this to easy, challenge me next argument. Humans do add to climate change by cutting grass to often, as you said, due to there being less plants to transform extra carbon dioxide into oxygen. Humans do cause climate change by choosing to live far from work, as you said. It takes longer to get to work, using more fuel, creating more harmful exhaust in the atmosphere. Humans do cause climate change by having jets use jet fuel instead of alternative methods, which do make flights slightly longer, but in most circumstances that isn't much of a problem. Humans also cause climate change by not planting trees in cities, which reduces a cities carbon footprint. Now that I am done refining your arguments for me (just had to do a little bit of editing) I will start to rebut what little there is to rebut. You said \"HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems.\" You said we are incapable of causing climate change, but my only problem is that, in the same exact statement and in the same exact argument you said 3 different ways we DO cause climate change, maybe a better way to put it is 3 ways we cause climate change by NOT doing! I am going to add to your arguments for my side now, now that we both agree climate change is real, let's not talk that argument as that is much longer, let's focus on if it's caused by us and if it's a problem (unless you agree that it is, please tell me if you do as it will save me a lot of time) and if we should take steps to fix it (again if you agree that we should try to fix it, please tell me in your next argument or somewhere). We cause climate change by growing to much livestock, cows for example, release more methane (a gas 84 times worse than carbon dioxide for the atmosphere) than all the cars in the world combined. If you add in other livestock, like sheep, chickens, pigs, the release of methane is equal to almost triple all the exhaust from the cars in the world. We also have 13 \"super\" cargo boats, ya know those large ones that carry around those large colored shipping containers. Of course there are more than 13, but there are 13 of a certain model, a huge one. Well each one of these boats releases almost enough exhaust into the atmosphere in a year as all the cars on the planet. Meaning after you add together the yearly exhaust from all these boats, it equals almost 10 times all the exhaust from all the cars in the world. If we just use more efficient boats, or find another travel method, we could prevent this exhaust from entering the atmosphere. We are reducing the ozone layer which protects the earth from x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet rays, and from the green house gas effect through the use of many different types of chemicals for example sunscreen and hairspray, this is obviously caused by us. We can fight climate change by switching to renewable energy sources, which would save us from running out of natural gas and oil in the future and also prevent climate change. As you see there are many things we do to create climate change and we could stop all of these things to combat climate change. We are the problem and we are fixable.", "qid": 21, "docid": "ad1940fe-2019-04-18T13:29:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7519612908363342}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I am here going to prove to the audience and to my opposition that global warming is primarily caused by homo sapiens and is thus a characteristic of the anthropocene - a term recently created by geologists to express \"the age of man.\" I have yet to thorougly read my opponent's arguments, so anything that I write that may seem to be a rebuttal is pure coincidence. I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate and hope for an interesting exchange of ideas. Either he'll learn something or I will!Three Steps to Damaging the Planet (Human Style)A) Find the gases that cause the planet to warmThe following gases contribute to the greenhouse effect... (10)Feedback GasesWATER VAPOURWater vapour is a \"feedback\" to the climate rather than a cause of climate change. It is a greenhouse gas, but it does not contribute to a change in the greenhouse effect, rather, it changes with the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus acts as a way of telling if we're doing things right. Put simply, we on earth can't directly affect the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, but more of it should tell us that the temperature of the planet is warming (because it evaporates. We can't heat the oceans by ourselves so we need something less direct.) and thus there's a cause - effect relationship - more CO2/Methane/etc. = Higher Temperaures = More Water VapourCausal GasesMETHANENot what you were expecting, right? But still very important. Most mammals have natural methane emissions of a kind, and this can change, so this will go into our recipe for messing with our climate. Naturally, however, it is emitted at 270 teragrams per year (9) Come back to this later.NITROUS OXIDEAlso causal to rather than resulting from a change in climate, that is, we can change how much goes into the atmosphere.CFCsThe same ones that destroy the ozone layer, this time, they're back to destroy the biosphere. I say \"destroy\" because CFCs are as irrefutably man - made as CO2 and Methane are not, and therefore MUST be at least one reason that the atmosphere is warming. (Since they are artificial, to say that an increase in their quantity has non - anthropogenic causes would be like saying that trees can be made of plastic).CARBON DIOXIDEThe classic greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is absorbed to some extent in grass and trees (photosynthesis) on a natural level, and otherwise may be released through volcanoe and major forest fires, or the combustion of organic material. This usually accounts for 750 gigatons (8) of CO2 moving through the carbon cycle every year, not including human intervention.The gases listed here under causal warm the earth through the greenhouse effect. This is not controversial, here's how it works (7)The greenhouse effect, WITHOUT human intervention (except obviously in CFCs), is caused by the above gases in the above way. Now all we have to do is add a greedy, unenlightened species and we're on our way...B) Ensure that those gases enter and remain in the atmosphere in greater (or lesser) quantities than beforeMETHANEHumans add 330 teragrams per year (9) of methane to the atmosphere every year to the 270 teragrams already entering it, mostly through methane emitted by livestock (a single modern cow emits 270 kg of methane each year), from decay in landfills and from waste treatment, not to mention the burning of biomass. If the 330 teragrams going into the atmosphere WITHOUT humans every year causes 9% of the greenhouse effect, as noted above, then that amount doubling will, of course, ENHANCE the greenhouse effect, causing - global warming. The truth is that it would be strange if it DIDN'T. There are now 2 billion cows on the planet, far more than at any point in history. They, through methane emissions, are enhancing the greenhouse effect.CARBON DIOXIDEIt has been mentioned that 750 gigatons goes through the carbon cycle every year. Humans add 29 gigatons (8) - haha, the opposition says, the amount of human emissions of CO2 every year pale in compare to how much goes through the carbon cycle! But then one takes closer look - every year, 439 gigatons are released and 450 are absorbed by plants and trees. Suddenly, the 29 gigatons becomes much more frightening, especially when one observes that carbon dioxide is now at 390 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere, nearly twice as high as it has been for the last 500,000 years! The higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also caused, of course, by the fact that our conversion of land for agriculture has led to land with plants that absorb less CO2 (virtually all my references will say this) so that the number of gigatons absorbed (450) is decreasing whilst the 29 is increasing, resulting in idle CO2 sitting around, warming up the atmosphere - as it must as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is poisonous as well, by the way, so even if my worthy opponent and/or audience leaves this debate with their minds unchanged on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, remember that there is still reason for CO2 emissions to be curtailed!CFCsThis is an optimistic part of the human - greenhouse effect story in that we actually stopped putting CFCs into the atmosphere when we realized how awful they were for the ozone layer. Therefore we do not put CFCs into the atmosphere any more - it's like a defunct greenhouse gas, in retirement.NITROUS OXIDENO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 121 years (11) so naturally even a small amount of nitrous coming out of your exhaust enhances global warming for years to come. And when it's 110 to 240 thousand tonnes coming from car exhaust pipes every year, you know you have a problem. Add 2 to 4 million tonnes from fertilization practices in agriculture and you have a MAJOR problem! Add to this the fact that NO2 is 310 times as powerful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas and you have a full blown nightmare.Given the endless facts and evidence presented above, it would be strange if the atmosphere was NOT warming up from human intervention. The below only affirms what should be evident. On to our third and final step.C) Watch as the planet warms or cools six degrees, the difference between now and the last ice ageIt is often mentioned that the earth's climate has change in the past, and that is most assuredly true. It is also true, of course, that the earth's climate can change in the future, and for different reasons. However, what is unique about the warming of the anthropocene is that it has happened and is happening so suddenly, more suddenly than in the past. The closest example of climate change at this speed (just 120 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), obviously excluding the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, is the Palaeo - Eocene Thermal Maximum (13) about 55 million years ago, when the climate changed 5 to 8 degrees,that warming, of course, took several thousand years.Sources1. http://climate.nasa.gov...2. http://www.climatechangechallenge.org...3. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...6. http://www.nytimes.com...7. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...8. http://www.skepticalscience.com...9. http://en.wikipedia.org...10. http://raytekmalaysia.blogspot.ca...11. http://www.flickoff.org...12. http://www.epa.gov...13. http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd90cb-2019-04-18T18:11:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7512692213058472}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans Content: *cracks knuckles* Cool. So this is my first debate. If I do something wrong, please tell me. I have to admit that at the start of this debate, I was neutral on the issue and selected the most radical opinion I could think of that can be actually defended (intelligently). Now how do I start off...? *** It is my position that Global Warming is occurring. I believe that is caused by the natural cycle that is climate change, and not by CO2 emissions created by humanity. There is no clear warming trend that shows human interference in climate. Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth (1). The Earth's climate has always changed throughout history due to natural cycles. For example, the Medieval warm period and the subsequent little ice age were caused by climate change (2). Like then, The Earth is currently peaking in an inter-glacial warming period, before it will inevitably enter another ice age. It is natural to expect warming during this period, and not caused by human interference in the climate. Warming trends show no consistent increase in temperature. In the last century, much of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. In fact, most of the warming that has occurred in the last century occurred in between 1910 and 1940- when C02 emissions by humans were low. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s (this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC). (3)\" This trend shows that greenhouse gasses did not have anything to do with the current warming we are facing. An easy to observe temperature record of the world can be found here (4): http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources: (1): http://en.wikipedia.org... (2): http://en.wikipedia.org... (3): http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com... (4): http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "9416a94c-2019-04-18T19:03:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7512595653533936}, {"content": "Title: HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING Content: I do agree with you that we are partially responsible for global warming. we are accelerating it, yet not CAUSING it. Why did you challenge me to this debate? i really don't even understand you're arguement. :[ sorry!", "qid": 21, "docid": "61d6604e-2019-04-18T19:59:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7508432865142822}, {"content": "Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for obvious reasons), I will reiterate my rebuttals to her opening statement and premise of this argument: \"global climate change is human caused\" -I presented scientific arguments from liberal as well as conservative sources disproving this premise. My opponent (who, as Pro, has the burden of proof) never presented one argument in favor of this premise. My opponent contradicted this statement with the following \"Climate change may result from: \u2022 Natural factors...\" \"Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature\" -Again, I presented scientific arguments contrary to this statement, even though my opponent never presented any scientific arguments in favor of this statement. I suggested it was impossible for humans to \"cause\" global climate change, which occurs and has occured without the presence of humans on this planet (according to scientific evidence from both liberal and conservative sources). \"which if not stopped will result in global warming.\" -I presented arguments denouncing this statement. Global warming cannot be, and should not be stopped. If the Earth did not have a natural mechanism to warm it's climate, life on Earth would be impossible. My opponent conceded this with the statement \"Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped.\" presented in Round 2. Not only did my opponent not present any scientific arguments in favor of her premise, she contradicted statements she intended to support her premise.", "qid": 21, "docid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.750552773475647}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: Thank you for clarifying on that. I think you were hoping to win the debate just on that title, which in itself speaks indefinitely. I have to clarify some things, because I don\"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It \"can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.\" (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won\"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, climate change is happening. But at the same time, we are putting planks for a global cooling, in a sense. As of right now, I can safely say we are utilizing more renewable energy than at any other time in our existence. As for my opponents sources, I don\"t see any of them mentioning that. I\"m sorry, but the subject of your sources (yubanet, epa, time, scientific american) either state what global warming is, or are in redundant in stating \"2014 is the hottest year\". None of them are the subject of human activity causing global warming. If you still insist of debating the topic, I would be glad to, although as I\"ve mentioned, there really is no debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7501316070556641}, {"content": "Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real Content: This resolution is based on a discussion that originated in the comment section of another debate: . http://www.debate.org... == Definitions == Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): Global Warming influenced by human activities. Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality. == Rules == Pro and Con will both refrain from attacking the sources of scientific information in order to keep this debate focused on relevant arguments, evidence, and logical consistency, rather than accusations of corruption. Furthermore, Pro's BOP will intend to prove the scientific validity of AGW, and to a lesser extent, Con will have to provide counter-evidence to such claims. And it begins! == Global Warming Is Real == 1. The Greenhouse Effect is a process in which Earth's atmosphere traps the sun's energy, which keeps surface temperatures relatively warm. Basic physics demonstrate that increases in Greenhouse Gases will trap increased amounts of energy, thus causing temperatures to rise. As humanity burns fossil fuels, and CO2 is released into Earth's atmosphere, energy from the sun is trapped, and it can be logically expected to initiate rises in surface temperatures. . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... 2. As expected, the Industrial Revolution began a process in which fossil fuels were burned to extract energy, which has significantly increased the amount of CO2 found in Earth's atmosphere. Before industrialization, Earth's atmosphere retained approximately 280 Carbon parts per million (ppm), which by 1958 had risen to 315 ppm, and is now nearly 400 ppm. As a result, global temperatures have also risen significantly, which implicates these human actions. . http://www.jpl.nasa.gov... . http://www.ourplanet.org.uk... 3. Natural phenomena cannot be responsible for the current warming anomaly. For instance, solar output has remained constant since the 1750's. Volcanism releases sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, which reflects solar energy back out into space, cooling the Troposphere. Although Earth's axial shifts might explain a climb in surface temperatures, the CO2 anomaly implicates human actions. There simply isn't any natural phenomena that can adequately explain the recent jump in temperature AND CO2, which leaves only human activities to blame. . http://climate.nasa.gov... . http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... . http://www.seed.slb.com... 4. Feedback loops are going to cause exponential increases in CO2, which will force surface temperatures to rapidly rise as well. As human activities warm the Earth, arctic ice melts and exposes increased amounts of ocean that absorb rather than reflect solar energy. As more energy is absorbed, the Earth is further warmed, which triggers a process that feeds itself. This is known as a positive feedback loop, for it exponentially amplifies Earth's warming trends. There are also sinks that absorb CO2 -- oceans and trees -- but human deforestation and the decreased absorption rates of oceans are substantially weakening this process. Oceans and forests have absorbed at least 48% of atmospheric CO2 release since the 19th century, which has essentially slowed AGW. However, these two lifelines are being exhausted, causing warming patterns to rise exponentially. Because of this phenomenon, there is no chance that CO2 levels will go down, which rules out the possibility of regularly occurring temperature fluctuation taking place in the future. . http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... . http://nrs.fs.fed.us... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... == Conclusion == There have been minimal sources of natural warming phenomena, which leaves the burning of fossil fuels as the sole culprit. Shortly after the Industrial Revolution took off, CO2 levels skyrocketed, with surface temperatures following close behind. Due to such compelling evidence, a strong scientific consensus has been formulated, which contends that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening. There are also good indicators that surface temperatures will continue to rise at an exponential pace, which further implicates human activities. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks again to Con, and good luck with your response.", "qid": 21, "docid": "4bf1ae96-2019-04-18T18:58:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7497251033782959}, {"content": "Title: Man Made Climate Change Is Fake Content: First I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity for this debate, I would like to start by making a few observations: 1) I am arguing that the human race has had a measurable impact on global warming. I acknowledge that natural climate change does happen. I will debate that humans are contributing to recent global warming. 2) My opponent says that quoting a consensus is not science. However, it has to be seen that a scientific study by real scientists is going to be more reliable than some kind of theory or home conducted experiment. Before we begin I would just like to ask for evidence behind the claims in point 3 just for reference. I will begin by analyzing my opponents case and then move on to my own. My opponents 1st point states that there is no hard proof that CO2 from humans is the most important part to causing global warming. Even if it's not the MOST important part, if humans have any impact than we are changing the climate from what is natural. I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest. 2: My opponent argues that the computer models don't work. Even if this is true, there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact. Also, computer models are just a way of prediction and we can't expect them to be 100% correct. 3: My opponent argued that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. My opponent argues that water vapor has a stronger green house effect. Even if this is true, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is actually a cause for more humid atmosphere making it worse. So even if you believe my opponent that it is actually the water vapor that is the more disastrous greenhouse gas, this problem stems from CO2 also, which stems from humans. http://www.nasa.gov... Basically my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact which is not a scientific claim and there is an undoubted correlation between CO2 and warming. 4: In response to my opponents claim that their is less CO2 now than ever before, according to Freedman at climate central, \"CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.\" http://www.climatecentral.org... Also, from NASA. \"atmospheric carbon dioxide does naturally fluctuate, but it's never been has high as it is today\" http://globalclimate.ucr.edu... (i would recommend looking at this graph for the link provided! 5: Your statement about the temperature increasing for the past 20,000 years is true, however that was when the last severe cold stage in the climate happened. So naturally the climate is on its way to being warmer. Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural. As for the political arguments. That is probably all true, but does not prove that humans don't have to do with global warming. Now for my case: 1: Humans are altering the climate. My evidence comes in 3 stages. 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change. Some may still remain skeptical in believing that there are things that may not be CO2 causing global warming. While other causes like volcanic eruptions, or the tilt of the earth have had causes thousands of year ago. We are seeing trends in the the atmoshphere that point to CO2 being the cause as opposed to thermal energy. Check out the video here. https://www.skepticalscience.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "edb85154-2019-04-18T12:55:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7494809627532959}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Happening! Content: My opponent's position is the following: \"Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing...catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling; global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.\" He goes on to assert (not present) data to justify this view.My opponent also adds:\"We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth\"s history with even lower, colder temperatures.\" He continues to boldly claim that the Earth's surface temperature is cooling - not warming.To discredit the world's foremost authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of 195 member nations and evaluates scientific data to determine the extent and ramifications of climate change [1], my opponent states this: \"The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers.\" In other words the IPCC is not to be trusted!Without presenting any data (except links to the Heartland Instititute, which describes itself as a \"free-market promoting\" organization skeptical of global climate change [2]), my opponent boldly claims that the Earth's surface is currently cooling (not warming).This despite graphic data by the IPCC showing that most of the Earth's surface experienced an increase in temperature between 0.2 and 1.0 degree celsius between 1970 and 2004 (some places experienced a greater temperature increase, few places saw a temperature decrease): North America in particular has seen a dramatic increase in temperature (about 1 degree celsius) between 1955 to 2005, as depicted here (with some locations observing a more severe increase): To affirm the IPCC's data on the global temperature trend, data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) shows that with comparison to the base year 1945 (taken as the surface temperature average), temperatures have been increasing since 1910, and have been increasing more rapidly over the last 3 decades [3]. This data \"agrees with other global temperature records provided by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Center\" [4].Since the base year 1945, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.56 degrees celsius; since 1910, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 1.02 degress celsius [5]. Despite my opponent's claims that temperatures are now plummeting (since the \"late 1990s\") NASA shows that 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record, with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 only being hotter - and the hottest years being 2010, 2005, 2007 (in that order) [6]. Data shows no reversal in the Earth's average temperature change, toward the 1945 base year average. My opponent may want to slyly argue that 1998 saw hotter temperatures than six years in the first decade of the 2000s, but 1998 was an outlier (and the hottest of the previous century), but four very recent years were hotter!Con (my opponent) asserts that the Earth's surface is now cooling, but data I presented in ROUND 1 shows that the effects of global warming are not halting. Satellite data shows that 2012 had the lowest quantity of Artic Sea Ice on record - a shocking 3.62 million square kilometers, or less than 50% of the quantity recorded in 1980 [7]!NASA's Grace satellites \"show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002\" [8]. Nope, the Earth's still getting hotter and Antartica is still losing mass. Huge chunks of it in fact.Data from NASA missions Jason-1, Jason-2/OSTM shows oceanic sea levels rising on average 3.16 mm per year 9from 1993 to 20130; this is nearly twice the oceanic sea level increase from 1870 to 2000 [9].In spite of my opponent's declarations, global surface temperatures are increasing and have not halted in this trend over the last decade. The effects of global warming continue to be felt and show no sign of stopping. Sea levels are rising, coastal land is disappearing, polar sea ice is vanishing, land ice is melting.And the greenhouse gas with the most radiative impact in the atmosphere - CO2 - continues to be churned out at crippling levels [10]. Year after year the concentration only increases and the Earth warms [11]. [1] http://ipcc.ch...[2] http://heartland.org...[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] http://climate.nasa.gov...[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "86bf9ee5-2019-04-18T17:17:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7490829229354858}, {"content": "Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth.\" Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.", "qid": 21, "docid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7490662336349487}, {"content": "Title: Stratospheric Sulfate Aersols or geoengineering should be used in 2016 to combat global warming Content: Hello! I have always been a science enthusiast so I assume a stance on this topic with ease. The question of whether or not humans have a direct affect on Earth's climate is age-old, but new science has put forth irrefutable evidence that we do have an effect on our climate, however large the scale. We must be especially careful in researching climate change prevention as a government, but if we can assure that we can safely combat global warming through geoengineering without major repercussions, then there is no reason not to do so. Some feel as though global warming is the inevitable, natural course of the Earth's existence, while others believe that our industrial habits have an adverse effect on the temperature of the Earth. For this debate, we should assume the latter. I look forward to a good debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "b829557a-2019-04-18T13:57:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7490476369857788}, {"content": "Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial Content: I was expecting Pro to make an argument for Resolution B in his opening statement, since he bears the burden of proof. Since he has not done so, I will present a brief prima facie case against the Resolution. I disclaim that by doing so, I in no way assume the burden of proof with regard to the resolution; Pro bears the responsibility to refute my case and to present a case in favor of the resolution.For purposes of this debate, it is stipulated that global warming is taking place. The instant question is, are humans a significant contributing factor?A) Carbon dioxide has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. These account for, respectively, 99%, 1%, and 1 trillionth of the CO2 in the atmosphere (14C being radioactive).Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C:12C ratio in plants is about 2% lower than in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, which largely consist of ancient plants, thus results in a decrease in atmospheric 13C:12C ratio, which is exactly what we have been observing since the Industrial Revolution.[1]The only known source of carbon outgassing with such a low 13C:12C ratio is volcanic activity, and human activities release about 130 times the CO2 as volcanic activity every year.[2]B) The ratio of 14C:12C, as measured in tree ring data, steadily decreased from the Industrial Revolution until after World War II, during which the amount of 14C in the air was steady (after WW2, nuclear testing increased the 14C in the air). This is clear evidence that 12C increased during this period which coincided with industrialization.[3]By how much has it increased? From 1751 until 2006, humans have emitted an estimated 329,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 329 billion. Moreover, about half of those emissions come from the last three decades.[4]C) Apart from fossil fuel burning, common sense dictates another source of increased CO2: since before 1800, land clearance has resulted in dramatically fewer plants in the world, which in turn results in less carbon absorbsion, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere. This image (http://bit.ly...) shows the estimated anthropogenic carbon sources from both land clearance and fossil fuel burning since about 1750.In light of A, B and C, there is no plausible explanation for the sharp amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere other than human activities. So, how do we know that CO2 is a significant cause of the observed global warming?D) Satellites have been observing the amount of Earth's heat escaping into space, particularly at the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs heat. That amount has decreased.[1] Surface measurements observe heat at those same wavelengths spreading downward to the surface.[5]E) A CO2-caused greenhouse effect would have certain consequences: for instance, that the planet would be warming faster during the night than during the day, that the stratosphere and ionosphere would be cooling, and that the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere) would be rising. All of these effects are presently being observed.[6][7][8][9]Although this debate does allow a separate pages for sources, there is sufficient room in this statement to list my sources below:[1] IPCC, \"Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change,\" Solomon, S. et al., eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).[2] United States Geological Survey \"Volcanic gases and their effects.\" Retrieved April 19, 2010 from USGS Web site: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...[3] Ruddiman, W.F., Earth's Climate: Past and Future, 2nd. ed.. (W. H. Freeman & Co, 2008).[4] Boden, T.A., et al, \"Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel co2 emissions.\" Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy (2009).[5] Wang, K. et al, \"Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008,\" Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (2009).[6] Alexander, L.V., et al, \"Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitationJ. Geophys. Res., 2006, 111, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.[7] Jones, G.S, et al, \"Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis,\" Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1228, 4 pp. (2003)[8] Santer, B.D., et al, \"Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,\" Science 301 (2003), pp. 479-483.[9] Lastovicka, J., et al, \"Global Change in the Upper Atmophere,\" Science 314 (2006), pp. 1253-1254.", "qid": 21, "docid": "2555089b-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7489371299743652}, {"content": "Title: The developed world has the responsibility to help others Content: The IPCC says that it is \u201cextremely likely\u201d that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise.[1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China\u2019s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, \u2018IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'\u2019, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general [2] Vaughn, Adam, \u2018A history of CO2 emissions\u2019, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical", "qid": 21, "docid": "2ec11424-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00014-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7485090494155884}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: \"human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all.\" 3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts. \"1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified.\" No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming. \"Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' \" The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states \"So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]\" \"CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%\" It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase. \"My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions.\" What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase. \"1)...water vapor\" Irrelevant, since I meant CO2. \"Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming.\" Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years. \"He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true.\" My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5]. Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. \"The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming.\" My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6]. \"Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through.\" The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source. \"1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false.\" a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws. b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory. \"2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming.\" While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies. \"1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls.\" Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]. \"2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT.\" a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list. b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society. c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it. \"Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate.\" It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote. [1] http://www.realclimate.org... [2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu... [3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.geocraft.com... [5] http://tigger.uic.edu... [6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7482910752296448}, {"content": "Title: Man made global warming does not occur Content: My argument Is that man does not contribute in any significant way to global warming. This is not a debate as to whether or not global warming is happening today, it is a debate as to whether man contributes to the warming of the earth in a significant way. First round will be stating of position only. Actual debate starts in second round. Total of four rounds (three with actual debate).", "qid": 21, "docid": "c471eecb-2019-04-18T18:07:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7482613921165466}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: As Con, I will argue that mankind is indeed providing the main cause of global warming. I eagerly await my opponent's argument.", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd9128-2019-04-18T17:28:46Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7481439709663391}, {"content": "Title: Global Warming is Happening! Content: My opponent failed to respond to my arguments in ROUND 2. Though I was expecting a lively debate, I totally understand his position. It's difficult to argue with a variety of scientific evidence - collected and evaluated by renown global institutions - that point to the same conclusion: global warming is happening, and it is gradually alterning life on this planet.In ROUNDS 1 and 2 I presented evidence, collected by various atmospheric-, geographic-, and oceanic-researching institutions, that demonstrates the Earth's surface temperatures are increasing, that ocean sea levels are rising, that land and sea ice are disappearing. Now I will show the human connection to global warming. I will demonstrate that, since the boom of the industrial revolution, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide - a heat-trapping green house gas - in the atmosphere, to levels never reached before on Earth in the last 400,000 years! I will also show that, historically, whenever CO2 levels have risen in the Earth's atmosphere, it has typically been accompanied with a global warming spell - and that this link between warming and elevated CO2 levels is the current model used by climatologists to explain many prehistoric warming ages.Let's begin.Scientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [1]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [2]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [3] [4]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [5] [6]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[7].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world [8]. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [9].But with the boom of the industrial revolution, which continues to expand into and dominate new countries on a yearly basis, human-induced global warming - through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation - has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations. Never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high. As I reported in ROUND 1, ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million - and that was 300,000 years ago [10]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 396 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [11]!Nine in 10 scientists agree that human activity is responsible for today's global warming trend [12].Some skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [13]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[14]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [15].[1] [2] http://news.softpedia.com...[3] [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] [6] http://smithsonianscience.org...[7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] [11] http://climate.nasa.gov...[12] see Round 1[13] [14] [15] http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "86bf9ee5-2019-04-18T17:17:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7471742630004883}, {"content": "Title: Global warming a \"Human cause?\" Content: Debate will start off with me stating my position (In short) then the PRO will put in his/her position in short. The position should be like a quick thesis statement. My position in SHORT: Global warming is a natural process with little to no influence from Humans.", "qid": 21, "docid": "2c7b65bb-2019-04-18T18:16:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7468242049217224}, {"content": "Title: Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity. Content: Outline:Most of Pro's case is focused on CO2. I will prove that CO2 as no threatening potential, even when combined with our other emissions. In order to win, Pro must prove that CO2 is a major threat, as that is the core of his argument.Rebuttal I: CO2 Global Warming PotentialPro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things.\"Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20\u00b0F. This leaves 1.33\u00b0F left that human's are not responsible for.\"Men's emissions simply don't account for the number needed to assume the whole of Global Warming is man-made. Methane and Nitrous, as a whole, doesn't match up to CO2 emissions alone. Making up a combined 1.31% of all Global Warming, humans making up 0.113% total (1). As for F gases, they are so few that they, with all their potential, only make up less than 0.072% of all Global Warming Potential. They are all combined to form the Misc section. We see the total GWP of Misc, Methane, Nitrious, and CO2 in a visual display. Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World. I've already discussed this, and will display the chart again.GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% 1) http://www.geocraft.com...Rebuttal II: Deforestation and Indirect Emissions.I understand this argument well. I've debated it before. CO2 emissions from Deforestation is calculated into the amount listed above. Making up a pretty percent of our total emissions. Deforestation, however, isn't an issue. US forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago.(2) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting. The world replants almost every tree removed, with the UN (apart from the US) replanting 1.7 billion trees (3) and the US replanting 1.5 billion trees a year (4), the world isn't far behind it's deforestation rate. At a total replanting rate of 3.2 billion trees a year + plus ever tree planted by lumber companies. Many lumber company replants trees they cut down to ensure they always have a supply. Forests are not disappearing at close to the rate most people assume they are. It would take over 150 years for the forests in the world to be cut in half, based off US/UN replanting alone. With Lumber Companies replacement programs and all other private replantings, as well has natural Forest Growth, we may never see it at the current rate of deforestation.As for CO2 emitted by Deforestation, it's outwieghed by the amount of CO2 consumed over the lifespan of all the trees we replant. Cutting down a tree and turning it into lumber releases 1,200 lb of CO2. Ever tree we replant consumes 12,000 lb throughout it's life. This adds up, as in one year we will release 2.3 Gigatonnes cutting down trees, but the trees replanted that same year will consume 19 Gigatonnes in their lifes. A mighty profit. After the 88 years it would take to cut down every tree that is alive at this moment, we will have emitted 237.6 Gigatonnes, but the trees we replanted would have consumed a grand 661.17 Gigatonnes by then, after calculating the total consumption of CO2 every year. The first year's trees would consume 6.7 Gigatonnes by then, the next years would consume 6.67 Gigatonnes, and so on. As for ocean pollution, this is true that Ocean Pollution is a bad situation, but Pro hasn't proven that it's enough of a threat to make the Resolution true. CO2 and all it's emittions simply aren't strong enough to support Pro's case and prove the Resolution.CO2, at it's GWP, has far to go before it's a major issue. Until then, Human's aren't leaving around nearly a large enough amount to hurt the environment. Total World Emissions, including humans, only accounts for slightly above 3% of the total Green House Effect. It and every other gas Pro mentioned makes up in total 5%. If you only look at the Man-Made gases, it's only 0.555% of total effect. We know CO2 isn't that bad in the scheme of things because of how CO2 levels were around 7000 PPM in the Cambrian Period, and yet the temperature was only 10\u00bac higher, showing the CO2 doesn't have nearly the effect Global Warming Alarmists are predicting. Pro's own rebuttal only makes this more clear, as we will see.2) http://forestry.about.com...3) http://www.un.org...4) http://forestry.about.com...Rebuttal III: Global Warming Cycle.Yes, CO2 is 400 PPM now, which is pretty high compared to recent cycles, temperatures are still lower than any other warming period. This is prove supporting my case. This Global Warming Period has the highest CO2 PPM (and I never said we weren't responsible for the increase in CO2, as we are, just that CO2 isn't a huge threat) and yet it is the coldest warming period to date. This is clear evidence that CO2 isn't a threat.I already knew the charts were 50 years out of date, I was hoping Pro would notice, as the charts only proof that while CO2 rises during the warming periods, it doesn't cause the warming, otherwise we would be in the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 years. Looking at the charts again, we see that, at 400 ppm, CO2 is high, but we know Global Temperatures is 1.53\u00b0F higher than 1900 at this very moment, which makes it the coldest period. Looking at the charts, we see that the coldest warming period is about 2.2\u00b0c warming than the 1950 record, while today isn't even a forth that. \"As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever.\" -ProThis is ignorant of my arguments about how high CO2 was in the Mesozoic and Cambrian Eras. Despite the high amount of CO2, which only looks high compared to recent history, both the Cambrian and current temperatures are well under what people claim they should be. We are colder now than any other warming period in recent history, despite high CO2, because CO2 isn't that big of an issue.As for Pro's R2 points, they are mostly an Argument From Authority, from a group of people who are paid to question how humans effect Global Warming, not how Nature might also effect it.Conclusion:CO2 and all the Gases humans release do not have the power needed to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a threat. As far as numbers and data go, The mass of Global Warming we see is natural, and would happen with or without human involvememt. As said in my R2 case, CO2 has been rising since 9000 years ago, and despite high amounts of it, we still have the coldest Warming Peroid in the last 400,000 years.", "qid": 21, "docid": "70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7467924356460571}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions Content: I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions. My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming. \"Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e. g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. \" . http://timeforchange.org...From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture. \"This graph best represents what is taking place world wide. Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2\u00b0 C (3.6\u00b0 F). A warming of 2\u00b0 C (3.6\u00b0 F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now. \"The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up. What has happened recently? \"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. \" The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE. The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions. To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide. The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site. . http://www.epa.gov... Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here. Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: \"CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions\" What exactly do you mean by human emissions? For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions. None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1. I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like.", "qid": 21, "docid": "422c0992-2019-04-18T18:12:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7465912103652954}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: PrefaceI am and have been a rather staunch supporter of the position that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The question of the existence of man-made global warming is particularly serious in today's time, and is a highly controversial topic that I have, unfortunately, only debated once. Since I'm relatively free, with no debates going on, I think I shall go on with this debate. You must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept. There is a minimum required Elo score of 1,500 to vote on this debate. Full TopicMankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times.TermsThese are the resolutional definitions, all influenced from the Oxford Dictionary of English, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Mankind - the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.Probably - is likely to take place or be true.Main - chief in size, extent, or importance.Cause - the producer of an effect; a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Global Warming - the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.Below are the abbreviations that will likely be used in this debate, and are relevant to this discussion. AGW - anthropogenic global warmingCR - cosmic ray(s) TSI - total solar irradiationMWP - Medieval Warm PeriodRWP - Roman Warm PeriodSSN - sun-spot numberPDO - pacific decadal oscillationLIA - little ice ageRules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before, and new defenses).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics (e.g. \"cause\" means origin, so the beginning of Earth's warming millions of years ago, etc.) 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to whomever accepts, and to voters and readers.", "qid": 21, "docid": "70f48902-2019-04-18T14:41:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7465724945068359}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: \"The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. \"[1]Main: \"Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;\"[2]Cause: \"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. \"[3]Global Warming: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. \"[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd9128-2019-04-18T17:28:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7464184761047363}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is real and caused by humans Content: Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can\"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun\"s rays heats the Earth\"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth\"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth\"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It\"s not our fault we breathe, it\"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year\"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...", "qid": 21, "docid": "b235f67a-2019-04-18T15:13:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7460182905197144}, {"content": "Title: Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind Content: Models show that both nature and human activity contribute to the warming of this century, however, when humans are taken out of the mix, the warming trend that would occur does not match the warming that is currently happening. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... \"the main reason for warming is greenhouse gases. These are naturally occurring however in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have increased \u2013 especially CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, which come from the burning of fossil fuels, vehicles, agriculture & mining\" http://www.wnrmag.com... As mentioned \u2013 nature and human activity work hand in hand in global warming. For example, water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is natures way of keeping the earth at a stable temperature, however other greenhouse gases are rising and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. As the planet increases in temperature, more water can be held therefore also increasing the temperature \u2013 so nature and human activity work together to raise temperatures one step at a time. http://www.slate.com... As an example of how CO2 and temperature seem to go hand and hand a website is provided http://www.whrc.org... I like how you mention that it is the political argument that climate change is real and science proves that it is false \u2013 then why is it that it seems that scientists agree that climate change is real and it is the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who is altering reports from their own \"climate scientists\". http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.sciencemag.org... \"To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced. These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.\" -from the David Suzuki website. In case you didn't know, David Suzuki is the Rick Nash/Wayne Gretzky/Bruce Lee/Muhammed Ali of environmental science and causes. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. It shows said personnel admitting the science is bunk. http://www.cbc.ca... The trend of China and India and their increase in manufacturing and gas powered vehicles will exasperate the problems of air pollution. Despite progressive efforts, the global affect of a rapidly heating, changing environment, toxins affected the food chain, the oceans rising. The incomes and economics so many of rely on will change rapidly. The ecosystem we rely on is under threat and I provide the evidence to prove the conspiracy to deny the science. Quite simply there is no peer reviewed science that states human activity does not cause global warming. My opponent show the signs of a Republican fanatic who allows his thinking to be ruled by the economics and politics that is threatened by the science.", "qid": 21, "docid": "dbed694f-2019-04-18T19:38:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7458460330963135}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: \"The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. \"[1]Main: \"Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;\"[2]Cause: \"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. \"[3]Global Warming: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. \"[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd9109-2019-04-18T17:50:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7458341121673584}, {"content": "Title: are humans the cause of global warming? (pro=yes con=no) Content: i think that yes humans are a part of global warming. we pollute with trash and cars and yes i know that we are striving to fix this i'm not saying we are not. i'm just simply stating that i believe humans are the cause of global warming", "qid": 21, "docid": "10d1d2f8-2019-04-18T12:21:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7456867694854736}, {"content": "Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces?The above is as wrong as: \"anti-warmists say that humans use CO2 to make patties\"I drilling move contenent! This debate is not about geography. CO2 does not move continents, plus I never told you that. This is a strawman fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It\"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It\"s all about money.This is an irrelevent argument. Attacking someone's sources or the person making the claim insted of their arguments is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1] Plus, how does the organization working for conservation mean that the source is wrong? That is anther fallacy, called correlation is not causation. The company working for energy conservation has nothing to do with its validity, until you prove it otherwise.B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.Just because it is a rough idea does not make it wrong.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "1f15704e-2019-04-18T17:53:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7451881170272827}, {"content": "Title: Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans Content: My opponent entirely misunderstands my argument. To summarize, I am saying that the maximum possible increase in temperature caused by humans is 0.85 degrees Celsius, and that as the atmosphere as a whole increases temperature by 25 degrees, humans can only be responsible for a negligible 3.4% of total atmospheric global warming.Let me clear up a few points for my opponent:One: I do not deny that humans have caused some temperature increases.Two: I do not deny that atmospheric global warming is caused by carbon dioxide.Three: I do not deny that global warming has negative effects on the environment.Now the question arises: do any of the previous statements prove the resolution false? Of course not.The resolution does not state that humans cause no global warming at all, it states that almost all is not caused by humans. The important thing here is to keep perspective. Yes, humans have caused the temperature to rise at an alarming rate. Yes, it is caused by human industrialization. Does the amount of increase caused by humans compare to the total amount caused by the atmosphere alone? No. Let me say this clearly, because this is the most important point.The Earth's atmosphere causes a temperature increase of 25 degrees Celsius. Of those 25 degrees, humans are responsible for only 0.85, or 3.4%.I hope this clears up most of the confusion. Let's examine some of my opponent's more specific mistakes.\"since 1880, the temperaturs has increased by 1.4 celsius\"You mean Farenheit, actually. \"according to their website, they endorse the idea that climate change in our modern age is caused by humans. This turns your evidence in my favor.\"Genetic fallacy. The source of information is not related to its usage in an argument. \"Also, your argument that venus is hot because it has an atmosphere is true, but did you know that the atmosphere of venus is entirely made of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?\"Yes I did. Did you know that NONE of those greenhouse gases were put there by humans?\"Mercury on the other hand has no atmosphere yet is cold as a rock.\"Assuming that most rocks are hot enough to melt lead, of course. [1]\"to counter your claim that the sun is increasing it's radiance:\"Straw man. When did I ever say that?\"Don't you see? We're changing our atmosphere.\"Yes, but not enough so that it accounts for a large portion of atmospheric global warming.SOURCES:[1]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...;", "qid": 21, "docid": "4b594354-2019-04-18T15:15:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7450929880142212}, {"content": "Title: Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger Content: I. Natural Factors Point to Little or No Change In The Climate I. A. The SunThe sun is the main driver of the global climate. The level of activity from the sun correlates with the average global temperature. The sun is currently decreasing in activity, meaning that the warming of the 1970s-1990s will soon be erased. \"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming. \"[1] The sun can account for most of the warming experienced over the past century, and correlates well with the rising and falling of temperatures when compared to 20th century temperatures: [2]I. A.1. Solar Flux PredictionsSolar activity has been declining for a little over a decade and will continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. \"'Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second\u2014walking pace,' says Hathaway, 'That's how it has been since the late 19th century. ' In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. 'We've never seen speeds so low. '\"[19] This means that solar activity has been declining recently. The next solar cycle, number 25, is projected to be one of the lowest in centuries. [19] \"Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity \u2014 or even hibernation. \"[3] In fact, we are already beginning to experience this lowered solar activity. [5][6]This graph illustrates the recent decline in solar activity. Note the downward trend in solar activity overtime: [4]With solar activity leveling off, temperatures will go back down to normal. In addition, there will be fewer hazardous rays coming from the sun and fewer solar storms, meaning fewer disruptions to the satellite systems we rely on so heavily. I. A.2. Cosmic Ray FluxWith decreased solar activity, there is increased cosmic ray penetration of the Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays are inversely proportional to solar activity and proportional to cloud cover; and greater cloud cover means cooler temperatures. [19][10][11] I. A.3. Ocean Currents Ocean currents are the main internal drivers of the global climate. They have an R-squared correlation of 0.83, which is pretty significant (the highest score is 1). [7] Here is a chart showing ocean current's correlation to temperatures: [7] The sun is the main driver of ocean current temperatures, \"This [solar activity] is the single most important cause [of ocean currents and their temperatures]. The Sun provides the bulk of the energy which drives the circulation of water in the oceans, either directly or indirectly (through winds). The uneven distribution of solar energy across the globe (highest at the equator, decreasing towards the poles) produces an uneven heating of water in the ocean. \"[20] When plotted together, solar activity and ocean current activity correlate well (notice the decline in solar activity after WWII, and the subsequent fall in ocean current activity around the same time). [2][7][8]Ocean currents, because of the sun's cooling and because of its natural three-decade cycles of warm and cool, ocean currents are projected to cool down further than today and to continue that pattern for at least another few decades. \"Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. \"[9] Here is a graph showing ocean current's temperatures since 1900: [8]Note how all three currents are experiencing decreasing temperature trends, which, due to their current short duration, should continue for at least two more decades, and then another few decades to get back (possibly) to a peak. With decreased solar activity causing lower ocean current temperatures, the Earth will cool somewhat over at least the next few decades, albeit it shouldn't be that much. The climate will stay around normal. I. B. The 1500-Year CycleThere exists a 1500-year climatic cycle of peak-trough-peak (or vice versa) temperature cycles. \"Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials. \"[12]Here is an illustration of this cycle: [13] This warm trend is projected to continue for around a few more centuries, and then the cycle will flip into a cold pattern. [12] This warm period will help counterbalance some of the effects of a diminishing sun. As solar activity does its ups and downs, the counterbalance between the Earth and the Sun will help keep Earth's climate systems in check. The various natural factors contributed by solar activity and the Earth's 1500-year cycle point to an insignificant change in the Earth's climate. Temperatures should not be much higher or lower than they usually are on average over the next few centuries. While the sun is cooling, the Earth will continue to heat the planet somewhat until solar activity returns and we have another temperature rise. It's a rise-and-fall situation. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm PeriodA moderately warm period is better than a cold period. If the temperature is not too warm, a warm climate can have positive effects on both the Earth as a whole and on everyone. II. A. Health EffectsIn moderation, warm temperatures are better for the body than cold temperatures. People cannot get enough heat, infections are rampant, and hospital admissions will rise in the cold. From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves [coincidentally when the Earth was heating up]. [14][12] In Germany, heat waves were found to reduce overall mortality rates slightly, while cold spells led to a significant increase in deaths. [15][12] In addition, warmer weather decreases incidences of strokes, respiratory diseases, and the flu. [12]In general, life expectancies are higher in warmer climates, and there are fewer incidences of disease and other health problems. A warm period would be beneficial to human health. II. B. Economic BenefitsSome of the major industrial sectors, particularly agriculture, tend to work better in a warmer environment than they do in a cooler environment. \"The book [The Impact of Climate Change] finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors. \"[16][17]CO2 increases, a byproduct of temperature increases ([12]), naturally help to stimulate plant growth as well, further helping agriculture. \"For a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30%, while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50%. \"[18][21]This further helps humans by increasing food yields, lowering rates of starvation and hunger. Conclusion There should be an insignificant change in the climate over the next couple of centuries as the sun continues its cycles and the Earth is in a moderately warm period. In the short term, the major factors in the climate show a decrease in temperature, but the long term shows a stabilization of temperatures to a reasonably warm level. This increases humans' life expectancies and increases crop yields, reducing the incidence of hunger, thereby further aiding in the increases in life expectancies. There is no rational reason to worry about the climate going off the deep end in the near future. On the contrary, our current climatic state seems to be helping us. Sources. http://tny.cz...", "qid": 21, "docid": "243a8962-2019-04-18T17:38:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7447813749313354}, {"content": "Title: Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community Content: I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting:I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic [32]. Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming. com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side. Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are \"alarmists. \" This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary. Summary of Sources by Pro:Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive. Summary of Sources by Con:Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the \"Solar Radiation\" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted. Con's Round 1 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement heartland. org 1 N Y National Interagency Fire Center Organization Established Off Topic Daily Mail 1 (David Rose) N N Washington Post Jason Samenow N Y NPR 1 (Zac Unger) N Y Forbes 1 (Larry Bell) N N Mitosyfraudes. org 1 (Dr. Nils-Axel M\u00f6rner) Geodynamics N Newscientist. com 1 (Michael Le Page) N Y The Guardian 1 (Damian Carrington) N Neither The Telegraph 1 (Christopher Booker) N N Brutally Honest N/A N N NewsBusters 1 (Noel Sheppard) N N Market Wired N/A N cfact. org 1 (Marita Noon) N N American Thinker (2007) 1 (D. Bruce Merrifield) Y (Physical Chemistry, Ph. D. ) \u201cWhile it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the \"forcing agent\" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study. \u201d Whatsupwiththat 1 (David Middleton) N N CO2science. org 1 (Christie Shumway) 4th-grade science project N/A Nature 4 Y (Department of Agriculture; Harvard Planetary Sciences) Y blogs. nature. com Oliver Morton N N/A Journal of Geophysical Research 10+ Y (Forecasting Research and Development; University of Reading; University of Leeds) Y Nature 2 Y (Institut f\u00fcr Physik der Atmosph\u00e4re, Oberpfaffenhofen) Y Nature 1 (Olivier Boucher) Y (American Geophysical Union) Y minnesotansforglobalwarming. com Elmer N N Con's Round 2 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement badscience. net 1 (Ben Goldacre) Y (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) Off topic (discusses MMR and autism) businessinsider. com 1 (Dina Spector) N Off topic (discusses religious predictions) Nature 1 (Daniel R. Taub) Y (Biology Department, Southwestern University) Y (CO2 is the independent variable, climate change is acknowledged in introduction) climatecentral. org 1 (Tim Radford) N Neither theresilientearth. com 1 (Doug L. Hoffman) N N Daily Caller 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N icecap. us 1 (Frank Lansner) No record N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Coll\u00e8ge de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Joannenova. com 1 (JoNova) N N Shrouded in Doubt (blog) 2 (blogger and R. Dale Guthrie) N (blogger) Y (Guthrie, University of Chicago) N & Y (blogger assigns improper headline to Guthrie\u2019s work) Wikipedia Holocene Climate Optimum N/A N Off topic European Space Agency Organization Y (European Space Agency) Off topic (ozone hole) skepticalscience. com 1 (John Cook) Y (University of Queensland) Y Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 1 (Zhang, J. ) Y (University of Washington) Y (ice is declining) polarbearscience. com 1 (Dr. Susan J. Crockford) Y (University of British Columbia) Off topic (discusses Polar Bear population) Daily Mail 1 (Caroline Graham) N N The Hockey Schtick (blog) 1 (HocheySchtick1) N N sciencedaily. com reference to Nature Article 11 Y (Centre for Oceanic Research) Off topic (Oceans absorb CO2, reduces oceanic ph) Nature 10 Y (Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, University of California, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Maine) Y (The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs) OceanWorld. tamu. edu organization . . . i think so Off topic (feed iron to plankton to increase productivity) wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Bob Tisdale) N N judithcurry. com 1 (Judith Curry) N N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Coll\u00e8ge de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Con's Round 3 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given Con's Round 4 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N New York Times (blog) 1 (Andrew C. Revkin) N Neither (discusses whether scientists should have political opinions) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth\u2019s climate out of balance) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth\u2019s climate out of balance) Joannenova. com 1 (Joanne Nova) N N wattsupwiththat 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N MSNBC 2 (Ian Johnston, James Lovelock) Y (London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine) N The Telegraph 1 (Fritz Vahrenholt) N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N The Globe and Mail 2 (Neil Reynolds, Robert Laughlin) N & Y (Stanford University Physics) N Climate Depot 2 (Judith Curry, Marc Morano) N N Climate Depot 2 (Richard Lindzen, Marc Morano) Y, N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N poleshift. ning. com (blog) 1 N N truthisreason. com (blog) 1 N N . http://goo.gl...", "qid": 21, "docid": "bb913bfc-2019-04-18T17:06:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7447347640991211}, {"content": "Title: Human induced global warming exists Content: So, not saying this is the deciding factor, but PRO does not respond to my definition of my role in BOP. Therefore, all I have to do is prove his arguments false. I'm arguing that my opponent has no definite proof to say that global warming is human induced. Here's what he says: CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans. Temperatures are rising. Humans are causing global warming. There are a lot of holes in this argument. First, my opponent never responds to the THREE examples of Correlation is not Causation that I give. Therefore, one must prove every step of the way why A leads to B leads to C, etc. Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate. Let me get this clear. I do not argue with the legitimacy of his stats. My sole concern with his case is that he needs to prove it links. He has shown me no differences with his global warming argument than with the three Correlation is not Causation examples that I give. He needs to do that. Therefore, vote CON emphasize proof and reasoning. If one does vote PRO, they must be completely disregarding the fact that with the same margin of time and same increase, temperatures have risen this much before (which PRO does not respond to) and are agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent. Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link. Thank you.", "qid": 21, "docid": "ee56bf87-2019-04-18T18:01:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7439550757408142}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: \"The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.\"[1]Main: \"Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;\"[2]Cause: \"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.\"[3]Global Warming: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.\"[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7437809705734253}, {"content": "Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: He begins by saying that a significant cause does not need to be 50% or more to be important or significant. He validates this by saying \"If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed\" Yet I can similarly refute this by saying that human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all. This brings me on to the next point where the opponent asks to see the evidence. The evidence is here: http://www.geocraft.com... (the graph is near the bottom, also this is not the actually scientific article, this is a site hosting the graph) And also, I made a minor misquoting of the evidence, CO2 is 3.618% of the cause not 3.502% I apologize for the inconvenience yet the percentage is still incredibly small. Now my opponent then states that CO2 essentially acts as an amplifier for the global warming effects making the effects even worse. He warrants this with an article from realclimate.org. His validation is wrong for 2 reasons 1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified. Rather it states that the CO2 \"might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms\" Therefore the article my opponent uses directly counters his own side. The reason for this is that my opponent has the burden to prove that humans are the greatest cause of global warming. The article not only states that the changing patterns of sun shine may be a cause of GW, yet the CO2 rise is mostly due to the CO2 stored in the oceans, not humans. 2)His article assumes that there will be a significant amplification of the effects of global warming due to CO2 from the abundance of trapped CO2 in the ocean. However if he uses the same reasoning in the article to apply it to the CO2 from humans as opposed to the CO2 in the ocean, it will still not be true. The reason is that because CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%, the amplification of the effects is similarly going to be incredibly small. No where in the opponents' first two articles does it state that humans are the main cause of increases in CO2. My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions. I have 2 responses to this. 1)Human emissions are not the only variable. In the Alps, scientists have conducted research and they found that the level of water vapor increased by 4% corresponding to an increase in one degree of temperature. Therefore water vapor is another variable and there has been shown a link between vapor and warming. 2)Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming. My opponent then questions why using a democratic scale is biased. The reason is that simply saying that many scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans does not mean that it is true. What's more important is that my opponent is painting the wrong picture for you. He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true. I could similarly show you that many institutions and agencies also believe that global warming is caused by other factors not humans. MIT, JSER (backed by Japan's leading scientists), Professor Lance Endersbee, Prinicipal Research Scientist, Spencer of the University of Alabama\u2026 and the list goes on. What you see is that there are scientists on both sides arguing whether humans are or are not the cause. Therefore if there are scientists and agencies that are arguing that humans may not be the cause of global warming, we can't just assume that these scientists are wrong and these scientists are right and we must instead look to the facts behind why it is so instead of seeing the stances of different scientists. Also in response to the quote from the blog, sorry I did a cursory reading of the article and thought that the excerpt from an MIT article was actually part of the real article, so I thought it was scientific. Yet I will drop this quote in this debate. And now my opponent brings up the point of the consensus view of global warming caused by humans in these scientific articles. Yet again, there are also articles stating the opposite. The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming. Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through. He also brings up the point that consensus among scientists is more accurate than consensus among the general population however: 1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false. 2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming. Now you should vote for the negation for 3 reasons 1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls. 2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT. Therefore if he cannot show why we must agree with only those scientists, and not some others, then his second contention falls. 3)I have brought up the relevant evidence proving my points while my opponent lacks counter evidence. Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate.", "qid": 21, "docid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7436455488204956}, {"content": "Title: Global warming is not solely humans fault. Content: Thanks for letting me debate you on this. My opponent doesn't believe we humans have caused global warming. I believe we did. Here, you can see it's very likely that humans caused it. Experts said it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... \"99 percent\" is what it is, ladies and gentleman. Human activity, such as fossil fuel emissions from not-so-eco-friendly humans, agriculture, and other human-stuff has cornered our climate into the \"heat zone.\" Our atmosphere can withstand only so much smog and exhaust from automobiles, airplanes, and boats. Smoking of cigarettes can also make a small contribution. Here are some of the biggest contributors. Source: http://www.ecobridge.org... - Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants - Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars - Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes - Carbon Dioxide from Buildings - Methane - Nitrous oxide - Deforestation As you can see, these projects were introduced to the Earth by man.", "qid": 21, "docid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7434059381484985}, {"content": "Title: September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming Content: I affirm and thank 101 for this debate. == My case ==C1) Existence of a scientific consensus on climate changeThe scientific opinion on climate change is clear that mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. In fact, a survey has concluded that there are no scientifically relevant studies that provide a direct rebuttal to the idea that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [1] The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that the evidence for human-caused global warming dominating climate change is overwhelming and clear. [1] \"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.\" [2] A study by Doran (2009) found that 82% of climate scientists with a master degree or Ph.D agreed that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [3] NASA agrees, and notes that \"most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position . . . Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.\" [4] A report written by 28 scientists representing 13 governmental agencies has stated, \"The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.\" [5] C2) Human-induced increases in carbon dioxideAll scientists agree that carbon dioxide traps heat. That carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics. Excess carbon dioxide traps heat. Harries, et al. (2001) finds \"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect\" at the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide and methane trap heat. [6] The debate on carbon dioxide comes down to \"climate sensitivity,\" defined as the increase in global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. All serious skeptical scientists and supporters of global warming agree that -- in a default state -- the climate sensitivity is likely 1.1 degrees Celsius. [7] The argument is about feedbacks. What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are mechanisms -- such as clouds and volcanic activity -- that amplify or dampen the effect that carbon dioxide has on temperature. The mechanisms that amplify the effect are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are called negative feedbacks. [8] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate. Many studies agree. \"Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value.\" [9] This is demonstrated in the below graph: In simpler explanation, a feedback amplifies the effect of a forcing -- in this case, carbon dioxide. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is the \"dominant\" method in the literature, one can conclude that the average climate sensitivity is four degrees Celsius. [9] It is empirically demonstrable that climate sensitivity is at least three degrees Celsius. CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to 400 ppm -- a 40% increase. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. And temperature levels have increased precisely to this amount. [10] Below is a graph that showcases how much sensitivity different studies have found. [13] The following picture demonstrates the evidence that shows a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius. It is well-known that CO2 levels are increasing. The below graph shows a direct rise in CO2 levels. [11] Much of CO2 increase is human-induced. \"In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.\" [12] C3) Paleoclimatology suggests that mankind causes global warmingMultiple paleoclimate records suggest that CO2 has a direct effect on climate change. According to many studies, after the beginning of the Cenozoic Era 65.5 million years ago, carbon dioxide has been the dominant climate forcing. [14] The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. An ideal example of this is the Vostok ice cores. \"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.\" [15] The below graph documents the correlation between increase in CO2 concentration and rise in temperature over 700,000 years. In fact, 2014 was the warmest year since 1400, suggesting that increased human activity drives climate change. Therefore, I conclude that human emissions increase temperatures, and, thus, mankind is the main cause of global warming. == Sources ==[1]: http://www.sciencemag.org...[2]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3]: http://tigger.uic.edu...[4]: http://climate.nasa.gov...[5]: http://downloads.globalchange.gov...[6]: http://skepticalscience.net...[7]: https://mises.org...[8]: Roy Spencer, \"The Great Global Warming Blunder,\" p. 54[9]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov...[10]: https://www2.ucar.edu...[11]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[12]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[13]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[14]: http://www.columbia.edu...[15]: http://cdiac.ornl.gov...", "qid": 21, "docid": "cf5179a4-2019-04-18T14:23:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7432907819747925}, {"content": "Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster) human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels) main- primary cause- a reason for an action or condition global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded. b.) \"Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world.\" (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources. 2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases. b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.", "qid": 21, "docid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7429472804069519}, {"content": "Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: First off the arguments are not irrelevant. Second I would like to say that the fourth round will be a closing statement and no new points shall be brought up, sorry I forgot to say this in round one. Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep\"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F\"sicas, Matem\"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad\"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S\"n\"gal 10.Acad\"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science 24.African Academy of Sciences 25.Albanian Academy of Sciences 26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute 27.American Academy of Pediatrics 28.American Anthropological Association 29.American Association for the Advancement of Science 30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) 31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 32.American Astronomical Society 33.American Chemical Society 34.American College of Preventive Medicine 35.American Fisheries Society 36.American Geophysical Union 37.American Institute of Biological Sciences 38.American Institute of Physics 39.American Meteorological Society 40.American Physical Society 41.American Public Health Association 42.American Quaternary Association 43.American Society for Microbiology 44.American Society of Agronomy 45.American Society of Civil Engineers 46.American Society of Plant Biologists 47.American Statistical Association 48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 49.Australian Academy of Science 50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology 51.Australian Coral Reef Society 52.Australian Institute of Marine Science 53.Australian Institute of Physics 54.Australian Marine Sciences Association 55.Australian Medical Association 56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences 58.Botanical Society of America 59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences 60.British Antarctic Survey 61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 62.California Academy of Sciences 63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences 64.Canadian Association of Physicists 65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences 66.Canadian Geophysical Union 67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 68.Canadian Society of Soil Science 69.Canadian Society of Zoologists 70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views 71.Center for International Forestry Research 72.Chinese Academy of Sciences 73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences 74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) 75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences 77.Crop Science Society of America 78.Cuban Academy of Sciences 79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters 80.Ecological Society of America 81.Ecological Society of Australia 82.Environmental Protection Agency 83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts 84.European Federation of Geologists 85.European Geosciences Union 86.European Physical Society 87.European Science Foundation 88.Federation of American Scientists 89.French Academy of Sciences 90.Geological Society of America 91.Geological Society of Australia 92.Geological Society of London 93.Georgian Academy of Sciences 94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences 96.Indian National Science Academy 97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences 98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology 100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand 101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK 102.InterAcademy Council 103.International Alliance of Research Universities 104.International Arctic Science Committee 105.International Association for Great Lakes Research 106.International Council for Science 107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences 108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society 109.International Union for Quaternary Research 110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics 112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences 113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences 115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology 116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts 117.l'Acad\"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S\"n\"gal 118.Latin American Academy of Sciences 119.Latvian Academy of Sciences 120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences 122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology 123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts 124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina 125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic 127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka 128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers 131.National Association of State Foresters 132.National Center for Atmospheric Research 133.National Council of Engineers Australia 134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand 135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 136.National Research Council 137.National Science Foundation 138.Natural England 139.Natural Environment Research Council UK 140.Natural Science Collections Alliance 141.Network of African Science Academies 142.New York Academy of Sciences 143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences 144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences 145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters 146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey 147.Organization of Biological Field Stations 148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences 149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology 150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change 151.Polish Academy of Sciences 152.Romanian Academy 153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain 155.Royal Astronomical Society UK 156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 157.Royal Irish Academy 158.Royal Meteorological Society UK 159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research 161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan 162.Royal Society of Canada 163.Royal Society of Chemistry UK 164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom 165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 166.Russian Academy of Sciences 167.Science and Technology Australia 168.Science Council of Japan 169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics 171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography 172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 173.Slovak Academy of Sciences 174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts 175.Society for Ecological Restoration International 176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 177.Society of American Foresters 178.Society of Biology UK 179.Society of Systematic Biologists 180.Soil Science Society of America 181.Sudan Academy of Sciences 182.Sudanese National Academy of Science 183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences 184.The Wildlife Society International 185.Turkish Academy of Sciences 186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences 187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 192.World Federation of Public Health Associations 193.World Forestry Congress 194.World Health Organization 195.World Meteorological Organization 196.Zambia Academy of Sciences 197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences And military's and etc... Cant list every organization or I'd run out of room. - Graphs http://www.procon.org... http://www.procon.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.desmogblog.com... http://catefaehrmann.org... - Conclusion Ever since the Industrial Age earths temperature has been rising at an alarming rate, and we should be aware. Also You brought up CO2 in almost every paragraph. As the UN climate summit approaches, we must remember that over 50% of climate change is caused by gases and pollutants other than CO2. Like black carbon, CFC's, and etc.", "qid": 21, "docid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7426187992095947}, {"content": "Title: \"Global Warming\" is a hoax Content: While a healthy sense of skepticism is always recommended, it is unfortunately the case that the issue of Global Climate Change has become politicized and that the small amount of skepticism on GCC has been over-hyped by the various well-funded industries that don't want the government to take action with pollution and efficiency controls. When surveyed, the vast majority of climate scientists (from organizations such as the National Academies of Science) believe that human activity is to blame for the recent climate changes, though some may disagree on the severity. First, it's inaccurate to characterize the position of the pro-Global Warming/Global Climate Change crowd as believing that the earth is \"melting.\" It is their contention that human activity has finally reached the capacity (through our advanced industrial state) of being able to influence the planet's climate by throwing off-kilter the self-regulating mechanisms that keep our climate stable. Second, the sentence beginning with \"According to Accu-Weather\" is an unattributed secondhand quote from the anti-Global Warming website globalwarming.org (maintained by the \"Cooler Heads Coalition\" which is an anti-global warming front group backed by a variety of conservative think tanks and carbon industry proponents). Further, the quote does not come from AccuWeather (as it is attributed), which does not take a position on the issue of Global Climate Change; rather they provide a forum for various persons on either side of the aisle to present their cases. It's likely that the quote should be attributed to one or another of those individuals. Ignoring the source of the AccuWeather quote, measuring temperature and carbon output over the past few decades is insufficient as a much larger sample size is required to draw accurate conclusions about the nature of the climate changes we're currently experiencing. When one expands the record over millions of years (with the data we have available from ice cores and other data collection forms), it becomes apparent that we are experiencing an unprecedented warming trend, and that carbon output levels are at an all-time high. When combining instrumental temperature records for the past 150 years with \"proxy indicators\" like ice cores and tree rings, we can construct a picture of the global temperature that shows a marked increase in temperature beginning in the 19th century (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). These findings are verified by nearly a dozen other model- and proxy-based reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere. The quote \"about 80% of the CO2 from human activities was added to the air after 1940\" is also an unattributed secondhand quote pulled from a source I can't identify. The simplest refutation of it is the fact that the rise of industrialism pre-dates 1940. It's not as though 1940 was the first year a coal-fired power plant went into operation; quite the contrary \u2013 coal, for example, has been mined and burned for industrial operations since the end of the 18th century. Assuming the statistic is true; it should stand as an alarming example of how rapidly CO2 output has increased in recent decades. The period of cooling between the 40s and the 70s is attributed by many to sulphate aerosols. Not only that, but it's important not to focus too closely on CO2 given that it is estimated to be responsible for only about 25 percent of the greenhouse effect at most \u2013 there are plenty of other influential greenhouse gases and other factors that weigh in. Ironically, the period of cooling is a superb example of how much human activity can affect the climate: when chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned virtually worldwide in the 1980s \u2013 it had a striking observable effect on the phenomenon of ozone depletion. The claim about Antarctica warming is patently false. Quoting from NASA's article \"Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica\" on its Earth Observatory site: \"Across most of the continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean, temperatures climbed.\" The British Antarctic Survey concluded likewise, saying that the Antarctic Peninsula is \"one of the fastest warming parts of the planet\" in its article \"Climate Change.\" It's possible (given the other unattributed statistics and quotes) that the claim about Antarctica was taken from fiction author Michael Crichton's shoddily-researched book \"State of Fear\" in which Crichton (a global warming skeptic) misappropriated research by Peter Doran to make a similar claim. Doran publicly rebuffed Crichton (and all other Global Warming skeptics misusing his data) by saying \"...our results have been misused as \"evidence\" against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'...\". With respect to the final claim, I can find zero evidence that the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Project has found that Antarctica has cooled. Quite the contrary \u2013 instead of being Global Climate Change skeptics, the NRS's LTER recognizes the significant consequences of Global Warming, stating on its website: \"The study of Global Change is particularly important as it is now clear that human social and economic activities around the world are having an impact that can be measured at the level of the entire Earth and its atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. Human activities are probably the most rapidly changing component among the major regulators of the Earth system, and may\u2014in the future\u2014play a dominant role in the regulation of global climate, global biogeochemistry, and the diversity and stability of global ecosystems.\"", "qid": 21, "docid": "f7800a2b-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7420065402984619}, {"content": "Title: we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming Content: I believe that the public doesn't have to make big changes in lifestyle to stop global warming. These include turning the thermostat down below 72 degrees, paying a lot more money for electric cars, and paying a lot more money for electricity. In this debate, I will be arguing that either a) humans are not responsible for global warming or b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles. I would like to inform my opponent that I do think that we should make changes to our lifestyles, but not to prevent global warming.", "qid": 21, "docid": "48a73108-2019-04-18T19:04:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7415941953659058}, {"content": "Title: Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies Content: My opponent has admitted CO2 is not the chief cause in global warming, but that it has an effect. I have never denied CO2 has some effect, however I denied that it had a large one. My opponent has not negated this contention, and with it unrefuted it stands that the CO2 effect (and therefore the anthropogenic effect) is negligible, and taking a stand with green technologies would be a waste of money and effort. My opponent has also dropped my PDO argument, conceding that the natural factors cause at least \u00be of the current warming. This only leaves \u00bc of the current warming for any man-made forcing, and as stated the sun correlates better with climate. Accepting the fact that sun spot length correlates extremely well with climate, and other forgings such as cosmic rays and our position in the galaxy hint we should be warming, it leaves a small percentage of the current warming for man-made causes [1]. With this in mind, and global warming mainly a natural cycle, my opponent has failed to meet the BOP and prove global warming is man made and should be stopped. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has admitted that global warming does not exist. To be honest, I am confused by this statement. Is my opponent assuming global warming has stopped, or that it is mainly in the northern hemisphere? Regardless, it seems as though he has conceded that a global phenomena of global warming exists. I only partially agree. There was global warming in the 20th century, but the rate of warming has slowed and no warming has occurred since 1995 [1]. My opponent then continues saying he thinks warming will continue. This seems like a contradiction from his first point here. No matter, he has conceded multiple times the warming has stopped. So it seems illogical that it will keep increasing if it has already backtracked. My opponent finished by saying our data is biased. Yes, it is. The question, however, is whose bias is correct. I have given, in my opinion, a more compelling case that my bias is correct and my side on the correct side of history. Therefore, biased data is irrelevant, but whose bias is correct is relevant. And I hope the voters, and others reading, can see my bias is correct. My opponent has also dropped (and therefore conceded) that global warming does not cause hurricanes. I have provided many peer reviewed studies denying this effect, proving global warming is not a threat. My opponent has also conceded my point that global warming helps the human race (see round 1 and two). So even if warming is man-made (it is not) then why should we stop a beneficial force? 2. Global warming is anthropogenic My opponent starts with a NASA favorite: records breaking CO2 levels. However, when you look at the ice record, CO2 levels are at an all time low [1]. Interestingly, if we move the data back in time we see CO2 was breaking record in 1750 with 284 ppm, before human emissions where significant. From 1750 \u2013 1875, CO2 rose 10 times faster ten anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It took humans 100 years to catch up with CO2 emissions (new emissions, not the total. We are less then 5% of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere). The CO2 growth rate, although fast, is not \u201cout of control\u201d [2]. I would like to reiterate my sensitivity argument. Doubling CO2 would only increase temperatures by one degree Celsius. We have warmed .6 degrees Celsius (less using satellite data). We have only increased co2 35%. Therefore, CO2 likely had little effect on the current warming. Now to my opponents data: -- The first data set was irrelevant, it was before the date --The other data was far before the respected time period --Only your last data applied The last data Wikipedia cherry picked as I stated Pearson 2000 documented the carbon ppm 60 million years ago. It said ppm was actually 500 ppm, we agree, but \u201cthe oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the \"large and predictable effect\" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed. \u201d Meaning carbon dropped but temperature rose. And the drop was substantial, showing co2 is not a strong climate driver [4]. My argument was that the spike near that time increased ppm to 3000, while temperature fell. The argument has been misinterpreted. We actually agree on the carbon count, but my opponent misses the point that there is no correlation between carbon and temperature. I tried to post this in round one; it didn't work. It is the same point (so I am not bringing up anything new here), it merely makes it visual. CO2 and Global Temp. ? No correlation! And my opponent only speculates on the age of my data. If you read the source (round two, source 7) you see they used ice core data and tree ring proxies, still used in the climate debate and is a widely accepted proxy today. 3. Fighting the problem \u201cWe are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. \u201d \u2013 My opponent My opponent invests his whole argument in faith that it will improve. Although passive solar houses might be a good idea (for those off the grid), my opponents point will always fail: the sun isn\u2019t always shining, the wind not always flowing, the water not always flowing, but the pumps will keep on drilling and the nuclear plants will keep on burning. Fossil fuels should last 200 years, nuclear another 100. These estimates keep growing because we keep discovering new oil every day, not to mention some sea exploration would likely add the oil count by hundreds of years. We really don\u2019t seem to be running out of oil because we keep finding more. Either way, green energy is not a constant or reliable energy source. Fossil fuels and nuclear power is. Take that how you wish; facts vs the faith of my opponent. Conclusion: --Global warming is not man-made, stopping it would be pointless --Global warming is not harmful, and it is beneficial, why should we stop a good force? --Green energy is impractical --My opponent dropped (and therefore concedes as the truth) the: PDO, warming stopped, extinctions are not happening, the harm of global warming, droughts, and the fact that sea levels are not rising Reading the debate (I hope) and my conclusion, I believe the voters should see it logical to vote for CON. 1. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B. C. : Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 2. . http://wattsupwiththat.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.co2science.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "373bfeeb-2019-04-18T17:59:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7413740158081055}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: This is going to be one debate in a project I have devised to decide on the global warming issue once and for all - I will take the pro side in one debate, the con side in another debate, and make my decision from there.Part II - Take the side for anthropogenic global warming. Now I will defend the side I usually attack.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: \"The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.\"[1]Main: \"Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;\"[2]Cause: \"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.\"[3]Global Warming: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.\"[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd9166-2019-04-18T15:23:39Z-00007-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7412010431289673}, {"content": "Title: Climate change is real and caused by humans Content: First of all, let me apologize for not making it clear what I meant by \"climate change.\" Global warming is actually an outdated term when it comes to climate change, and most scientists and climate activists prefer to now call it \"climate change.\" Although overall temperatures are gradually getting higher, many people try to argue against the existence of climate change by referencing years when temperatures have been lower than normal. This winter has been a perfect example of this. Therefore, when I speak of \"climate change\" I am talking about the overall shift in global temperature, weather patterns, and other climate factors that we are already seeing today. Sorry for not making that clear. Because the evidence for actual climate change is unequivocal, with 97% of global scientists supporting it, I will not take most of this argument to show the evidence. The big thing we're debating is whether or not it is caused by humans. To start with evidence that climate change is happening, let me just list a few. First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past century, with a total rise of about 6.7 inches (which may not sound like much, but globally has large implications, especially if it continues.) In addition, the rate of rising has doubled in the last decade compared with the last century, showing that temperatures are rising, and rising fast. Second, temperatures have been rising since 1880, and the most warming has happened since the 1970s, with the twenty hottest years having been since then. Third, the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past several decades. Fourth, since 1950, the number of record high temperatures has been increasing, while the number of record low temperatures has been decreasing. Fifth, since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 30 percent! I will stop listing evidence here, so I can move on to why climate change is caused by humans, but I would end by reminding Con, as I said before, the 97 PERCENT OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS THEORY. Does that not mean anything? Now for some rebuttals against why Con said before. First of all to respond to what you said about how much CO2 humans release into the atmosphere compared to the amount released by the rest of the planet. It sounds like your saying that we have released 0.00022 percent of all CO2 ever released by the earth's mantle. This number doesn't have much relevance, and I will use a different one to respond. Humans currently release about 30 GT (giga-tons) of carbon each year, while the earth emits about 780 GT a year. While this may seem to show that humans aren't the problem, it actually shows that we are. Before we began emitting so much CO2, the system was in balance, with the earth and ocean absorbing the 780 GT that it emitted. This kept the CO2 level in the atmosphere between 180 and 280 parts per million for 800,000 years. With the added human carbon emission, the CO2 level is at 400 parts per million and still rising. For another rebuttal, I would respond to what you say about how significant climactic changes have happened throughout geologic time. This is true, but this does not make the climate change happening right now any less relevant. These changes in climate you speak of are called \"Milankovitch cycles\", which have to do with the periodic oscillation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and changes in earth's elliptical orbit. During each of these warming cycles, CO2 and temperature levels have risen and fallen TOGETHER. Also, the whole sun theory you mention at the end of your argument was supported not by \"a large body of scientific research\", but by one man, Wei-Hock Soon, who got $1.2 million funding from fossil-fuel companies. I will end with this: climate change is an extremely important and urgent topic that needs to be addressed by the world. People like you (and I mean no offense) need to stop arguing, using the tiniest facts to try and disprove something that is so unanimously agreed upon by scientists worldwide. If you don't believe in science, then that is a whole different matter, but if you do, I cannot fathom why you don't understand this. If we don't have a habitable world to live and be healthy on, how can we solve all our other problems?", "qid": 21, "docid": "b235f67a-2019-04-18T15:13:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7409929037094116}, {"content": "Title: Wind turbines represent a threat to the local wildlife habitat Content: Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns[i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. \u201cIs this the end of migration?\u201d The independent. 18 April 2010.", "qid": 21, "docid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00014-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7409740090370178}, {"content": "Title: Global warming Content: The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible. As the Pro side of this resolution I would like to define global warming as, \"Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming\" (www. ifdn. com/teacher/glossary. htm) \"-she would like to say I have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption. \" You are correct you have given no proof, no sources, no research, no anything that I can accept is true on your behalf. Every argument I have gotten I cannot accept merely because it was written, in poor condition and their is no proof, unless you are a new scientist that I have no heard of, I find every argument of yours is wrong. I would like to define proof as a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. (wordnet. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) I neglect to say that global warming is a theory? The whole point of this debate is for the Pro to prove that global warming is real, and not a theory. Why would I contradict myself? Do you find everything I am posting to be lose assumptions? Maybe you should scroll up to my sources. \"-over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period. \" \"As early as the nineteenth century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to global warming on much shorter time scales than the natural, cyclic fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to rise, and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some to become concerned about global cooling, and, in turn, newspaper headlines proclaimed an imminent ice age. Climate skeptics often point to that period as evidence that climate scientists are not to be trusted \u2013 warnings of global cooling back then, warnings of global warming now. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified; international programs have been organized. We now have detailed, global data sets from satellites and ever-more sophisticated instruments. Computer models, incorporating more and more data and capable of recreating past trends, can more precisely predict future scenarios. As a result, our understanding of the climate system is immeasurably stronger than in the 1970s. The National Academy of Sciences, which admitted we did not know enough to \"pose the key questions\" in 1975, now says: \"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures . .. to rise. \" (NAS, 2001) \"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. . .. We urge all nations . .. to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change. \" (NAS [pdf], 2005)\" (. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu...) Once again, I apologize for the confusion that has been caused in the first and second rounds. I strongly urge for a vote in affirmation of the resolution.", "qid": 21, "docid": "7b14c5a9-2019-04-18T19:30:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7409336566925049}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: We've decided to redo this debate since Lannan was unable to finish it earlier.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: \"The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.\"[1]Main: \"Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;\"[2]Cause: \"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.\"[3]Global Warming: \"Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.\"[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 21, "docid": "66bd9185-2019-04-18T15:07:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7409111261367798}]}
{"query": "Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8407114744186401}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A two-state solution is best for peace", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8291872143745422}, {"content": "Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous \u201cislands\u201d of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00014-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8178503513336182}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is the least bad option Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00037-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8170686960220337}, {"content": "Title: Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must Content: I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)", "qid": 22, "docid": "df3df8f2-2019-04-18T12:26:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8170522451400757}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel. Content: A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8083068132400513}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8053107857704163}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7992976903915405}, {"content": "Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00011-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7958831787109375}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7936765551567078}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. Content: For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7930846810340881}, {"content": "Title: Does Palestine Deserve autonomy Content: Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)", "qid": 22, "docid": "74054f75-2019-04-18T16:54:56Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7881907224655151}, {"content": "Title: Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution Content: Mohammed Khaku. \"The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict\". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: \"The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00046-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7865093946456909}, {"content": "Title: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution Content: There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00057-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7863422632217407}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution is the least bad option", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7854910492897034}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7842801213264465}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in support of a two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00033-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7822269201278687}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Content: Jeff Jacoby. \"Peace isn't Arab goal\". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: \"International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00059-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7791823744773865}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00022-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7783148884773254}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7766733169555664}, {"content": "Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7747628688812256}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space. Content: A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00063-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7743228673934937}, {"content": "Title: Israel and Palestine issue: Palestines future in the world map Content: Although the two-state solution is increasingly losing support among Israelis and Palestinians, it still remains the basic approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The struggle over the historical British Mandate of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, now divided between Israel, Jordan, and the territories in between, can possibly be resolved by confederative arrangements. It can be politically transformed into a trilateral confederation\"a system that combines self-rule with shared rule. It will be comprised of three distinct, independent, sovereign states: the Jewish State of Israel, the Arab State of Palestine, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and run by a Jerusalem-based confederal authority. Such a political arrangement may be the best form of government for the resolution of the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the key for a full normalization of the relations between Israel and all Arab states. This concept was first presented in 1937 by Britain\"s Peel Commission and subsequently proposed by the United Nations in the 1947 Partition Plan. Since 1993, this solution has been accepted not only by the international community, but also by Israel and the Palestinians themselves. In 2002, it was proffered by President George W. Bush as a new vision for the Middle East, and supported by the Arab League. Since President Barack Obama\"s first inauguration in January 2009, he too has been promoting this vision. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his famous speech at Israel\"s Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, spoke of a Palestinian state, albeit one with very strict limits and certain conditions. At the basis of this confederation solution is the recognition that despite the moral and historical rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael, we cannot ignore the realty on the ground: Palestinians will fight tooth and nail for national self-determination. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their destiny interconnected by virtue of the common land they live in, so they must accept that the constraints of Middle Eastern geography and demography engage in cooperation and compromise. Their historical aspirations and dreams of maximizing their territory must be compromised so that the two peoples can share the disputed land of historical Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3dc15a15-2019-04-18T17:31:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7709935903549194}, {"content": "Title: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00050-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7704853415489197}, {"content": "Title: UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution Content: Jonathan Freedland. \"Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood \u2013 and so should Israel.\" guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: \"UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace \u2013 a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution \u2013 so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00039-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7690645456314087}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00024-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7685742378234863}, {"content": "Title: Israel has no choice Content: The full text of the resolution is \"Although Israel's position in the West Bank is mutually undesirable for Israel and Palestinians, Israel has no choice in the matter, because there are no reasonable alternatives.\" Cons job will be to suggest an alternative solution that does not increase the risk of harm to Israel, Israeli citizens, or the Jewish People. This debates definition of unreasonable includes, but is not limited to, anything that results in that. My opening points assume three options for Israel: 1) Assimilate the West Bank. This would mean annexation, and full Israeli citizenship for all occupants. It seems highly unlikely that the Palestinians would agree to this, and the average Palestinian would probably reject citizenship. Even if this were not so, it would be highly unsafe to assimilate an openly aggressive population into the country. Even if this were not so, Israel would likely risk losing its Jewish majority, and be subject to an the whims of a historically unfriendly regional Arab majority. 2) Two state solution. This proposes an Palestinian state in the West Bank. The trouble with this is that Israel could not safely defend itself from its 1967 borders, and no one who could make a lasting commitment to Israeli security from a potential state will make one. Israel could withdraw to newly drawn, defensible borders, but such a move would mean annexing certain parts of the West Bank, an illegal move that would likely provoke war with neighboring Arab states without impossible-to-get Palestinian approval. 3) Population shifts. This remains illegal and immoral. Most other suggestions are subject to some of the above objections; Con will have find one that isn't refuted by them, not just unlisted. I look forward to your response.", "qid": 22, "docid": "a8b3ad91-2019-04-18T18:40:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7684926986694336}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7650964260101318}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7625231742858887}, {"content": "Title: Palestine becoming a Nation Content: I suggest that for future debates, the topic could be phrased as a question, such as \"Should Palestine be granted statehood? \" It would make the crux of the debate much clearer. From Pro's case, I can infer that we are discussing whether or not Palestine should be an independent nation from Israel. Therefore, Pro supports the two-state solution, which is essentially the idea that we should partition the entire area for Israel and Palestine, thereby creating two sovereign states. In my case, I have three substantives. Firstly, circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries. Secondly, partitioning never solves the conflict. Thirdly, decisions about statehood are rarely dependent on what is \"fair\" in a legal sense. 1) Circumstances make it exceedingly difficult to partition the countries The establishment of an independent Palestine state requires Israel to give land to Palestine, so that they can exercise sovereign power over these lands. The power of any government comes from their absolute sovereign control of their own lands - look at Afghanistan where the Afghan government has barely any control outside of Kabul. However, giving land isn't as easy at it seems. In many of the contested areas, there are Jewish settlements which are difficult to move. In other areas, there are farmlands tilled by Arab farmers. Dividing portions of land along any single line (such as the 1947 UN agreement) would unfortunately result in Israelites in Palestinian land, and Palestinians in Israeli land. Furthermore, Israel's main objection to the two-state solution is the fact that the 1947 borders causes Israel to have a small patch of land 6 kilometres wide, which is militarily indefensible. On top of that, the Gaza strip is separated from the main Palestine area, which creates problems for administration and unity for the new Palestine government. Why is this such a huge problem then? When we cannot partition lands according a neat and clear-cut line, what happens is chaos. Israelis on the wrong side will be forced to give up their possessions, and flee to the new Israel. The same will also happen for the Palestinians. Border controls would be out of the question when hundreds of thousands of people are trying to flee to another country. In fact, given the long-standing hatred between the two, it would be unsurprising to see armed soldiers firing at fleeing civilians. This would be a horrendous repeat of the Indo-Pakistan partition, where millions of Hindus and Muslims died as they tried to cross an arbitrary border which left them at the wrong side of their country. 2) Partitioning never solves the conflict The Israeli-Palestine conflict is fundamentally so complex that there is no way to say that there is a definite \"issue\" at the root of the matter. Reasons for why it is so intractable include historical baggage, religion, and geopolitics. After all, it is evident that Israel's belligerence comes from America's unconditional support for its country and independence. Given that the conflict is so deep-rooted and complex, it would be naive to think that making Palestine into a state would help to resolve, or even lower tensions between Israel and Palestine. The conflict between them runs far deeper than a mere geographical clash. For one, they fundamentally disagree on the status of Jerusalem - their claims for the city are mutually exclusive. For another, there is so much mutual distrust due to the assassinations, wars, and killings that have happened between both groups. Granting Palestine statehood would have not reduce tensions at all. In fact, I will argue that it is inflammatory, and reverses any progress made on resolving their conflict. - Giving Palestine a state without any form of negotiation with Israel would result in utter outrage from the Knesset, who see themselves as betrayed by the world in refusing to consider their opinions on the issue. Since any form of peace resolution requires both parties to compromise and agree on divergent issues together, such a unilateral move will only anger Israel and make it less likely that an agreement can be reached. - Palestine as a state would be fundamentally weak because the government would be too poor to carry out any schemes. Rich Middle Eastern nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are likely to pour funds into Palestine to help them. As foreign aid from the Middle East goes into Palestine, Israel would feel threatened by the rapid rise of Palestine, especially since they are just neighbours. We all know that a threatened Israel will do what it thinks will eliminate the threat (bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, Gaza war in 2007), so they may resume military action against Palestine even if it was an independent state. Therefore, giving Palestine statehood does not solve the underlying conflict between the two countries, and in fact is counterproductive towards the long-term peace process. 3) Statehood is not about legality This might be a difficult issue to swallow, but in the domain of international relations, the decision to grant a particular group of people statehood is not about rectifying injustices of the past, but about the present-day realities. The legality of statehood is dependent on the idea of sovereignty, which invests power over the land into the government. Yet, sovereignty is a man-made concept. After all, governments wield no 'physical' power over the land. This power is created when other governments respect your country's right to make decisions on your own land, and when you provide that respect to all other governments. Therefore, the notion that there is an objective legal basis for statehood is mistaken. Statehood is created through the mutual respect that governments give each other over the land that they are controlling. Many people argue that we should return to the borders drawn up by the UN resolution in 1947, because this is 'legally right'. Firstly, as I've already established, legality in international relations is based on customary law, rather than strict doctrinal law. Hence, UN resolutions are not the firmest basis for legality. Secondly, even if I did accept that UN resolutions are legally powerful because of the UN charter, the UN has also simultaneously recognised the intricacies of the situation and have not really pressured Israel into going back to the 1947 borders. There is an implicit understanding that those borders are now unsustainable and will only serve as a basis for negotiations. Therefore, it is not truly legally valid, and even if it was, it is not such a flagrant violation of international law for people to act. If statehood isn't about legality, then what is it about? As we saw with the self-declared independence of Kosovo, statehood is simply about global recognition of your power over a circumscribed geographical area. The US, UK, France, and other major countries recognised Kosovo as an independent state, and it has remained as such ever since. Similarly for Sudan and South Sudan, they have persisted because people do recognise their autonomy. In contrast, the Chechnyan region in Russia had always pushed for partition, but given that nobody has stepped up to recognise them, as of today they remain part of Russia. In conclusion, giving Palestine statehood is messy, bloody, doesn't solve the conflict, and not legal anyway. Side with Con.", "qid": 22, "docid": "6d80da78-2019-04-18T16:47:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7595183849334717}, {"content": "Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as \u201cJudea and Samaria\u201d. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00008-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7580950260162354}, {"content": "Title: The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear Content: The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement \u2013 i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy \u2013 and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about \u201cautonomy\u201d floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., \u2018Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations\u2019, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...", "qid": 22, "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7574137449264526}, {"content": "Title: Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con Content: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7566413879394531}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7541777491569519}, {"content": "Title: Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all Content: A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: \u201cA two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.\u201d Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.\u201d(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00017-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7536605596542358}, {"content": "Title: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible Content: Sandy Tolan. \"George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution\". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: \"The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.\" [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7506942749023438}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights Content: \"The One State Declaration\". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: \"A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00047-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7500669956207275}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7497470378875732}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7479361295700073}, {"content": "Title: Israel is the major roadblock to peace, in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Content: I agree that my wording is off. I will change my statement to \"Israel and the Palestinians/Arab countries have equal parts to have been played in the conflict so far.\" I disagree that the creation of Israel is irrelevant to today's peace making process. Understanding the history of Israel helps understand why each party is so against the other and why Israel is so afraid of the two state solution. To begin, I would like to start with a brief history of Israel, starting just before WW1. I do this because it is the major problem of conflict now. Just before World War One, Great Britain set out something called the Balfour Declaration. This Declaration pronounced England's support for a Jewish State in Israel, as the Zionist Congress had been begging for all these years. However, in the midst of WW1, England made another strange promise: It promised the Palestinians that if they helped in the war against the Ottoman Empire, they would receive their own country! This never happened and it angered the Palestinians. By the time World war two came around, nobody had bothered with the Palestinian problem. England had gotten away with making its false promise because the League of Nations was not strong enough nor its members financially able to do anything about it. The Zionist Congress lamented that they did not have their own country but were not as sore about it as the Palestinians. They had paid in blood for that country but they had not received it. After World War Two and the discovery of the Holocaust, the world knew that Israel needed to be created. They needed to be set apart due to the antisemitism that rocked Europe, despite the sympathy gained by the Holocaust. However, the Palestinians too wanted their own country, So England turned the problem over to the newly created U.N. The U.N., seeing the problem of both promises by England, and the need for a Jewish state. So they came up with the Two-State-Solution. This took the land that was to become Israel and split it in half, including the sacred city of Jerusalem. But what did they do to enforce this? The British Military forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes and sent them to the Palestinian half of the country, despite the fact that they had lived their for far longer than the British had controlled the land. While this step may have seemed to be a necessary component to the Two-State-Solution, it had disastrous effects. Not only were the Palestinians enraged, but so were many Arab countries. So, the day after the first Israeli flag shown upon the land, 6 Arab nations attacked the infant nation. Fortunately, the Israelis were able to fend off the attack and secure their country, but they lost vast pieces of land to the enemy- the Two-State-Solution had just been shattered. As time went on, truck bombs, skirmishes, and harsh words were passed. In the late 1960's, the six day war occurs. Here the Egyptians began preparing to attack Israel and had blockaded the straight of Tiran. Israel preemptively attacks Egypt, overwhelming the Egyptian forces and taking large quantities of land. The war becomes regional and Israel defeats the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. After this more and more battles are fought, another war in the 1970's proves Israel lives in fear of attack at all times. Palestinians continue attacking the Israelis with futile terrorists attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org... Just to skip into the future now, it has been known that every time Israel makes a peace deal, it is taken advantage of. When the Gaza Strip was given to the Hamas, they used it as a place to shoot rockets into Israel! While Israel is also at fault for many things that have gone wrong in the past as well as inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, they have a reason for their actions. They live in fear of attack by their enemies and it seems that with every foot they give, they lose more lives.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8f77a64e-2019-04-18T17:07:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7476356029510498}, {"content": "Title: Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable Content: Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7474077939987183}, {"content": "Title: The United States should support Israel Content: You're right in saying that the middle east will have tension regardless but as the United States we should act as a mediator and listen to both sides because they are both wrong in some ways (Palestine with the rockets and Israel with the killing of civilians and occupation). Israel has also bombed UN humanitarian centers so to consider that Palestine is the only aggressor is absurd. There should be a cooperation from both sides to form a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live equally in peace. Even though this won't end tension in the middle east I would at least help.", "qid": 22, "docid": "ab2d0901-2019-04-18T14:59:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7472106218338013}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00012-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7470654249191284}, {"content": "Title: A two-state conflict will not end conflict Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00039-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7452175617218018}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state Content: While it is nice to believe that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principals of inclusion, while nice, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00036-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7451631426811218}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution is best for peace Content: Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: \u201cEstablishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.\u201d(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated \u201cIn the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.\u201d(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel\u2019s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: \u201cI plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.\u201d(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, \u201cThe Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.\u201d(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7449542284011841}, {"content": "Title: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable. Content: A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00055-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7444438934326172}, {"content": "Title: A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions Content: One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times. The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a \u201cRight of return\u201d to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme. Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7441787123680115}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.742668628692627}, {"content": "Title: Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles Content: Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7409402132034302}, {"content": "Title: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish Content: As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00009-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7407051920890808}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS) Content: The con notes that his sources are in the comments, however, the rules state that sources must be posted IN THE DEBATE. As the sources were not posted in the debate, the sources should be disregarded as such. Contention 1: International Law The Con claims that this convention doesn't support the resolution, however, this intention is meant to serve as inherency and provide the reason as to Why BDS is necessary.The con then argues that since the Sinai was returned to Egypt in the Camp David Accords in 1973, that, therefore, the West Bank should be returned to Jordan as it was under Jordanian Control in 1967. This concept, however, is simply illogical, given that in the Jordan-Israel Peace Agreement, signed in 1994, Jordan recognized the West Bank as Palestinian Territory under Israeli occupation [1].The 3 No's of the Khartoum Resolution of 1967, which the con cites, were effectively the policy of the Arab League, until 2002. At the 2002 Beirut Summit, Saudi Arabia proposed the Arab Peace Initiative which proposed a two-state solution and a path to normalized relations with Israel. This proposal is a clear break with the Khartoum Resolution, as it not only endorses peace but endorses eventual recognition and fully endorses negotiation [2]. Additionally, this proposal would meet the demands of BDS.The Con notes that Israel has offered some land for Peace on three occasions. He claims that BDS is, therefore, irrelevant because Israel has offered land for peace, however, BDS is not demanding this, BDS demands a complete end to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, ie the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This has never been offered by Israel, and therefore BDS is necessary.The Con cites the disengagement from Gaza, however, fails to link this to the demands of BDS.As to the first question posed by the Con, BDS expects Israel to act under the pressure placed on it and understand that it can relieve the pressure by submitting to the demands. Security assurance would come in the form of ending the cause of terrorist attacks, ie the occupation. As to the Second question, the Palestinian government was right to reject the proposals as they did not provide a just peace settlement which would include the right of return, the end of the occupation and the complete withdrawal from the West Bank. If a deal does not meet your requirements it should, therefore, be rejected.Additionally, the Con has not responded to the violations of the 4th Geneva convention or the findings of the International Court of Justice. Contention 2: South AfricaThe Con concedes that a similar BDS campaign succeeded in South Africa but then argues that US sanctions on North Korea have been a failure and therefore BDS will not necessarily be successful. However, this example fails as while the US and Europe conduct a great deal of business with Israel, just as they did with South Africa, the US and Europe have never conducted any significant amount of business with the DPRK and thus any sanctions placed in it would be unsuccessful as a result. It also fails as while the goals of the on Sanctions on the DPRK are meant to isolate and punish an enemy nation, and weaken and destabilize a nation. Meanwhile, the Boycott of South Africa and BDS are intended to change specific policies of the nation in question. Contention 3: BDS\u2019s successThe Con responds to arguments about Soda Stream, however, I never argued that BDS caused Soda Stream to withdraw from the West Bank. The Argument I made was about the British security firm G4S. Given this, the Con has still failed to respond to this argument. Anti-SemitismThe con claims I conceded Israel is the best country for human rights in the middle east, however, I made no such statement. Rather I contended that Israel is in violation of multiple international agreements and UN resolutions and that these issues must be addressed and BDS is a way to address them. The con alleges I am applying a double standard however the standards being applied are UN resolutions and International law, and because of Israel\u2019s failure to abide by these resolutions and other international agreements despite having 49 years to do so. Because of this BDS is necessary.The issue of Hamas comes up again in this round. The con makes several claims about Hamas, the Hamas Charter, the Palestinian leadership, Fatah, Khaled Mashal and myself in this argument, however, this argument, as I have previously pointed out, is in no way relevant to this debate. By continuing this line of debate the con has demonstrated a lack of respect for the rules of this debate which explicitly prohibit trolling. As the Con\u2019s goal is clearly to force me to waste characters responding to this irrelevant argument. Because of this, the Con is ineligible to get any points for conduct.The Con acknowledges that he cannot give any evidence showing that BDS promotes hatred of, or discrimination against Jews, and then claims that it would be wrong to expect this, however, this statement is simply illogical as it contradicts the entire concept of the burden of proof, which is shared in this debate. Due to the lack of any evidence, the Con instead relies on association fallacies to support his claim, however, association fallacies by definition do not justify allegations such as those made by the Con.The Con mentions Omar Barghouti, claiming he is the founder BDS, however, while Omar Barghouti is not the founder of BDS. Omar Barghouti was a founding member of the Boycott national committee, BDS itself had no single founder and was founded by 170 Palestinian political parties, trade unions, NGOs and other organizations representing Palestinian civil society [3]. Moreover, the Con fails to show how this supports his claim that BDS is anti-Semitic. Palestinian EconomyThe Con\u2019s argument in round 4 relies on an ad hominem and does not actually respond to the World Bank\u2019s findings. He claims to provide a source, however as it was not posted in the debate, as the rule require, the source provided is not considered part of the debate. ConclusionIn this debate, I have shown that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law and that boycotts have been successful in the past, as in South Africa. I have also shown that BDS is itself has demonstrated success. I have thus met the burden of proof. The con meanwhile has relied on red herrings, ad hominems, and strawmen to support his claims. He has not met the burden of proof and has shown a complete disregard for the rules. The arguments he has made themselves have lacked overall consistency.At the end of this debate, I can only see a full 7 point vote for the Pro.The Resolution is Affirmed.Vote Pro Sources1. http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo...2. http://www.jcpa.org...3. https://bdsmovement.net...", "qid": 22, "docid": "68b04236-2019-04-18T12:57:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7406151294708252}, {"content": "Title: Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution Content: A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00015-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7399855852127075}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00019-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7395145893096924}, {"content": "Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: My opponent will be arguing communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I will be arguing that it is not. Since my opponent did not provide definitions, I will: Communism: 1. ) A theory advocating elimination of private property 2. ) A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Logical: 1. ) Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument: \"a logical impossibility\". 2. ) Characterized by clear, sound reasoning. Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The ongoing dispute between the Jewish and Arab populations in the former Ottoman Empire region of Palestine, consisting of the state of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip (. http://www.chegg.com...) I look forward to my opponent's opening argument.", "qid": 22, "docid": "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.738877534866333}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7387445569038391}, {"content": "Title: Isreal has a Right to Exist. Content: The DDO tutorial states; \"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions. \" No where there does it say i have to accept anything. Indeed you are confusing my responsibilities with your own. You may \"give context\", but this doesnt make me honour bound to accept your deliberately manufactured context. I claimed, \"It could be, and in this case was bent by not recognising Palestine, its independence until a separate state had been set up within its boarders. \" My opponent said \"But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. \" That is actually incorrect. Your own timeline shows this. \"the British government proposed the Transjordan memorandum, which split the Mandate for Palestine between the Jewish Palestine, and the Arab Palestine. Transjordan was to be semi independent, with the goal of eventually obtaining complete independence. \" So they granted independence to a country by forcibly splitting it up into two peaces. This strongly implies that Palestine was not allowed to self govern previously, perhaps it was a British vassal. \"On May 25, 1946, the British Granted independent to Trans-Jordan, making Jewish Palestine the only Palestine in the Mandate for Palestine. \" \"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations passed resolution 181, which the Arab community rejected and was never implemented. Resolution 181 was intended to split Palestine in 2 trust territories, 1 with an Arab state, and 1 with a Jewish state. The Arab community was outraged, and the plan was never implemented. \" Outrage is such a weak word for mandatory secession enforced by an external country or group of countries. No wonder it didn't work. In response my opponent states: \"But a separate state was not set up in it's borders, a Militant organization known as PLO declared ownership of the established sate of Israel and the claims of PLO was never recognized. \" And I remind my opponent, that delaying recognition of a country in the UN does not change the fact that this country exists. He then says \"The PNA was not created until the Oslo Accords which was when Israel affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government, in Gaza and the West Bank; Israel still holds all authority not delegated to the PNA, in Gaza and the West bank. \" But I remind him that as Israel was made from Palestinian territory but never formally recognised by Palestine it doesn't have the legitimacy to do any of those things. Believing this is an appeal to the authority of Israel. If you did not make this appeal to authority, then you could not believe Israel exists and most likely renders the whole affair as a civil war or partied given ascension by the UN, US, Britain or any other country that was involved in this attempt to defraud Palestine. Also, previously i left a video implying you were judge dread. Irrespective of the credibility of such a statement, it was an Ad hominem fallacy. But the fact that were unable to recognise that demonstrates that you have not learnt critical thinking. Which implies you are disputing something without actually understanding it.", "qid": 22, "docid": "b7b9ca0a-2019-04-18T18:40:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7369169592857361}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00062-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7364441156387329}, {"content": "Title: Palestine becoming a Nation Content: These are my main rebuttals: 1) Many people voted for the UN resolution to upgrade Palestine to the observer state status - Pro has conceded his substantive argument that we should give them statehood due to historical grievances. Pro agrees now that it should be based on consent with countries. - Factually speaking, your example is incorrect. The vote was whether to upgrade Palestine from observer entity to observer state. While this may seem like a huge jump, the other observer state is the Holy See (Vatican City), which frankly isn't an independent state. - Pushing for full membership was stopped by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who said that Palestine needed UN Security Council approval to clarify its statehood. Given that US holds a veto in the UNSC, giving Palestine statehood is unlikely to materialise. - It also matters who recognises your cause. Given that Israel (her neighbour) and the US (the dominant world power) do not recognise Palestine's claims to statehood, this means that even with substantial international support, statehood might not be 'legally' given anyway. 2) Israel doesn't want to negotiate on statehood - Fair enough, so it's Israel's fault. Today's debate isn't about Israel's responsibility in the conflict though. - Furthermore, if Israel has been unwilling to negotiate about it at all, it surely shows they are fundamentally opposed to it. Therefore, unilaterally giving Palestine statehood would simply anger Israel, flare up tensions, and destabilise the region. Hence, Israel's unwillingness to negotiate statehood proves my point about how pushing through statehood is counter-productive. 3) Jewish settlements aren't a big issue - This isn't factually true. Look at this picture: http://cdn.static-economist.com... - When these settlements are right in the middle of the West Bank, which is the land \"given\" to Palestine under the 1947 resolution, how can Palestine form an effective governance that excludes these Jewish settlers? - In any case, there are no Arab settlers in Israel. Therefore there isn't a way to 'swap' land either. Now, I'll go on to detailing my alternative in this debate. There is no alternative to diplomacy and negotiation. Statehood for Palestine can only follow from mutual agreements between Israel and Palestine. When we talk about statehood, we are not merely concerned with the legality or possibility of establishing today's statehood. In fact, the Palestinian Authority can simply step up and say they declare themselves as a sovereign state today, and people might agree with that. But the real question today is: can this statehood last? There are two reasons why it won't. Firstly, Israel will simply invade Palestine (again). It did so against Gaza in 2007 when tensions with Hamas ran high. It has done so for the past few decades. Simply put, Israel's top priority is the protection of her national security. Declaring statehood would pose a threat, since anti-Israel plots may be hatched without the Palestinian government attempting to stop them. Hence, Israel would simply invade and crush a rather defenceless Palestine. Hundreds of lives lost, thousands more disrupted; is this really what we want to do to Palestine? Secondly, even if Israel doesn't invade Palestine, there is no way that the Palestinian Authority can exert influence over a crucial area: the Gaza strip. Currently, Gaza is being governed by Hamas, which is a militant group bent on eradicating Israel off the face of the map. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority is more peaceful and has sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict. There is no way the PLA will be able to convince Hamas to lay down its arms and act as a peaceful government for the region. Therefore, once Hamas attacks Israel, this will constitute an act of war, and so Israel will now have legitimate reason to invade Palestine. Therefore, since statehood won't last in the long term from a forced attempt to give Palestine statehood, how will a negotiated solution allow it to survive? This is because the crucial factor determining Palestine's long-term survival is support from Israel. Palestine is defensively in shambles, and economically weak, making it a simple target for Israel to eliminate. Unless Palestine convinces Israel to support her rather than repeatedly undermine her, Palestine will never have any stability in her region. Even if Pro argued that foreign countries can send military aid or help to Palestine, this will merely exacerbate the conflict as more soldiers enter the West Bank and threaten Israel's national security. Ultimately, Palestine will become a chessboard for other governments to engage in a proxy war over the Middle East. The only losers in this conflict will be Palestinians, who are again trapped with nowhere to go. Since Israel's support and agreement is fundamental to Palestine's long term stability, and negotiation is the only way to achieve it, therefore it follows that negotiation is the best and only solution that Palestine should adopt if she wishes to gains statehood and keep it in the long run.", "qid": 22, "docid": "6d80da78-2019-04-18T16:47:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.734383761882782}, {"content": "Title: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state Content: Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state.\" [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00048-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7341511845588684}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00035-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7339348196983337}, {"content": "Title: Why do so many say Israel doesn\"t need to be a Jewish State Content: Hello sorry was bit busy over last 24 hours. You posted a good argument though I just want to point a few things out. I totally support a two State solution and even don\"t care let the Arabs have Jerusalem if that brings peace. But Jews need a homeland and while I agree errors were made in 2948 the seed is done and 6 million Jews aren\"t going to leave now. As a Jew myself I feel that with huge waves of anti semitism across the globe Jews can\"t just exist as minorities in Christian or other countries and also Palestinians are playing a game where by they are trying to claim Israelite heritage and take our history away. All in all so many issues here:( Also a one State solution would just make the Jews a minority again and could cause intermarriage to happen something we Jews don\"t approve of.", "qid": 22, "docid": "da1af4bd-2019-04-18T11:43:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7336803078651428}, {"content": "Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: Opponent's case: 1. My opponent has defined the boundaries of \"Palestine\" as the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and all of the remaining land of Israel commonly recognized as the nation of Israel and \"occupied territories\". He omits the Sinai Peninsula which was returned to Egypt, as well as current day Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan moreover Land across the Jordan River) as they are already predominately occupied by Arabs. He states that he does not advocate taking from the Jews. He does advocate for two separate entities; Israel & Palestine. Many people have shared this view and have given it the moniker \"TSS\" short for two state solution. There have been many such proposals since Israel's declared statehood in 1948. It seems quite simple to the outsider to say something to the effect of: \"Okay, Palestine, you may form your own government and you may have the following properties. Israel, you may also have a government and the rest of the property. Please live peaceably together forever and ever\". Unfortunately it is not that simple. David ben Gurion said that he would settle for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist. The Arabs have never recognized the Jews right to exist. It seems a small price to pay to get what they say they really want. \"Okay Israel, we the Arab \"Palestinians\" do hereby recognize you as an official Jewish state\". No dice! Well then, Israel, you must surrender the Gaza strip, the Golan Heights, all of the West Bank including the Temple Mount and your capitol, as well as everything else you claim was given to you by God or the League of Nations. Pack up all your stuff and move to Brooklyn\". If both sides would agree to a two state solution, how does my opponent propose that the land be divided? Would he say that the \"Palestinians\" should have all of the West Bank? We don't need a crystal ball to tell us that out of spite, the \"Palestinians\" would disallow the Jews to visit places such as Bethlehem and Jerusalem. They would not allow Jews to visit the Temple Mount which is their holiest site. The intent of the League of Nations was to make Israel a home for the Jews and Jordan a home for the \"Palestinians\". That gives us a two state solution. Jews would be welcomed in Israel, Arab \"Palestinians\" would be welcomed in Jordan. Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none. C-2: My opponent feels like Israel stole some land, kicked the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. Why did the League of Nations choose this particular spot to send the Jews to set up and restore their own nation? Since history tells us that Abraham was originally from Ur, which is in present day Iraq, why didn't they say, Israel, go set up in Iraq? That's where Abraham was from, go set up over there. Or, since the United States is your buddy, maybe they will give you all of Brooklyn, or maybe even New Jersey. That didn't happen either. Theodore Herzl suggested that the Jews go to what they considered home, the Promised Land, the land of Caanan. It's really hazy to even refer to the land as \"Palestine\". The Romans called it \"Palestine\" as an insult to the Jews. I will address Biblical matters further in C-3. Suffice it to say that religious faith does in fact play a role in this. As my opponent has conceded, Israel has endured a number of oppressions throughout their history. If they were given the opportunity to establish a government for themselves, how much sense would it make to allow for more oppression? Get real! C-3: While it is convenient for my opponent to reject both the Bible and the Qur'an, they do in fact play a huge role. The Bible, particularly the books of the Jewish Talmud, explain why the Jews felt they were entitled to all of this land. The Qur'an plays an equally important role for the Arabs. To say they have no basis in history is absurd. At my opponent's request, I will address his argument of Zionist takeover. I visited the source he provided for us to read. It is clearly a propaganda site dedicated to pulling at the heartstrings of those sympathetic to the \"Palestinian\" cause. I too could easily conduct a \"copy-paste exercise\" from web sites of equally opposing views. What my opponent presented for our reading pleasure was simply the opinion of an extreme Zionist. Many other Zionists advocated the intent of aliyah in a peaceful manner. Much of the land in question was actually bought with money as a real estate transaction. The Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were won in a war. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip and now it is full of Hamas terrorists who like to attack Israel. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria. Another terrorist group, Hezbollah, would love to be there. That would enable them to launch rockets at Israel from a closer range. While it isn't prudent to label all \"Palestinians\" as terrorists, it is equally prudent to keep them at a distance based upon their past unreliability in regard to living peacefully next door. Thanks", "qid": 22, "docid": "6cca92f3-2019-04-18T19:16:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7326474785804749}, {"content": "Title: Only a one-state solution can end the conflict Content: It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: \u201cWe are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.\u201d(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7319046258926392}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. Content: MJ Rosenberg. \"Loving The Two-State Solution to Death\". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: \"we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00060-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.731570839881897}, {"content": "Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: Thank you for your response. \"My answer to your first point is that diplomacy is completely useless in this situation because the Palestinians have 0% interest living with the Israelis, and the Israelis have 0% interest in living with the Palestinians.\" Although there are huge problems on both sides of the conflict, I don't believe that mass genocide is the only option to solve the middle east conflict. Diplomacy is the only acceptable long term solution, which both parties will have to undertake. \"proportion is no longer relevant because Israel is fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing civilians to win, so Israel can't either.\" Proportion is absolutely relevant, and key to the justification of the invasion action of Gaza. The fact that terrorists are attacking civilians in Israel does not give the justification to take reprisals against an entire Palestinian population in return. Just as (I'm not going to go to much into this) if an Iraqi terrorist attack an American citizen it does not give America the right to wipe out the entire Iraqi population. You have to concede that the vast majority are innocent of any crimes. \"They hide in homes loyal to them, making the people they hide with just as culpable as them.\" Can you please provide any evidence to back up this statement? The Palestinian population often suffer when Hamas militants break in and commandeer their building to fight. This does not make them culpable for the actions of the militants. There are plenty of examples of people loosing children and family while these people also denounce Hamas. [1] \"This is a misleading example, because that's not what is happening\" Again can you please provide evidence for this statement. I have provided evidence that shows your statement to be false. Many of the people who have died are in no way allied to Hamas, simply bystanders caught in the conflict. \"You quoted AL JAZEERA as evidence\" Are you disputing the casualties involved in the conflict? I also provided links to two other sources. Your denouncing of Al Jazeera seems fairly irrelevant in this light. \"And then you said that Israel is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath. This is yet another fallacy. All Palestine has to do is throw the people who keep trying to start wars with Israel out, and this will all be over.\" This is similar to saying in a war, if one side simply surrendered then then atrocities would never have happened, therefore the atrocities are the fault of the victim. This does not justify the actions of Israel and the humanitarian crisis they created. \"Don't act like this is a one-sided conflict.\" I'm absolutely not acting like this is a one sided conflict, and I agree that it's a very difficult situation, with no clear answers on both sides. However we aren't debating the entire conflict, rather the actions of Israel in the specific invasion of Gaza. My opponent has in no way demonstrated how the response from Israel was proportionate or reasonable, and as defined in the opening argument justifiable. He has tried to say that the Palestinian population is responsible for their own mess, and the blame should be attributed to them. I reject this statement because the Palestinian population on the whole is largely innocent, and shouldn't be subject to the humanitarian crisis and deaths as a result. [1]-http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": 22, "docid": "46b8e7f6-2019-04-18T19:31:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7294793725013733}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00031-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7289661169052124}, {"content": "Title: Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides Content: Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also na\u00efve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00010-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7273340225219727}, {"content": "Title: Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan Content: This is more of a debate on an idea I have and would like someone to find any flaws in, in which case I can come up with solutions to these problems. If I can then I win, If I can\"t find solutions, or a reason why It wouldn\"t necessarily make my plan not work, then Con wins. I believe that the solution to the problem with Israel and Palestine is a one state solution. This one state of ________ (I don\"t have a name) would be a region of unity for all who reside within its borders. First off I would suggest that the government of Israel and the organizations that fight them, be disbanded. There would be no all Jewish, Muslim, or Christian government in the country. Secondly, there is to be no walls, gates, or any other restrictions of where people can\"t go based on their religion, all are to be able to work, live and settle down where they wish.(with the exception of 3 small cultural areas that will belong to the religious communities for special rituals that my offend those who don\"t practice the religion)Thirdly there would be mandatory multiple cultural awareness classes in the public school systems, to learn how all of the cultures can live in peace without offending the each other. The government would have a 4 party system; each party would be run by the 3 main religious groups of the area, and one for those who aren\"t in those groups. (Muslim, Jewish, Christian, other) Each of these parties would have an equal number of delegates (50) so no religion has more power in there parliament then the others. Each Member of Parliament will be at least 35 years old and elected by the members of their religions populations, with laws protecting the individual voters. Each person who runs for election should have at least a public education provided by the nation to all, as well as 4 years of college in politics, and or law. Anyone who gets elected can be reelected as many times as the voters want them, but elections happen every 2 years in case there is a bad politician. To satisfy those who feel the majority of the population should have the most say in the government, they will have that chance every 3 years when the top leader is elected, anyone can vote for this person. You may ask how to tell which religion the people are? The civilian population will have to fill out a mandatory census that will be turned in with the yearly taxes. Any law that comes to the parliament would have to have a 65% vote to pass into law. The high leader will have no power over the laws for civilians that Parliament passes, but will be able to halt and put new plans onto the table for potential laws that involve national resources, military/defense, and foreign affairs. The high leader is the only one who can declare war. She/he can decide which members of the Parliament can be sent for peace talks with other nations. The 3 cultural zones I mentioned earlier will be the only place that the churches officially own; these places will be the places were all must follow the customs and \"dress code\" that the religions require. This plan will keep the people such as the Muslims from feeling that the Jewish had invaded the land and made it to where they are no longer welcome, the Jewish can have a nation where they are not discriminated against, and the Christians and other religious believers aren\"t just being brushed under the rug, the Muslims will have a big say in the government, and the State of Israel would no longer be in existence, that would get rid of a huge problem with many pro Muslim terror groups that have sworn that they wouldn\"t stop fighting as long as they exist, and do to the fact that the religions are now working together, as equals, there would be no need for the people to fight,(besides antiracial tendencies that are every were in every nation, and those who hate each other because of history, in which to help them get over it and calm down the leaders that are now in power for all terror groups, and the Israeli government must go on trial for the crimes against humanity that they have committed. And with time, after the people who lived through and seen what these people did to each other have died and the new generations that have been near each other their whole lives are controlling the nation, then may be able to put their history behind them. I must remind those who read this that this plan is not meant to change the cultures of the people in the region, and there would be problems along the way, just as there is and always has been, for creating a new government, this is to say that I would like my opponent to prove that this solution wouldn\"t work and the entire system would fail if it was attempted. Thank you to whoever helps me out with finding the bugs in this plan. Even though I know this won\"t happen in real life, (just because I think it should happen) I still think it would be fun to have a realistic peace plan when the heads of the world leadership can\"t figure one out.", "qid": 22, "docid": "be07bde7-2019-04-18T15:48:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7265664339065552}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00016-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7265628576278687}, {"content": "Title: The US Should Have Vetoed UN RES 2334 Content: PositionMy position on the issue should be quite obvious.I agree with the choice made by America to abstain on Resolution 2334 (I would even argue that they should have voted in support of the resolution).ReasoningMy reasoning should also be quite apparent: Israel is currently violating multiple U.N. resolutions as well as an article within the Geneva Conventions by settling (and occupying) Palestinian land. No country should be allowed to violate international law. Continuing to occupy Palestine will further increase tensions between the two states, further weakening a future hope for peace. This further hurts Israel (as well as Palestine) because a state of war will exist for a longer period of time, and clearly a prolonged war would cause even more suffering and misery for the citizens of both states. With as little research as I have put into this topic, this is my current position and reasoning. Please try to persuade me out of it; I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say in opposition.", "qid": 22, "docid": "c5067c3f-2019-04-18T12:33:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7265413999557495}, {"content": "Title: General statements in support of a two-state solution Content: US special envoy George Mitchell: \"In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7250820398330688}, {"content": "Title: Why do so many say Israel doesn\"t need to be a Jewish State Content: Fiest thank you for welcoming me very kind of you. Ok as to my views I\"ve seen many say things like Israel needs to get over itself and doesn\"t need a Jewish majority etc. Well the history of hate towards Jews in Europe and elsewhere plus the fact Arabs and Islam would become the dominant religion and people of say a one State sure solution was brought to the conflict means a Two State Solution needs to be found. Sadly Netanyahu and Abbas aren\"t the men to achieve that. So my argument is essentially Israel needs to remain a Jewish State.", "qid": 22, "docid": "da1af4bd-2019-04-18T11:43:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7239221334457397}, {"content": "Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: We're almost at a stalemate, not dissimilar to Israel & Palestine. The Palestinians think that the Jews have no right to the land making their presence unjust. The Jews think they do have a right to the making their presence just. In both their eyes, they both believe that they are valid and just. While my opponent feels I haven't disproved the resolution, he hasn't proven it. Our personal opinions and preferences are irrelevant.", "qid": 22, "docid": "6cca92f3-2019-04-18T19:16:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7238165140151978}, {"content": "Title: 1967 Arab aggression doesn't justify Israeli annexation. Content: The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. And yet supporters of the status quo seem to think that one bad act justifies another bad act in return.", "qid": 22, "docid": "f7127a7c-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00030-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7231349945068359}, {"content": "Title: Palestinians should give up their quest for the land of Israel Content: First of all, the question is inappropriate. Most Palestinians want not to reclaim Israel, but to have a Two State System. The only regional opposition they have in the desire to create a Two State System is Israel. Israel encourages illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank for the sole purpose of cantonising the region so as to negate the possibility of an independent Palestinian state. These settlements are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are continuing to this day. President Benjamin Netanyahu said 'I have no intention of building new settlements in the West Bank... But like all the governments there have been until now, I will have to meet the needs of natural growth in the population. I will not be able to choke the settlements'. This seems eerily similar to this argument used by one who could hardly be described as a friend of Israel... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Palestinians ARE the righteous owners of the land anyway. They had inhabited it as a minority before the expusion of the Jews, and after as a majority. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Jews were merely vacationing, and the land that was owned by their ancestors who had lived two millennia ago is theirs. The Palestinians managed to coexist with the Jewish population in Palestine peacefully, as they did across the Islamic world. Persecution of the Jews was a European construct, so as a solution to it, the Europeans decided to dedicate a portion of their illegally obtained Empire (this particular portion had been owned for less than thirty years by Britain), and sell the people that lived there down the river in favour of people whose only justification was that their ancestors lived there in antiquity. By that logic, the Native Americans should control the full region of the Americas, Aboriginal Australians should control Australia, and the Parsi should control Iran. Its existence is illogical, and based on a mixture of colonial racism and neoclassical and biblical sympathies, rather than concern for the future of the Jewish people. In fact, I would venture to say that the number of wars Israel has been involved in since its founding, Jews in Israel are statistically more at risk there than they would have been should they have remained in Europe. Also, with regards to your comment that the Palestinian people kill innocent civilians to achieve their quest for Israel, you appear to be in complete ignorance of the statistics. Breakdown of Deaths on either side since 2000. Chilren Israeli - 129 Palestinian - 1,519 Other Civilians Israeli - 1,104 Palestinian - 4,226 (bodies located and recorded as deaths, though many more are missing) People Killed in the Course of Targeted Killings Israeli - 1 Palestinian - 408 (Minimum estimate) People Killed as Object of Targeted Killings Israel - 1 Palestinian - 238 People Injured by the Other Side's Actions Israel - 9,104 Palestinian - 50,742 Political Prisoners and Detainees Israeli Prisoners - 0 Palestinian Prisoners - 4,900 Homes Demolished by the Other Side Without Consent Israeli Homes - 0 Palestinian Homes - 27,000 Number of Illegal Settlements on the Other Side's Land Israel - 269 Palestine - 0 Number of Illegal Settlers on the Other Side's Land Israeli Settlers - 350,150 Palestinian Settlers - 0 Source - http://www.ifamericansknew.org... The website has information about the individual sources, the Israeli statistics come from the Israeli government, and the Palestinian statistics are based on estimates by several reputable charities and groups operating in the region. In light of these statistics, it is a far more reasonable argument that Israelis should give up their quest for the land of Palestine, since Palestine hardly seems to be expansionist. The door is open to you.", "qid": 22, "docid": "1928f89c-2019-04-18T17:09:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7228039503097534}, {"content": "Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: Yes, that does seem to be the case, much like the real situation as you say. Both sides do indeed view themselves as being in the right. We both think that the other has not proved their case, much like the Israelis and Palestinians. I do not know how else to prove the resolution. Let me note again the facts. The Jews, having been expelled by Emperor Hadrian for the last of many failed revolts, were forced to settle in the Roman Empire, where many already lived. They would go on to endure centuries of persecution, from discrimination to outright pogroms. Understandably, they desired a homeland. Following a wave of attacks in Germany and Russia in 1881, many moved to Palestine, as had others before over the centuries. Even then, some desired to reclaim the whole territory and expel its residents as they were in centuries past, though at this point they were not able to. 1897 saw the formation of Zionism, which became an international movement. Decades passed and more Jews moved into the region, incurring resentment and occasional violence in response. WW2 erupted and the British promised the Palestinians independence for their help defeating the Ottomans. Conversely at the same time a secret promise was made to the Jews for establishment of a Jewish homeland after in Palestine. This was clearly at odds, and in the end the British gave neither side what they promised. With the Mandate they received from the League of Nations, the UK took over in place of the Ottomans. More Jews came in the 1920s, fleeing further persecutions. The Palestinians reacted violently, and the Jews began to revolt against the UK while fighting back. This continued into the 1940s, when the Holocaust occurred, far more Jews moving in. The United Nations decided in 1947 to establish a Jewish homeland at last, the state of Israel. The outrage was predictable, with the Palestinians and nearby Arab states immediately attacking when it was formed in 1948. They were defeated, and 80% of the Palestinians were driven or fled into the West Bank, then part of Jordan. This was conquered in the Six-Day War of 1967, with the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula also taken (the last given back). The strife and terrorism is still going on, with no end in sight. Various peace plans have been proposed, none giving actual Palestinian power. The facts do not tell us everything. Our opinions do matter and they are the prism all people see things by. I believe that, while understandable, the Jewish desire to retake their ancient homeland was wrong, as there were people living there. It was one matter to settle in Palestine, although causing strife. To come and say \"this is ours\" to people living there for nearly a thousand years was simply wrong, just as it was for them to be expelled. The Palestinians did not do that, though, and were not responsible. To demand back the land people were born in would be rejected by anyone in the world, no matter whether their ancestors had lived there long ago. What can be done now, I do not know. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination, though, or no people does. The Israeli foundation and occupation were unjust. If they were not, then nothing is. I rest my case on this premise: being oppressed gives no license to oppress those who did not oppress you. Being stolen from gives no license to reclaim it nearly a millennium later from people who did not steal it from you, no matter how much you have suffered between then and now. There are many people in the world that have suffered, and it would still be wrong to do this. If this is not wrong, then nothing is. A vote for Pro is not a vote against Israel-the people there have the right to exist. It is a vote say this must not happen again, that it was unjust, done in the name of undoing an injustice and giving scattered people a home. The worst kind of injustice is that done in the name of justice. Our opinions are not irrelevant-they are what matters most.", "qid": 22, "docid": "6cca92f3-2019-04-18T19:16:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7224566340446472}, {"content": "Title: Jerusalem should become an independant city state Content: While your solution sounds viable in theory, it is just impractical. First of all, it wouldn't change the fact that Jerusalem is split in two. Who would lead this new nation? If a Jew was elected, the Palestinians living there would be angry. If a Palestinian was elected, the Jews would be angry. The split in the city is so major that making the city independent wouldn't solve much. Not to mention the fact that Israel is already at a disadvantage n the Middle East (Source: https://i2.wp.com... https://i1.wp.com...) Taking away Jerusalem would only make the weak nation even weaker and increase the chance of another invasion. You've also forgotten that city states just aren't viable long term. Studies have shown that after 200 years, city states tend to suffer economic stagnation due to the development of oligarchies (Source: https://press.princeton.edu... https://ideas.repec.org... ) This is of course ignoring the fact that ethnic conflict tends to have an impact on the economy, a very negative impact. There's a reason why places like Somalia and South Sudan aren't economic superpowers. This also wouldn't change the fact that both sides still claim the entire land, and releasing Jerusalem wouldn't really solve the entire problem. If anything it would only hurt negotiations because there'd ow be a THIRD sovereign nation in the area. And finally, the Jews were there first. I'd go on, but I want to give you a chance to have a say.", "qid": 22, "docid": "1b240667-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7218539714813232}, {"content": "Title: Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent Content: The problem of expectations exists on both sides. The Israelis also have an expectation that they can continue the status quo indefinitely, that the Palestinian \u201cproblem\u201d is a containable security issue, especially after the success of the \u201cwall\u201d, and that the international community is all bark. UN action, especially if the US were to allow it through an abstention rather than a positive vote would indicate that both international and American patience are not infinite and probably have as great an impact on Israel as the recognition would have on the Palestinians.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00008-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7207648754119873}, {"content": "Title: in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution Content: A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish", "qid": 22, "docid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7206295728683472}, {"content": "Title: Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution Content: The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that \"[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement.\"[2]", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00070-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7197490930557251}, {"content": "Title: It's history has not died Content: This is a reply to the \"It's (sic) history has not died\" argument. This argument relies on a belief that the Arab Israeli conflict can be solved. To state that it is necessary is for \"the UN rehomes them properly this time\" is simplistic and something that is unforeseeable. There is a fundamental clash between Israelis and Palestinians who both desire the same land. For Palestinians, the desire is the return of property seized during 1948. This would never be politically acceptable in Israel - no leader would secure the votes to implement such a policy. For Israelis, that land is now seen as their possession. Beyond the biblical claims, there is also the fact that many Israelis are now no longer immigrants from Europe or the former USSR but instead born in Israel. It is their birthplace. Overall, the idea that the UN can 'rehome' the Palestinian people in a settlement satisfactory both to extremist Muslim fundamentalists and to Israelis is farcical.", "qid": 22, "docid": "e3eb9b42-2019-04-19T12:45:11Z-00010-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7194167971611023}, {"content": "Title: A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional Content: \"Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.\". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: \"The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00061-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7192881107330322}, {"content": "Title: One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority Content: \"Is the two-state solution in danger?\". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: \"The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state.\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7177104949951172}, {"content": "Title: Palestine Content: The issue about the settlement is not an easy one, since the Israelis feel a deep historical connection to many areas on the West Bank, and what Netanyahu has said, is that the only way for the two parties to find a lasting solution is through \"trial and error\". Source: http://www.haaretz.com...Yes, there are restrictions in place to stop Palestinian terrorists from entering Israeli cities and blowing up buses and killing civilians, and I bet every nation that had similar security issues as Israel would be reacting in a similar way. Israel was once upon a time more willing to make concessions to their enemies, but when every attempt of peace has ended in more attacks on Israel, the hawks have been put in power to ensure the citizens are safe.\"Palestine\" has not been a country before in history, and Israel was founded in 1948 by the UN, so it's a bit of an overstatement to say that they did not have any right to the country.", "qid": 22, "docid": "95d75426-2019-04-18T17:15:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7176324725151062}, {"content": "Title: A Palestinian State Content: The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice. You also said: \"Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order.\" Now lets talk through this. The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options. 1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world. or 2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about. Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors. Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems. Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot. Here is an equation to represent my point. Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people Unhappy people = War and Violence War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people Returned Homeland = Happy People Happy people = No war and violence. No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.", "qid": 22, "docid": "bcdf1d5e-2019-04-18T19:59:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7175737619400024}, {"content": "Title: Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza Content: \"Diplomacy is not the solution here, victory is. Nowhere in my argument did I even hint at the word \"genocide\", and the activity in Gaza is nowhere near that level. Let's just get that out of the way, shall we? \" Let's look at the picture you're portraying. You are trying to suggest that all the Palestinian people are as guilty as each other (which I'll come to in a moment). You're also suggesting that diplomacy is useless, and conflict and \"victory\" is the only solution. You've also said that because the Palestinian people are allied with Hamas, it's fine by you that they get killed. I ask you then, if this is the case, where does your solution end apart from the entire destruction of the Palestinian people? That's when you are talking genocide. \"Now you asked me for evidence that Hamas was hiding within the civilian population, and evidence that those people are not acting against it. \" No, I asked you for evidence that the people are allied with Hamas, and actively supporting it. Proximity to the militants isn't being allied with them. If a man runs into your house with a gun, it doesn't mean you support him because you didn't run away out of fear of being shot, and let's face it, it's ridiculous to say you do. \"The Israeli military can't control or know instantly when Hamas operatives are leaving their hideouts, and therefore have no choice but to go after the terrorists WHERE THEY ARE. \" I said in my opening statement Israel absolutely do have the right to defend themselves, I am not, and never have argued this fact. What I do argue is that Israel in responding have the onus of defending with reasonable response, which if it was reasonable, would justify the invasion of Gaza. In no way has Israel responded with a balanced measure, and you are yet to provide any evidence that they have. \"Israel is in the business of protecting Israelis, and Palestinians' lives are NO MORE VALUABLE than the lives of the Israeli civilians that have died in hundreds of rocket attacks and suicide attacks. \" I agree completely, and this is actually one of the centre points of my argument. Palestinian lives are worth no more than Israelis by any stretch, but on the opposite side they aren't worth any less either. One of the main criticism's is the massive loss of life within the Palestinian population in retaliation for the amount of Israelis killed. It's very hard to balance and trade lives with lives, however I can't see how 14 vs 1200 in response is justifiable in any way. \"ELECTED A CRIMINAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION to power in their country. That makes them ALL allied to Hamas. That's not up for discussion. \" Firstly, unfortunately it is up for discussion, this is a debate after all. That's very similar to me saying that a republican is guilty of supporting Barrack Obama in the recent election, and he should die because of what Obama believes. Silly isn't it? Because some of the population supports Hamas doesn't mean that they are all guilty and should be tarred with the same brush. This also doesn't mean that even if they did vote for Hamas in an election that it excuses their death in any way. A civilian population should not be slaughtered because of their political voting, and it's quite horrible to see someone say otherwise. Every Palestinian is not a militant, and you cannot justify their death simply because of where they were born. Are you really going to suggest children that perished in the conflict were actively supporting militants? \"You also mis-state my idea that the civilians of Gaza are in no way responsible for the things that have happened to them. Sorry, that's an out and out lie. \" Please, let's keep accusation of lying to a minimum. You seem to believe that a civilian population not supporting the \"enemy\" or opposing force makes them responsible for whatever happens to them. In other words, if a village got bombed in Vietnam for not supporting American troops, that would be ok? It would in reality be called a war crime. The civilian population in a conflict is, and should be treated as a neutral force. By all means if you catch someone actively aiding the enemy then deal with them, however that's not what has happened in Gaza. There have been women and children killed, and you have yet to provide any evidence they were aiding Hamas at the time. \"Yes I am disputing the casualties in this conflict because Hamas has a historical tradition of inflating some numbers and deflating others. \" Yet you don't provide any figures of your own? What's your alternative figure then? Even the Israeli defence force claims between 1100-1200 people were killed. \"You want to hold this debate to JUST THIS conflict. \" Yes, because that was the premise of the debate, and I'm challenging you to justify this action of Israel, which at the moment my opponent has been unable to do. There have been several key issues that my opponent has failed to adequately address. - He has failed to explain how the deaths of 1200 (figure disputed, with what I'm not sure) people is a reasonable response to the 14 Israelis killed in the conflict. - He has failed to explain why hundreds of thousands of people in a civilian population (not militants) should be put in a humanitarian crisis for the actions of militants within the population. - He has tried to blame the Palestinian population for their own suffering, claiming that as a civilian population it's their own fault for not driving out a militant base in their population. Unfortunately as in any war, he doesn't realise that the mass killing of civilians for this reason is not justifiable, and often constitutes a war crime. - He has failed to show that the onus isn't on Israel to ensure that civilians are not killed in the conflict, simply saying it's their own fault if they do. - He has in no way \"justified\" the invasion into Gaza as defined in the opening argument of the debate, relying on claims such as the majority were actively supporting Hamas at the time (including women and children) and as such deserved to die, without providing any proof of this fact.", "qid": 22, "docid": "46b8e7f6-2019-04-18T19:31:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7168954014778137}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS) Content: Wow Pro is quick to respond. Sources are in the comments. Contention 1: International Law and Human Rights What Pro points out is that I didn't make a bold and underlined title of this contention. I did however partially address it. Also keep in my mind that I had to respond to two rounds worth of arguments because of the structure whereas Pro had to respond to one. I do apologize but I did address some major aspects. My whole point was that this is not an issue of borders or about the specifics of resolution 242. If this was the case, perhaps I would agree with Pro. First of all Pro you did not really make a case for BDS with this contention so I wasn't sure how to respond. You were just making a case against Israel. I pointed out from round 2 that in order to support an organization, it is not only about whether it is a just cause or not but rather if it helps that particular cause. Nevertheless, let's examine the history. As I just mentioned, Pro does not really make an argument here but just points a few things out. I am going to assume he is concluding that BDS's issue with Israel is borders and if Israel gave up those borders that Pro mentioned, this would solve the Problem and satisfy BDS. Let's take this head on and examine the history: Pro referred to the 1967 war and pointed out that Israel gave the Sinai, larger than the entire state of Israel to Egypt for peace. This is rather silly for Pro to mention because if we apply this logic, Israel really should give the West Bank to Jordan and not the Palestinians as they were the ones who attacked from there. We should also glean that Israel is clearly in favor of the idea of land for peace given the fact that they gave up huge and beneficial territory to them for the sake of peace. As for the West Bank, in 1967 Israel accepted Resolution 242 which is essentially land for peace. Palestinian leadership and the Arab countries met in Khartoum and issued what is famously known as the 3 no's of Khartoum: \"No negotiation, No recognition, No peace\u201d. They have additionally offered the land for peace since that time on at least 3 occasions they refused even after Israel withdrew from Gaza. They even refused Israel withdrawing from 93% of the West Bank [1]. One would think that generous peace offers should at least quell issues with the BDS but instead they continue and even increase in their ferocity. This is a crucial point that Pro fails to comprehend: You cannot distinguish the principle of something based on those that practice it. In short, it is ridiculous to put the emphasis that Pro puts on the occupation and frames it as the root of the problem as BDS does as well. To pretend that this is an issue of borders is delusional. Israel pulled out of Gaza and got nothing but rockets, terror attacks, and tunnels used with Israeli concrete that was given by the government to be used for building houses for the Palestinians and actually killed 160 Palestinian children in the process [3]. Pro now has a few challenges he must address to defend BDS. With this evidence, Pro now has a few challenges he must address. The first one is how can BDS expect Israel to just simply withdraw from these areas without any security assurances? Secondly, Pro I believe has an obligation to demonstrate that Palestinians were right to reject many of these peace and state offers. If not, we (Pro included) should recognize and conclude that BDS is not the way to go for the future of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. South Africa I concede that the boycotts worked in South Africa. I did address this Pro. I was showing that this bares no significance. They are two different cases that need to be analyzed individually which was the point I was trying to make. Sanctions can work sometimes but others they don't. Like for example it didn't work on North Korea. I will make clear for Pro's sake that he did not directly compare Israel's policies to South Africa. But I will say that there are implications for unnecessarily bringing them to the table. Fair? Contention 3: BDS has already shown success Pro is demonstrating pretty limited thinking here. He once again fails to grasp points I made that addressed this point simply because I didn't bold and underline a title saying it. Ask and you shall receive. The point I made previously about this numerous times is simple. To quote myself from before: \"In order for someone to support a boycott, it is not a question of whether it is successful, but rather if that success actually assists the cause.\" I think Pro should agree that this is at least an attempt to address this point even if he doesn't agree with it and it's simply false to assume I conceded it. To pursue it even further, after further investigating Pro's evidence he neglects to mention something from his own source that is rather significant. The company that Pro mentioned actually says their decision had \"had nothing to do with the BDS campaign\". The article continues: \" A spokesman for the company told Newsweek: \u201cWe have now got 65 businesses that since 2013 that have been identified for sale or closure, so Israel is actually just one of those\u201d. \u201cIt is an entirely commercial decision.\u201d So really it is not even completely clear that BDS is responsible for this. If you want to believe, as I'm sure Pro does, that BDS is responsible for than the previous challenges still stand. Anti-Semitism Pro's analogy: This is a false comparison because Pro kind puts me in the lense of the actual bank robber which is false. Pro needs to keep in mind that we are a third party so we are neither bank robbers nor the muggers. It is still ilegitimate for the police not to go after the 15 muggers. This also a flawed analogy because I believe Pro actually has conceded my point that it is not \"other problems\" in the countries but exponentially worse problems. I believe he also conceded that Israel is the greatest country in the Middle East for Arabs in terms of human rights. Instead of applauding this country Pro is criticizing it. I don't see how he doesn't find it problematic in it of itself. A more proper analogy would be that there are 15 murderers in a city and the police go after the one person who violates parking laws and framing him as the problem in the city. Even this I wouldn't say is spot on because it would be wrong to see Israel as foundationally a criminal country. Pro brings up an organization that I truthfully have never heard of called Code Pink. But he is really proving my points by doing this. Code Pink is very clear that they don't single out Saudi Arabia, they have a global goal, and they don't hold a double standard on a country which is the point that I was trying to make. They stand for principle. BDS is an organization directed at this one country with all the qualifications that Pro and I seem to have agreed on. This is problematic to single out this particular country and have a double standard. This is why it shouldn't be so hard to believe that I conclude that they are Anti-Semitic. With regards to my statements about Hamas, in case I was not clear I was referring to them as a Palestinian leadership. It is true that they are not recognized as the Palestinian leadership to be negotiated with as they are a terrorist organization. I do think it should be pointed out the more Palestinians do support Hamas over the Palestinian Authority [3]. I don't think Pro properly characterizes Fatah. They are still responsible for terror attacks and have threatened for more [4]. Pro also ignored my evidence by claiming Hamas doesn't call for the destruction of Jews worldwide. I don't know why he is choosing defend a claim against a terrorist organization but I gave evidence of one example where they call for the murder of Jews worldwide. To quote it: \u201cThis is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah\u2019s victory prevails.\u201d And this is just their charter to be clear they have called for it on numerous other occasions. I didn't think Pro could sink any lower but he is citing the terrorist Khaled of Hamas as a source and even more repulsive is that he is believing him! It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious to actually believe a terrorist like him. It is clear Pro doesn't understand how two faced this man is so I must address this. In English to the American press he says this but at the same time he is praising the killing of Jews! [5] I will admit to Pro that I cannot give evidence of a source that explicitly says BDS is Anti-Semitic. And it would be wrong for someone to expect that. The way these conclusions are made is you analyze all the other facts that I mentioned. I have proven that BDS comprises of numerous Anti-Semites and that by supporting BDS, especially on college campuses, they are most probably going to at least be associating with Anti-Semites. The BDS founder Omar Barghouti actually doesn't even recognize the Jewish State. He says \"Definitely most definitely we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine\". He additionally says \"Good riddance\" to the two state solution [6]. Palestinian Economy Con is quite hypocritical here. He is criticizing me for citing only one example of how the BDS harms the Palestinian economy when his premise of BDS's success was also based on only one example. I, however, gave a logical reason as to why it harms the economy and used SodaStream as one example. If you would like data, ask and you shall receive [7]. Out of space. Rest next round.", "qid": 22, "docid": "68b04236-2019-04-18T12:57:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7166210412979126}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00021-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7164660096168518}, {"content": "Title: A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions Content: While issues like the \u201cRight of Return\u201d might benefit from an international approach, it\u2019s hard to see why international recognition would make neighbouring states more likely to pay for or allow the settlement of, Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, a \u201csovereign\u201d state may feel less inclined to compromise on its rights, especially if the International Community seems to have just conceded the legitimacy of those claims.", "qid": 22, "docid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7164256572723389}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: General statements in favor of a one-state solution", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00030-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7160014510154724}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: A two-state conflict will not end conflict", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00032-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.714675784111023}, {"content": "Title: Communism is a logical solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: (No really you totally killed it) \u201cForcing two groups of people who are deeply hostile to one another to live together is very unlikely to produce good results. \u201d Must remind you that in the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes history as a class struggle, and that class ultimately divided us more than race and ethnicity, so according to the resolution \u201ccommunism is a logical solution to the conflict\u201d this is since confirmed because, we must face the facts all the Palestinians want is really equality, and the absorption and formation of a proletariat class is key to a happy society. \u201cNeither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want equal land redistribution. The vast majority of Palestinians want an independent state\u201d Okay so here\u2019s where I get to attack a two state solution, with a question. What happened in 1948, when the British removed troops from Palestine and the Israelis declared independence? What happened was the Palestinians immediately started uprising and six other Arab countries attacks. In my statements I addressed this by saying that the two countries would be at a constant struggle with each other, and therefore, the statement about equal distribution of land is met and affirmed. This would also eliminate the large gap between wealthy and poor that plagues the Palestinian populace and allows the Israelis to keep power. \" Under ideal communism perhaps, but in practice in every \"communist\" country classes still existed, it would be very, very unlikely. I\u2019ll dispute your statement by saying there has never been a true communist country ever, and according to the definition agreed upon, this would work in alleviating tensions, therefore this is also a logical answer. Once again, the entire goal of the Palestinian people is to have INDEPENDENCE. What evidence is there that shows that the only alternative to a \"strong central government\" is a weak umbrella one? Once more, forcing them into becoming ONE people would be one of the worst things for both sides because the Palestinians want independence more than anything else. It seems my opponent was not smart enough to catch this but, it has been my goal to attack every one of the proposed resolution to institute there flaws and irrationality\u2019s, so that I could prove communism is a rational option. And you need to understand that no matter how much the Palestinians want independence, the resolution has to be equal and fair for both sides, and that is why REAL communism is a rational solution as it is for most other world problems. You argue that a single state solution would not unify the two groups without the constant use of force, when under your proposal of communism Israel and Palestine would be magically united without the use of force? First of all sir don\u2019t talk lightly about magic around me I am a level 69 goblin virgin mage. :P And yes once again like Marx said \u201chistory can be viewed as a constant class struggle\u201d so under this statement yes, the formation of the Israelis and Palestinians into a single proletariat would solve all problems of unity. This is a debate about ISRAEL and PALESTINE, not CHINA. Geez did your caps lock button have a seizure or something? This was simply to state that the rise of Maoism has worked very well for China and Maoism is a distort form of communism. It is also highly unrealistic and illogical since it would not be supported by either of the people seeing as Israel is a very capitalist country Okay, um ill just pretend you thought that one out and did not just say that\u2026 And so it is clear that TRUE communism would be a logical solution to the problem and that is all I had to prove, I never had to prove whether it would work (even though I did), and I have proven why it is logical and refuted all my opponents points, the victory is mine. Vote Pro! !! Sources: 1: . http://www.marxists.org... 2: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 22, "docid": "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7137427926063538}, {"content": "Title: Christians should support the State of Israel Content: Warmest regards to my opponent. No human being is perfect, and therefore no Nation State is perfect. While Israel's tumultuous history cannot be ignored, the fact remains that they are not always in the right about everything. It is not the responsibility of a good friend to support someone all the time; indeed, a good friend's primary obligation is often to be the one that tells they're friend, \"Hey, what you're doing is wrong.\"A lot of what Israel is doing lately is exactly that: wrong. On a wide variety of issues, ranging from their creation of new settlements in the West Bank to their undiplomatic postures towards other middle eastern states, Israel is too often a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It behaves like the national equivalent of a second grader running around taunting its peers on the playground, confident that it's big brother United States will beat up anyone who responds too severely. At some point, that older brother is more than justified in saying, \"You need to stop provoking this.\"In conclusion, any state - Israel or anyone else - should be supported when right, and rebuked when wrong. Principle is more important than person.", "qid": 22, "docid": "7ed64323-2019-04-18T12:19:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7133115530014038}, {"content": "Title: Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict Content: One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00023-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7129897475242615}, {"content": "Title: Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust Content: 1. I omitted the Sinai Peninsula and Jordan because they are not in dispute for one, while culturally, nationally being separate. Defining what constitutes Palestine is a hard thing as I recognize. They were not omitted solely due to being predominatly occupied by Arabs. Because of the Jews presently living in the state of Israel, however unjust acquisition of the land was, it would be wrong to kill or disposses them. On the other hand, in the West Bank settlement is expanding aggressively, which must be stopped, as for one it causes more conflict, and is wrong anyway. The Palestinians will likely have to recognize Israel in the future if there will be peace. However this sticks in their throats, with the past conquest, all of which makes it that much harder. I do not claim to know exactly how separate entities should be composed, achieved and exist. To claim that I did is foolish. I am an outsider, yes, as we all are. I fully understand it's not that simple. My argument has been that Israel is not the victim, but took land from a resident majority unjustly, with the help of the United Nations and United States. That's it's foundation and hence occupations are unjust. That as the majority and original residents, the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, resistance and to stop further expansion of Israel. Obviously it is not a simple issue, no one least of all me denies that. I do not say all the Jews should go. I have never said that. Exact division is vexing and will remain so. I am merely claiming that from the beginning Jewish people had no right to reclaim Israel, with or without outside help, and hence occupy Palestinian land. The details of the solution are beyond me. Even claiming the first is controversial as we know, however. My efforts are focused there. Neither God nor the United Nations can be said to dictate who gets what. I might note it was the United Nations, not League of Nations, which formed Israel. The League of Nations gave the UK the Mandate of Palestine after WW1. The idea of the Palestinians just going to Jordan is an offensive one, implying they can leave ancestral homes. This is comparable to saying \"Jews have no nation\" and so could be expelled to anywhere, a sentiment which led to all this at least in part. Arab Palestinians have persecuted by Arab states, Jordan included, such as the infamous Black September of 1970, in which thousands were killed by the Jordanian Army. I have no love of the Arab states or any particular group. I speak about the broader issues of right. \"Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none.\" Well, reclaiming land you lost over a millennium ago from the people who live there started friction. All the rest has come after it. C-2 Israel did in fact steal some land, kick the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. The League of Nations did not choose anything but to give Britain the Mandate. The United Nations, on the other hand, chose to establish a nation for Jews in Palestine, because of their historical claims and suffering during WW2. I have never denied it, and since this was their home for thousands of years in the past, that made sense. That does not make it any more right though. I understandy why the Zionists desired a homeland, and to reclaim Israel. The problem is there were people living there already. It would be one thing to settle peacefully beside them, assuming that were possible, but not to claim you were owed all that back, no matter what your suffering, which I fully sympathize with. Two wrongs do not make a right. That land had been referred to as \"Palestine\" for nearly a thousand years. The Romans may have begun it as an insult against Jews, but the Palestinians did not even exist then. I have never denied religious faith plays a role in this. In fact religious faith is key and makes the crisis all the more intractable. I do not wish for the Jews to be oppressed. However the chain of events had brought us to this place, and what happened was wrong. They oppressed themselves in order to escape oppression in the countries they fled. There is much tragedy in all of this. I do not know the way out now, but again wish merely to prove what happened cannot be justified, even with the suffering the Jews over many centuries, up to and including the Holocaust, which established Israel for good. C-3 I do not deny or reject the fact that the Bible and Qu'ran play a key role, as I've said. I do reject the idea they are factual historical documents, at least in large part, and give valid claims to land. I understand this is why they both feel entitled to it. That has never been denied or rejected. They are part of history, but do not record it well. I took Zionist quotes off a pro-Palestinian website my opponent takes issue with. Apparently to copy and paste them for quotation is somehow wrong. My opponent has not refuted the quotes, or addressed the fact that they show the intent of Zionist leaders, from the Labor Left to Religious Right, for the forcible removal of all Palestians, hardly a peaceful aliyah, though I do not that many did want that. Of course the website is biased, I do not deny that either. Is there any website not considered biased about this subject? Quotes cannot be biased simply by being cited. Those who said them were biased, indeed. My intent with the quote of early settlers was to show that it was part of Zionism from the beginning, not a later development. Even then oppressed Jews were contemplating oppression themselves. It may be understandable, but unacceptable nonetheless. I note my opponent is not addressing the quote of Ben-Gurion, or the other Israeli leaders. His quote on settling for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist in this concept is suspect, possible a salami tactic for taking it all later, as his other quote shows he desired. I no more recognize that the Ottoman Empire had a legitimate right to Palestine and thus could sell or allow land to be sold. However, it was long in the past and those living there now were not to blame. I realize the rest were won in wars. To take someone's land and then accuse them of being violent in attempting to retrive it (particularly when you yourself were violent in \"reclaiming\" it before) is purely hyporcisy. If the landlord divides sells land you have lived on for generations that he claimed by force, you struggle against this, and then a higher authority steps in to award half to the settler as compensation of sufferings, this is a blow that makes you seethe in agony, hoping for it back. Living peacefully beside the neighbor who took it becomes very hard then. Nonetheless, I desire peace but merely wish to show you this was unjust, and the opposite view. Imagine what every peace deal is to Palestinians-a thief deigning to give half of their land back, if that. Rabbis for Human Rights (http://www.rhr.org.il...), Gush Shalom (http://gush-shalom.org...), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (http://www.icahd.org...), Yesh Gvul (http://www.yeshgvul.org...), etc., are Israeli groups which oppose their country's policies. I would cite Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch, but those are probably also without credit in your eyes. Perhaps none is credible to you if they oppose an Israeli policy or any part of it. These are only a few of the Israeli or Jewish groups-more by far exist.", "qid": 22, "docid": "6cca92f3-2019-04-18T19:16:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7126400470733643}, {"content": "Title: Terrorism in general will be best defeated by military means (war). Content: I will quote my opponent in this round. Let me apologize for summarizing, I hope I accurately do so. I would encourage all readers to read his entire argument/statement in the previous round so we all avoid confusion. 1. Negotiating I don't think there's any need for hypothetical situations, considering there's a completely valid occurrence in our world. Now when I suggest negotiations, I am suggesting that Israel and the Palestinian government should work out an agreement. I don't think that the Pal aggression is any different than the Israeli aggression in Lebanese territory, and the terrible living conditions that Israel allows in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Israel has violated many UN Resolutions, and expanded past its territorial borders. Both parties are at fault here, and Israel is arguably an equal to the Palestinians when it comes to sponsoring terrorism. 2. \"Firstly, he contends that between 2000-2003 AQ carried out more than 100 operations and killed thousands. I would like him to present some evidence of this, as my research returned something in the vicinity of 10-15 attacks.\" On this point, I would refer you to Scott Atran's paper entitled \"The Strategic Threat From Suicide Terror.\" You'll find it in the second paragraph of the paper. http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr... 3. \"we must remember that G.W. Bush and his allies attacked Iraq on the pretense of a presence there of weapons of mass destruction.\" \"Bush's attack on Afghanistan and his removal of the Taliban regime... Arguably it WAS claimed to be part of the War on Terror... it involved an attack on a sovereign country and an attempt to change its regime.\" Yes, that may have been the main reason for attack, but I don't think anyone would deny that they also said that Saddam had links to AQ, and was a sponsor of terrorism himself. Secondly, the reason we are still there is because of AQ in Iraq. They may not have been there when we went, but they showed up and we continue to fight them now. On Afghanistan, the main reason we went there was the Taliban and AQ. This was the poster child for the War on Terrorism, and if this is not an example of using military force to defeat terrorism then I don't know what is. Please forgive me if I have misrepresented your position, or not understood your point. As far as Iraq and Afghanistan go though, it is a terrible policy. 4.Terrorism as a means, not an end The problem here is you fail to address why the terrorists do what they do. When the US and Israel and the West sit on their throne and say we will not deal with you so long as you act this way, it does nothing. This has been the Israeli policy, and it is the policy that the US has adopted. Now while I admit that negotiating with people, and governments who sponsor terror is not ideal, there is no other option. Israel wants to live in peace, and the Palestinians want there land back. Now obviously Israel should be allowed to live in peace, but they also should not be expanding out past their territorial borders. Again, both sides are at fault, and this needs to be addressed. Each side can say stop what you are doing or we won't negotiate, but this is completely circular and nothing will ever get done. The problem with your argument is that you have conceded that these people aren't crazy, they want something and that is why they do this. So I think it is logical that if both sides could come to an agreement, and Israel gave the Palestinians their land back, and allowed them to have a state that most of these problems would be resolved. Give the Palestinians a state, and a legitimate government. Give them a way to voice their opinions, and live in peace. You have been given the opportunity to vote, and be a part of choosing who represents you. There are people in your government who have fought to give all Americans an opportunity to receive a decent wage. Most of these people don't have that going for them. I believe that if they perceived the Americans to be fighting with them, and for them, instead of against them that we'd be much better off. The United States has killed more non-combatants than all terrorist organizations put together. We attacked a regime in Iraq that posed absolutely no threat to us, and it is questionable whether we knew that or not before we ever invaded. We have threatened to attack Iran if they continue with the nuclear program while providing Israel with billions of dollars in aid, and watching quietly as they have built their nuclear arsenal up. We supported Saddam in the 1980's in his war against Iran, and provided him with the technology to build his original chemical program. We overthrew a democratic government in Iran to install a terrible dictator, and have repeatedly put sanctions on them since they overthrew him. Now why might they hate us? Let me clarify. Saddam was a terrible dictator, but he was no threat to the US, and war was not our best option. The Iranian theocracy is a terrible government, but threatening them only scares the people closer to their dictators which is counter productive. Again, the people of the middle east much see that we are for them, and not against them. 5. Solution We must negotiate with governments when and where we can to resolve our disputes with them, and without preconditions. We must support democratic movements, not try to create them ourselves. I know this doesn't deal directly with the threat of terrorism, but that's the problem. It isn't a quick fix. We must work to improve the conditions that these people live in and work to integrate them into their government. War is not an option when it comes to winning hearts and minds. 6. My opponents arguments While he has tried to show fault in my arguments, he has not provided statistics, information, or a strategy for his side. He says military action is the best way, but what does that include? Why is that better than what I suggest? Since he is PRO he will have to do more, in my opinion, to win this debate.", "qid": 22, "docid": "4446f0ae-2019-04-18T19:36:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7125955820083618}, {"content": "Title: The military operations were necessary for long term peace: Content: As Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Haleviargue explain, \u201cthe Israeli public will not make territorial concessions on the West Bank or the Golan Heights if Gaza is allowed to become a neighboring terrorist state that can launch attacks with impunity. Israel had already had a bad enough experience letting that happen with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.\u201d(1) Without the assurance that they will be allowed to protect their homes and families following withdrawal, Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat. They will continue to share the left-wing vision of coexistence with a peaceful Palestinian neighbor in theory, but in reality will heed the right's warnings of Jewish powerlessness.(4) Meanwhile, the stronger Hamas becomes, the more resistance moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will face to making any concessions to Israel.(1) Therefore damaging Hamas, via Operation Cast Lead, actually aided the peace process in the long run, and was necessary in order to make an eventual two-state peace solution possible. The Israeli attacks may also eventually help force Hamas to accept a more durable ceasefire. Unlike the botched invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Israel set itself the unattainable goal of eliminating the military capability of Hezbollah, during Operation Cast Lead it was made clear that the objective was not to wipe out Hamas, but instead to force the radical group to accept a durable cease-fire on Israel's terms.(8) This was necessary as prior to Operation Cast Lead Hamas showed no interest in peace, opting instead to pursue its political objectives through the use of terrorism. When Hamas came to power in Gaza in January 2006, it failed to control the rocket fire from the variety of miltary brigades, including its own al-Qassam brigade, into Israel and failed to establish internal stability. The widespread violence between Fatah and Hamas, which ended in June 2007, when Hamas took control of Gaza and ousted leaders of President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, made Israel more wary of the security threat an unstable Gaza could pose.(9) In Israel's view, Hamas' behavior and its reliance on terror tactics will never change if it thinks it can attack with impunity, and so the Israeli military operations were necessary and justified in the name of restoring Israel's deterrent and weakening Hamas, both of which make long term peace more likely.", "qid": 22, "docid": "70235c4c-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00009-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7123073935508728}, {"content": "Title: Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace Content: The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other\u2019s claims which would extend to the other problems preventing agreement. (1) Sharing is the only solution that leads to peace, as the Palestinians in East Jerusalem will not tolerate permanent Israeli governance. Peace will always be a trade-off; Israel needs security while the Palestinians need territory and a viable capital city which they have dreamed of having in East Jerusalem for decades. (9)(5) In any peace deal Israel will have to accept that their security forces cannot be in control of Muslim areas. The Palestinians won\u2019t trust them as a result of decades where they have not been fair to Palestinians and have been abusive rather than protective.(2) All this means that Israeli rule in East Jerusalem can never be legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinians, and so long term peace can never emerge as long as this rule continues. French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in 2008: \"There cannot be peace without recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of free access to the holy places for all religions.\"(3) There has actually been recent recognition of this fact on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha Center, wrote in 2007: \"At a recent closed-door gathering of former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution...had come to realize just how painful the issue of Jerusalem was for both sides, that neither side could feel whole without Jerusalem, and that separation arrangements were unworkable when emotions flared over a few feet of Jerusalem stone. Although it took a decade, the Israelis realized that they could not be secure from Palestinian rancor if they deprived Muslim and Christian Palestinians of sovereignty over the Muslim Noble Sanctuary and the holy Christian churches. The Palestinian negotiators also acknowledged the corollary Israeli need for sovereignty over not only the Wailing Wall, but also the Jewish Temple Mount.\"(4) A poll in 2000 showed some 40 percent of Israelis were ready to give up Arab East Jerusalem without even knowing what they would get in return.(1) While it is an unlikely solution most of the more likely methods have already been tried so new more unconventional solutions need to be tried. The division of Jerusalem could be such a solution that would kick start the rest of the peace process. The benefits of ending the conflict would be immense.(4)", "qid": 22, "docid": "cbe4c6f1-2019-04-15T20:22:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7119720578193665}, {"content": "Title: Palestinian state would be base for terrorism Content: \"Gaza and the two-state solution\". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: \"Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for \"the two state solution\" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?\"", "qid": 22, "docid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7117568254470825}]}
{"query": "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.", "qid": 23, "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9014835357666016}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a3797-2019-04-18T18:16:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.863667368888855}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal Content: In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8601275682449341}, {"content": "Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I negate the resolution, resolved: physician assisted suicide should be legalized. I will let my opponent, whoever that may be, go first.", "qid": 23, "docid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8594495058059692}, {"content": "Title: resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.", "qid": 23, "docid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8539624810218811}, {"content": "Title: resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I affirm the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because when a person is in excruciating plain, on their death bed, should be able to be put out of their misery, and to be with Jesus.", "qid": 23, "docid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.851922869682312}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Content: Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.", "qid": 23, "docid": "d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8508440256118774}, {"content": "Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies.", "qid": 23, "docid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8395180702209473}, {"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America Content: Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing \"sacred\" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor.", "qid": 23, "docid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8374563455581665}, {"content": "Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized Content: Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate!", "qid": 23, "docid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8373813629150391}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: As the title of the debate would imply, the purpose of this argument is to discuss whether or not euthanasia should be legal in medical practices. I am against this (attacking it), and thus I would expect my opponent to argue in favor of it. The first round of five is solely for acceptance, and each person will have three whole days to respond before forfeiture of the round. May the smartest man win!", "qid": 23, "docid": "950a295-2019-04-18T15:44:41Z-00009-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8358309268951416}, {"content": "Title: The legalization and morality of euthanasia Content: Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of \"Suicide is just plain wrong!\", or to the famous \"Killing people is wrong!\" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain.", "qid": 23, "docid": "bbce1e09-2019-04-18T15:28:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8349628448486328}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: It is a great pleasure to be debating with you once again, ThinkBig. *I'll be debating as Pro for \"That physician-assisted suicide (PAS or euthanasia) should be legalized\".* Full Resolution (Focus is the U.S.)Resolved: PAS must be legalized in all 50 states of the U.S. Preface / Understanding the debateBefore we begin, I shall present my policies and framework for this debate. It is also necessary for me to address that the BoP will be shared in this debate. I'll also dedicate this clause explaining how to fulfill the BoP: Con's burden is to present the disadvantages of euthanasia / PAS and how these disadvantages harm the U.S. The premise of this debate is centered on utility (to not be confused with the theory of Utilitarianism), which I'll define soon. To be explicit, this means that the burden of each debater is to provide evidence substantiating that PAS is either useful to the U.S., meaning that it benefits the people of the nation (Pro's objective) or alternatively, it harms the people of the U.S. and is overall damaging / and or dangerous to the nation (Con's objective).FrameworkMy framework is pretty simple, my arguments will focus on autonomy (the right to death in this case), the alleviation of pain of terminally ill patients and the problems with current laws. I will as well focus on the Hippocratic Oath and what part it plays in PAS. Succinctly, if a patient is under excruciating pain caused by his or her sickness, he / or she should have the right to decide if they want to be permanently relieved of that pain through the means of pain-free lethal medication (assisted suicide). DefinitionsLegalize: \"to make legal; authorize.\" Utility: \u201cthe state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial.\u201dAutonomy: \"Independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.\"Physician-assisted suicide: \"suicide with help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical illness\"(1). Without further ado, let the debate begin! C1: Autonomy and Alleviation of PainOne of the points that I will touch on in this debate will be a person's right to have control of their own life / self-determination. Today, more and more countries are recognizing a patient's right to die. Countries like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and Belguim have already passed legislations concerning this issue. However, the U.S. is stubborn, with only 20 states that have (only recently) started taking a call for legislative action to pass a bill of this sort, and only 4 states allow it (3). The reason the court disagrees is because they have failed to realize that just like human life, the self-determination of a person is valuable as well. The reason this has often been neglected is simply because \"ending\" / or relieving someone of their painstaking illness is considered morally diminishing; however, by this criteria, prolonging the pain of that certain individual to the point where he / or she succumbs from it isn't morally unacceptable or diminishing at all. The Economist conducted a survey in 15 countries where they asked people if it is a morally justifiable act for doctors to assist in their terminally ill patients' suicide by prescribing them lethal medication. Based on the results, Russia and Poland were against, but America and Western Europe were strongly in favor. Oregon, a state that has condoned PAS with their Death and Dignity Act have prescribed lethal medication to 1,327 people so far, and less than 50% of those individuals used it to alleviate their death. Undeniably, it is not the Netherlands where assisted suicide is accountable for 3% of deaths of the total population, and that's explainable, patients there are heavily relied upon and trust their medical professionals (2). Surely, my opponent may argue that we don't need PAS because the advancement of medical technologies will help to extend our lives and palliate the illness we may be succumbing to. However, here's the conflict. Due to the fact that many jurisdictions are discarding PAS, they're actually doing their citizens a disservice by prolonging the individual's pain and suffering (3). Australian gynaecologist Dr. Rosemary Jones says, \"We stand for a group of doctors distressed about the small number of patients, who, at the point of death, get no relief from palliative care\" and further, \"We thoroughly endorse the practice of palliative care for 95 [percent] of all palliative care [patients] and understand that for five per cent, there are persistent problems beyond relief provided for by palliative care\" (4). Succinctly, palliative care isn't always the answer. The attitude U.S. should adopt towards PAS is that it's the final stage of proper care and prolongation of life, and life cannot exist without death. C2: Current law does more damageA 57 year old British national by the name of Paul Lamb who became paralyzed after a near fatal car accident has currently spent 23 years of his life lying in bed immobilized. Because of this, he filed for assisted suicide, which was immediately discarded, despite that he described his life as a \"living hell\"; specifically, he is taking heavy dosages of drugs to alleviate his excruciating spinal pain caused by the accident. The court also said that any medical professional who would dare help him commit suicide will be penalized (5). According to Lamb, the reason his case was discarded is because policymakers simply don't want the UK to be another European country that permits PAS. In fact, he said that the authority is \"scared to death\". He further commented, \"Politicians are scared to death. It is a case of `Oh no, we can't do that - it's too risky'. If there was a politician with the guts to take it on it would be alright but I don't think they have got it in them\" (6). Because of the court's rejection, Lamb took further legal action: \"I am doing this for myself as and when I need it. I'm doing it for thousands of other people living what can only be described as a hell. Many of them have been in touch with me begging me to continue this fight. The more it goes on the stronger I am getting\" (6). His daily routine includes taking analgesic drugs like morphine to mitigate his pain. Lamb is not alone on this, a (now deceased) man who had suffered from(6). As for the US, a popular case would be Britanny Maynard's case, a woman who was diagnosed with brain cancer. Maynard knew that her odds were slim; hence, she decided to relocate to Oregon where PAS was legal. Although she was a supporter of euthanasia, her actions show us that self-determination is one of the most important aspects of our life (7). Although there are numerous cases of this sort, I believe the concept behind several PAS-related cases is simple and clear. People want to end their suffering. Surely, the medication and technology that soothes the pain does exist, but the issue doesn't change. The person is not cured, and frankly, sometimes there isn't a cure, which is the case for many terminally ill patients. The sufferer will still be in bed, taking drugs and feeling the pain with or without medicine, which only temporarily soothes the pain. Sometimes the best way to help someone is permanently relieving them of that pain; it is better to die painlessly rather than to experience suffering for the remaining years of your life, and waiting until you succumb from your disability / or sickness. C3: The Hippocratic Oath isn't violatedI believe one of the main factors to acknowledge when instigating PAS is the role of the Hippocratic Oath. Now, in Hippocrates' era, there was no ban placed on assisted-suicide in Greece. Nevertheless, many medical professionals still argue that based on the Hippocratic Oath--to not give their patients lethal drugs--PSA is a violation. Interestingly enough, in ancient Greece, doctors had permission to give their patients lethal medicine if asked by their patients. Aside from that, should we even rely on the Hippocratic Oath anymore? Despite it being a sacred, ancient document, the oath has been revised several times. For instance, verses about women in the medical field and a verse about \"not breaking the skin\" have been removed (8). Doesn't this just show us the faultiness of the document? But to remain on-point, let's adhere to the oath being a sacred document that every practicing physician must follow. Based on the oath, doctors must (obviously) care for their patients. Discernibly, the patient's suffering must also be the doctor's top priority. However, when he / or she is constantly suffering and there's no cure for the suffering / or the chances of curing the illness is slim; then, isn't the doctor obliged to end his / her suffering. Because by the criteria, if the patient is suffering, the doctor's duty to care for the patient isn't being fulfilled (8).According to the modernized version of the oath, the right to death is being emphasized: \"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God\" (9). Evidently, the revised, international document proves that it's not against assisted-suicide (by the context). As stated by the document, the \"power to take a life\" is one of the most profound burdens a physician could carry.ConclusionBy my contentions, I've fulfilled my BoP by showing that without the choice of assisted suicide, a person's autonomy, self-determination, and right to choose what is best for him or her is violated. Since I'm running out of characters, I'll reserve the conclusion for the final round.Back to you, Con! =Sources=[1]:http://bit.ly...[2]:http://econ.st...;[3]:http://bit.ly...;[4]:http://bit.ly...;[5]:http://bit.ly...;[6]:http://ind.pn...;[7]:http://bit.ly...;[8]:http://bit.ly...;[9]:http://bit.ly...;", "qid": 23, "docid": "c8970382-2019-04-18T12:54:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.834148108959198}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide. Content: Ok so I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. I am open to debate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "49cd40b7-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.83110511302948}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. As a Christian, I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong, but I still believe that it should be legal.Definitions: Euthanasia - The painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease.Rules for this debate:1. No forfeits2. BoP shared3. No trolling or disrespect4. Con must start his or her opening argument in first round.5. To maintain the same number of rebuttals for both parties, Con must agree not to make any arguments in the final round.6. Pro will provide a closing statement in the final round and not present any new arguments.I look forward for an exciting debate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8286809921264648}, {"content": "Title: Pick your own debate - 1E Content: Alright, lets get started! Topic 1- Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States: I am PRO Topic 2- Water borading is a justified method of interrogation for terrorists: I am PRO Topic 3- The Bible supports Young Earth Creationism (YEC): I am PRO Good luck.", "qid": 23, "docid": "f989aae1-2019-04-18T19:23:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8285657167434692}, {"content": "Title: Euthansia should be legal Content: Euthanasia should be legal. It should be legal because people have the right to choose whether they want to live or die. According to the article Top Ten Resons Euthanasia Should be Legal Eveywhere written by Dave Anderson three years ago states, \"Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course\".", "qid": 23, "docid": "32c18ac6-2019-04-18T12:19:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8263881206512451}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: I will be arguing that euthanasia should be legal. I do however believe that it should be a highly strict process in order for a person to be euthanased.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386f9b0-2019-04-18T11:22:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8259298801422119}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I\u2019m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die. The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: \u201cI will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. \u201d (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, \u201cHow many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, \u2018on their own terms\u2019? \u201d (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD. : \u201cPAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor\u2013patient relationship because it reduces patients\u2019 trust of doctors and doctors\u2019 undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients. \u201d (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won\u2019t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: \u201cIn 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide. \u201d (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: \u201cIn 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering\u2014and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and \u201ctired of living. \u201d Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to \u201csuffer\u201d longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence. \u201d (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. . http://www.medscape.com...2. . http://guides.library.jhu.edu...3. . http://qualitysafety.bmj.com...4. . http://www.ocregister.com...5. . http://www.heritage.org...6. . http://www.cnn.com...7. Pereira, J. \u201cLegalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls. \u201d Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38\u2013e45. Print.", "qid": 23, "docid": "c8970382-2019-04-18T12:54:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8253791332244873}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: I accept, and await Pro's arguments. I will contend that euthanasia should not be legal, as it leads to ethical issues and denying this does not breach any rights.", "qid": 23, "docid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8225771188735962}, {"content": "Title: Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly Content: Being able to choose our time of death is not our choice and is not a right which we have. All humans are of great and equal worth and should be respected by others and protected by society. Euthanasia/physician assisted suicide directly undermines our society's commitment to care for the dying. Instead of turning away from natural death and suffering we must learn to embrace them both and not resort to an unnatural and immoral means of ending a life!", "qid": 23, "docid": "40c266fc-2019-04-18T15:40:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8215611577033997}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: \"Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands.\" \"Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient\u2019s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A.\" ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... \"Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called \"mercy killing\").\"~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: \"Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws.\" ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, \"Die with Dignity\". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, \"Which one?\". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.", "qid": 23, "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8211836814880371}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: I am going to take the Pro side on this and argue that Euthanasia SHOULD be legalized. I look forward to your argument.", "qid": 23, "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00008-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8207679390907288}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: For those who do not know, Euthanasia is also recognised as assisted suicide or medical suicide. It is the act of ending a life, If the person requests it, To relieve pain and suffering. I am for euthanasia. I believe that people should have the right to decide when their own life should end. It should only be done by medical professionals in a hospital setting, It goes without saying. Why should people have to live in pain? That is no life. Whose family wants to watch them suffer? You should be allowed peace. As long as you are mentally assessed and proven to be mentally stable and capable, You should be allowed to make this decision.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386f9ee-2019-04-18T11:08:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8201065063476562}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: I see my opponent doesn't cut the new fish any slack so if he wants fact sources real hard core proof here it goes first off im going to brake down each topic so were gonna start off with right to die \"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. \" Patient Suffering at End-of-Life \"Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation. Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer. \" Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder \"In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope. .. are far from fantasy. .. Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent? Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing \"The prohibition against killing patients. .. stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'. .. In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of one's consent to live does not deprive one's living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion. \" Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions \"Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic constitutional rights, such as the right to live and the right to due process, and consequently there could very well be a legitimate role for the federal government to play. There's a precedent--as a result of the highly publicized deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s, the federal government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,' which would withhold federal funds from hospitals that withhold lifesaving treatment from newborns based on the expectation of disability. The medical community has to have restrictions on what it may do to people with disabilities - we've already seen what some members of that community are willing to do when no restrictions are in place. \" Palliative (End-of-Life) Care \"Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal]. ' There are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although some efforts are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice movement in that country. .. The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, 'Why should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia? '\" Healthcare Spending Implications \"Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death. \" Social Groups at Risk of Abuse \"It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society, including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse, error, or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a judgment that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than the rest of society - only that they are not exempt from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life. While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable. \" Religious Concerns \"As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission. .. We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia. \" Living Wills \"Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect. .. When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living wills. .. Second, people who sign living wills have generally not thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-and-death decisions. .. Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer people the means to articulate their preferences accurately. .. Fourth, living wills too often do not reach the people actually making decisions for incompetent patients. .. Fifth, living wills seem not to increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients' preferences. \" Roughly speaking, there are two major views about euthanasia. The traditional view holds that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, but that given certain circumstances it is permissible to withhold or withdraw treatment and allow a patient to die. A more recent, radical view is embraced by groups such as the Hemlock Society and the Society for the Right to Die. It denies that there is a morally significant distinction between passive and active euthanasia allows the former and forbids the latter. Accordingly, this view argues that mercy killing, assisted suicide, and the like are permissible. The issues surrounding the euthanasia debate are tips of a much larger iceberg. www. afterall. net www. google.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386db4b-2019-04-18T18:50:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8197611570358276}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: I think that Euthanasia should be legal for a couple of reasons. By the way by legalising euthanasia i mean legalising voluntary euthanasia 1. The patients are going to die soon( very painful deaths in some cases ) and they are suffering from a terminal illness which will cause them lots of pain until they die and there isn't a cure, so why live waiting to die a painful death when you can die straightaway with no pain at all. 2. People have the right to die and in some cases such as euthanasia people don't have the right to die because they need a doctor's help. It is still the patient's choice on whether to have euthanasia it is just that the patient need the doctor's help to kill him/her self. 3. Putting a person in pain that is incurable and watching them die a painful death is evil which is why euthanasia should be legal, euthanasia doesn't even hurt so why let a patient die a painful death when they want to do it by euthanasia and not by incurable pain.", "qid": 23, "docid": "e21a50a3-2019-04-18T12:16:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8193885087966919}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements Content: The debate was originally intended to be about whether or not it should legal at all but no I do not forfeit. I do not believe just anyone should be able to go to a physician and end their life. Many teens choose suicide because they think their problems are just too great and that their life is never going to improve but those of us that make it past our teen years look back and realize how trivial our problems really were. Of course if someone truly feels they have nothing left to live for they don't really need a physicians help to end it do they. Not so much an elder stuck in a nursing home bed 24/7 whom euthanasia is generally pertaining to or for any terminally sick person. We can't stop the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean we should just say o well and help them end it.", "qid": 23, "docid": "6dbd1f79-2019-04-18T16:49:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8191067576408386}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Content: Just a quick note to the readers and voters that this debate is for the DDO Olympics hosted by bsh1. Full ResolutionResolved: That physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Good luck and may the best arguments win.", "qid": 23, "docid": "8ec49310-2019-04-18T12:55:26Z-00006-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8184939622879028}, {"content": "Title: Doctor assisted suicide Content: I would like to begin by saying thank you for this debate. I look forward to it and I strongly urge you to listen to my argument. However, I also urge you to reconsider your proposition. I thoroughly believe that doctor assisted suicide (I will refer to it as euthanasia as it is a more appropriate term) should be a viable option for terminally ill patients and patients who would be in crippling pain for the foreseeable future; in fact, it is an option already. However, doctors should not be responsible for assisting in this suicide. It poses many problems both morally and legally. My first contention involves the morals of the situation. You were correct on saying doctors have nice things such as money, prestige, and social status. However, you were not correct in claiming they were \u201cprivileges.\u201d If we take a look into the lives of doctor\u2019s, we will notice how difficult it is. The average physician spends 8 years in very detailed study and 11-16 years total of medical training (1). At that point, the large salaries, prestige, and social recognition is earned. It is not a privilege. Physicians spend a great deal of time, money, and energy to develop the skills they need to save lives. Their rewards are certainly not privileges. Furthermore, your argument states that \"if doctors have this power, they should have to deal with the consequential responsibility of such power--that is, their decisions should not hinge on their little moral codes; whatever they think is right or wrong should be a non-issue.\" Besides the fact that doctors have earned this power, these are not \u201clittle moral codes\u201d either. In every culture to ever exist, human life has been the #1 priority. Many people are not alright with ending the lives of others, regardless of how or why they are doing it. A recent study found that 69% of physicians object to euthanasia, 18% to permanent sedation, and 5% to PAS (2). This is mainly due to religious and philosophical influences. This is made obvious by the same study. 84% of highly religious physicians are opposed to euthanasia (3). The majority of doctors, and people, are against killing people altogether. These are not \"little moral codes.\" Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering\" by Merriam Webster (4). Killing someone is something that an overwhelming majority of people feel is wrong. We cannot ask doctors to kill people. It is their job to heal, cure, and prevent disease and injury of their patients, not to end their patients lives. Aside from morals, the legality of euthanasia could prove problematic. There is an oath that every doctor takes called the Hippocratic oath. This oaths specifically reads \"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect (5).\" This means that a doctor may never give a patient a substance that will harm them, nor shall they suggest it. Oaths are legally binding, so doctors are obligated to not provide euthanasia. However, I see that you believe the Hippocratic Oath is \"irrelevant and should be changed.\" I will take the time to remind you exactly what the oath does. It protects the patient, not the doctor. It prevents doctors from committing malpractice and experimentation on patients, it prevents them from having sexual relationships with patients and their families, and more. The Hippocratic Oath has saved so many lives and brought a form of perfection to medicine. It is entirely relevant and always will be. To think it needs changed ignores what doctors had done before the oath. They did experiments on people, harming them and disfiguring them, they accepted bribes to hurt people, and worse. The oath has been one of the most important events in medical history and it has allowed medicine to flourish. We cannot unsubscribe from it. Also, we must consider how this oath keeps people at the doctors. Hippocratic's Oath eeps trust in the medical system. Because of its importance and sheer practicality for protecting patients it keeps people comfortable seeing a physician. Without the Hippocratic Oath, there is little gauruntee that doctors wont commit malpractice. It should not be a responsibilty for doctors to provide this service. I urge you to reconsider your view point. Euthanasia should be an option for the terminally ill and those who are in permanent pain, but it should NOT be a responsibility for doctors to assist in the death of their patients. It runs contrary to the sheer principle of medicine and being a doctor. Therefore, the only viable option is to decide that it is not the responsibilty of doctors to assist in suicide or preform euthanasia. Thank you. Please vote in the negation of this proposal. CITATIONS http://www.learnhowtobecome.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.med.wisc.edu....PDF http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.medicinenet.com... http://www.amednews.com...", "qid": 23, "docid": "847d06a3-2019-04-18T13:26:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8178311586380005}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia :) Content: Just your standard Euthanasia debate :) Promt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386ee10-2019-04-18T15:17:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8174562454223633}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Content: Thank you for your concession. I'm still going to present my opening arguments anyway, mostly to save them for another debate. ==Opening Arguments== I would like to thank my opponent for providing his opening arguments. As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I\u2019m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die.The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: \u201cI will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.\u201d (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, \u201cHow many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, \u2018on their own terms\u2019?\u201d (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD.: \u201cPAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor\u2013patient relationship because it reduces patients\u2019 trust of doctors and doctors\u2019 undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients.\u201d (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won\u2019t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: \u201cIn 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide.\u201d (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: \u201cIn 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering\u2014and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and \u201ctired of living.\u201d Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to \u201csuffer\u201d longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence.\u201d (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. http://www.medscape.com......2. http://guides.library.jhu.edu......3. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com......4. http://www.ocregister.com......5. http://www.heritage.org......6. http://www.cnn.com......7. Pereira, J. \u201cLegalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls.\u201d Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38\u2013e45. Print.", "qid": 23, "docid": "8ec49310-2019-04-18T12:55:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8168889284133911}, {"content": "Title: You Choose the Resolution! Content: Thank you for your contentions, ThinkBig. I would also like to address that I'm fully aware of the differences between euthanasia and PAS, but seeing that you have superior knowledge over me on this topic, I am honored to be debating with an opponent like you. I wish you success in your studies.Due to my consecutive grammar errors, I tend to make when writing longer debates, this round will be kept succinct. It is also important to address that the opponent may not extend or defend any arguments in this round as it is reserved only for the rebuttals. (Since the debate rules weren't updated, no new argument must be added in this round).Without further ado, I shall begin my refutationsRebuttals:R1: Law and Individual\"...medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession.\"As my opponent has mentioned in his framework, his argument will be built upon the premise of medicals ethics, and that a violation of those medical ethics will occur should PAS be deemed legal; however, that's the first issue in my opponent's contentions. Just like the court always rules against the favor of assisted suicide; it's not what matters to the individual, but rather what is written in the handbook. By doing so, the court is suppressing that person's individual liberty and his/her autonomy as an individual. Derek Humphry, the ex-president of World Federation of Right to Die Societies asserts, \"this manifesto [assisted suicide] proclaims that every competent adult has the incontestable right to humankind\u2019s ultimate civil and personal liberty -- the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing\" (1). I believe that both, my opponent and I can concur that liberty and self-determination are one of the most crucial aspects of a person's life and decision-making. Consequently, though, when a court discords assisted suicide for an individual who requests for it; it is a violation of that person's autonomy and right for him/or her to take destiny in his/her own hands (govern own life). This is the inexorable injustice and unfairness my opponent's arguments don't touch on. This can sidetrack me into arguing about legal and ethical principles, but let's save that for another debate. R2: Person's dignity\"violates the rights and dignity of patients\".Though my opponent only addresses the rights of the individual, little is said about dignity. Regardless, I'll still address dignity. I'll argue the former, disallowing the right for assisted suicide for an individual takes away that individual's dignity. We don't know what somebody truly desires without them giving us the answer. If a person requests to be euthanized, and that person's request is denied, then he / or she will be forced to submit to their sickness until they eventually succumb to it. Meaning, that this person is condemned to die in an unwanted manner; ergo, this strips him/her of his/her dignity and self-esteem. However, it would've have been vice versa, only if euthanasia was legally enforced (which it is not).R3: Physician-Patient Relationship\"Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia.\"Firstly, my opponent doesn't provide any evidence or explanations of how it could lead to \"forced\" euthanasia. Secondly, to address the physician-patient relationship issue, the Hippocratic oath is what constitutes the relationship; it's the bedrock of medical ethics and the relationship (as my opponent and I agree). I'll use an example from my previous arguments to negate his contention. The Hippocratic oath is a (roughly) 2000-year-old document that has been edited numerous times to satisfy the contemporary society's current status quo. The modernized version of the oath acknowledges that a doctor carries a profound responsibility to end somebody's life: \"But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God\" (2). Speculatively, this can be interpreted as that the doctor could fail to preserve his patient's life, or he has the right to permanently palliate his patients suffering by assisted suicide. We should also take into consideration that during Hippocrates' era, assisted suicide was allowed.Now, it's still a very controversial and moot statement to make. But let's also take into consideration that the older version of the oath prohibits the physician to use a knife on the patient (3), does this mean we should still abide this guideline? Of course not. Incontestably, times are changing. Meaning, that we cannot rely on an ancient document to continue governing our medical industry (this is the reason it was edited in the first place). R4: The Barbara Wagner CaseA large controversy and uproar had been sparked in Oregon because Barabara Wanger \"had reportedly received from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide\". I've emphasized \"had reportedly\" for a reason. Based on my (somewhat) heavy and extensive research on this case, this allegation seems like another form of money-hungry, typical con-artistry because of the lack of evidence: there is no actual, photographic evidence of this letter. Plus, not a single lawsuit has been filed by her against the insurance company.R5: Duty to Die Fallacy\"Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term.\" My opponent and I could both concede on the colossal expenses of health care. However, according to economic evaluations, PAS doesn't reduce the substantial spending. Martin Levin, JD, MPH, MTS, who is against PAS's legalization, argues that killing Americans to keep costs down is absurd: \"What is absolutely incredible to me is that someone would honestly argue that we should consider the cost savings to America by killing, or assisting in the suicide, of human beings ... even if we were to consider these figures, the savings only total approximately $10,000 per assisted suicide victim. The total savings of approximately $627 million is less than one percent of the total United States health care expenditures\" (4). He also asserts that not many Americans qualify for PAS, the difference is 1/3 of 1% (4).I have also noticed a study pertaining to Dutch PAS protocols. Firstly, this is impractical only if my opponent can somehow substantiate that based on this study, U.S. will take the same turn if it were to legalize PAS in all 50 states (remembering that our debate is focusing on U.S. laws). Because of this, I will not respond to the study. R6: Misdiagnosis:\"According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3).\"This argument is erroneous because it doesn't list any examples/instances about the misdiagnosed, terminally ill patients who died as a result of PAS allowed by their diagnoses. The study that my opponent quotes surely is thought-provoking, but then again, it only leaves to speculate due to the absence of concrete evidence. Therefore, it remains a challenge for my opponent to find an instance where a misdiagnosed patient died as a result of PAS, allowed by the diagnosis. Notwithstanding the claims, let's take a look at how many people die as a result of PAS. According to the data, in 2015, out of 1,545 patients in Oregon who were prescribed lethal medication, 991 of them decided to take their own lives. In 2014, Washington state had 712 deaths as a result of lethal medication. And in Vermont, only 24 (5). Evidently, not that many die as a result of PAS. Though misdiagnosis is a prevalent issue that must be contained under all costs, the data has no concrete correlation with the deaths of misdiagnosed PAS patients. Sources:1.http://bit.ly... 2.http://bit.ly...;3.http://bit.ly...;4.http://bit.ly...;5.http://cnn.it...;", "qid": 23, "docid": "c8970382-2019-04-18T12:54:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8164985179901123}, {"content": "Title: Euthenasia Content: I accept :) I will be arguing that euthanasia should not be made legal. As you are supportive of euthanasia, I will let you make the first argument.", "qid": 23, "docid": "d9f50d86-2019-04-18T15:17:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8163285255432129}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised. Content: Euthanasia should not be legalised.It is more like making disabled feel unequal then armed.Also, giving more powers in the hands of doctors is unsafe.They may use it whichever way.", "qid": 23, "docid": "b280a10e-2019-04-18T11:35:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8162904381752014}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I will support my contention, that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized, with the following arguments: 1. The right to die and self determination 2. Wasted health resources and public funds 3. Prohibition targets innocents There are other arguments, but I believe the following arguments should satisfy the reader to conclude that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legal. 1. The right to die and self determination I would like to highlight articles 5 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression Bob Dent, who was euthanatized, said it best: \"What right has anyone [\u2026] to demand that I must behave according to their rules? \" That's the point I want to make. While I strongly don't agree that someone should give up hope and be euthanatized, but this is neither my decision nor yours. We must respect people's opinions, no matter how much we disagree with them. People who are terminally ill suffer significantly. If they voluntarily, repeatedly and freely make the decision to end their lives, we have no right to deny them that right. Doing so will deny them their right for self-determination and will subject them to pain against their will. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds Euthanasia would free up doctors, nurses and hospital beds. These scarce resources would then be deployed to assist those who are in need, reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care [3]. To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. 3. Prohibition targets innocents In Ireland, Marie Fleming was denied the right to end her life. Her partner was told that he could face up to 14 years in prison if he helped her die! [4] A Pennsylvania woman was charged with murder for assisting her 93 year old father commit suicide [5]. Rebuttal a. Equality issues? My opponent stated that \"limiting euthanasia to the terminally ill sends a message that certain people are expendable and others aren't\". This argument is similar to saying that designating parking spots for the disabled sends a message that disabled people are inferior. But this is simply not true\u2026 disabled people are the ones who requested to be accommodated; they in fact feel insulted when their voices are not heard. The same goes with the terminally ill requesting the right to euthanasia. They argue that the value of human life is not determined by the government, but by the individuals themselves. They can judge for themselves if their life is expendable or not, not the government. My opponent also claimed that \"legalizing euthanasia suggests that human life only has instrumental value\". He argued \"Why treat people with equal respect if we don't really believe that they're equal? \" I disagree. I argue that my opponent is confusing the objective human worth and subjective self worth. Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we must view all humans as equals in dignity and rights [1]. This is the objective view of human worth. A terminally ill person is just as valuable as a healthy person. However, we have no jurisdiction to define the subjective self worth (or instrumental value) of any individual\u2026 that would be determined by the individuals themselves. b. Unintended consequences? My opponent also warned of the risk of the slippery slope. He wondered if Euthanasia was legalized: \"what's to stop non-consensual euthanasia\"? While this is a very common challenge to legalization of euthanasia, it's actually a red herring! Every argument has its own merits and reasons. Non-voluntary euthanasia (or non-consensual euthanasia) may or may not have its own merits and should be discussed separately. My opponent was also concerned that people may be euthanatized incorrectly by a doctor. However, he hasn't provided any evidence for this possibility. Under the Dutch law, the following conditions must be fulfilled [6]: - The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement - The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time - The request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs - The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options - There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above I argue that such measures are very responsible and would significantly reduce any potential doctor error. c. Corruption? My opponent stated that Euthanasia \"invalidates the Hippocratic Oath. \" I challenge my opponent to state which parts of the oath euthanasia allegedly invalidates. There are several parts of the oath that actually supports euthanasia [7]: \"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required. \" \"I will remember that [\u2026] that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug\" \"\u2026But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. \" I argue that my opponent's claim actually supports my contention, not weaken it! My opponent also argued that euthanasia transforms the role of the doctor to \"priests, granting absolution for a patient's suicide\" and that \"state sanctifies the intentional killing of another human being\" There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that my opponent suggested that the intentional killing is always evil or wrong. But this is not true when it comes to euthanasia. I've already demonstrated that the voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients is not evil, but merciful. The second problem is that doctors perform euthanasia with full conscience and out of profound interest in helping their patients. Doctor's don't grant any absolution or lack their off. They simply help their patients end their suffering. My opponent also suggested that \"euthanasia could disincentivize the research and development of better medical care\". I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for this claim. The number of patients who request euthanasia is very limited, and there's no reason to believe that this claim is true. d. Suicide and Unnecessary? Let me start by agreeing with my opponent on the legalization of assisted suicide. (In my opening argument I stated Euthanasia (or assisted suicide)). I do agree that's assisted suicide is a better option for those who are able to receive lethal pills and administer it themselves. However, how about those who don't have the means to commit suicide? Tony Nicklinson was denied his bid to die [4]. He was suffering from \"locked in\" syndrome and was living \"a living nightmare\". It was so horrific that he decided to starve himself to death and died after a week without food. Also Kelly Taylor suffered so much pain that she starved herself for 19 days. She realized that her suicide route was even more harmful that she gave it up and suffered in agony again. My opponent mentioned that patients have the right to refuse treatment. In light of the two examples before, and the amount of suffering it takes until someone finally dies, you couldn't possibly agree that this is a viable option! I also strongly disagree with my opponent's idea to make deadly pills available to the public. What would prevent someone from purchasing them to murder others? It has to be monitored to avoid abuse. Also, its ease of access could have people kill themselves because they were having a bad day! Euthanasia and assisted suicide is only provided to patients who frequently and persistently request it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://listverse.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8151357173919678}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.", "qid": 23, "docid": "88e3525b-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8149334192276001}, {"content": "Title: Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2) Content: Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.DefinitionPhysician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1][1] http://www.medterms.com...\"Rules\"First round is for acceptance only.Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)If you have any questions or clarifications or whatever, please say so in the comments. Thanks!", "qid": 23, "docid": "443158c1-2019-04-18T18:43:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8145416975021362}, {"content": "Title: Physician Assisted Death Content: As someone in favor of physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, ie murder, is a horrible idea. Murder is illegal in the U.S, and therefor physician assisted death would be unlawful do to the broad nature of the topic at hand.[1] [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "qid": 23, "docid": "c44ef8ac-2019-04-18T15:25:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8135392665863037}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States Content: Thank you Pro, I shall make a case as to why assisted-suicide should be implemented legally for society today (within the context of the United States)We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Furthermore, the every day person can get away with this with the current medical loop-hole within the law, and doctors ethics. Lets take a more realistic hypothetical situation shall we? Say your life is only held onto by \"life support\", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are de facto assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Besides who would the doctor be to try and determine who me may and may not save in the face of refusing a patients wishes? In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)[http://www.cbc.ca...] This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: While we already acknowledge that you do not have a choice in being born, you do have choices within the free-market to be who you want to be. For instance, you could be gay or straight, you could run or walk, you can voluntarily talk to someone, or refuse to do so. Why not enable the right to choose if you live or die? So long as you are not determining this upon someone else and only yourself, why should one not have the right to choose to die? I say again: you never were consulted as to if you wanted to be born or not, why not allow this option within today's society coupled with the above contention that we already allow for suicides? This Does Not Always Mean A Rise in Private Firms: My opponent draws a hypothetical of a private firm slaughtering people in a capitalist hell-hole bent on killing innocents. First, with the new Obama-care being implemented the US will effectively have a semi-private health care system. In other words individual mandate (the state insurance) is a state corporation competing with private insurance firms. That's about it, the rest of the hospitals are paid for by the state, and the system was already more socialist than it was capitalist, because doctors save lives regardless of injury and money. It may drive you bankrupt, but you can always get treatment should you seek it. Also, doctors cannot kill simply anyone they would like in an assisted suicide legalized state. In fact my opponent commits a bare assertion fallacy here: doctors still must adhere to medical ethics, and could lose their jobs, along with future potential jobs as doctors with their licenses removed. In fact, in medical ethics, the person being killed must have informed consent! Otherwise not only is the operation not allowed to be carried out, the doctor faces stiff punishments, and the person in question who deceptively killed the \"granny\" would be charged with murder. So this person would not get any money to kill someone, this does not cause a rise in private firms, nor would it cause a rise in pseudo-suicides. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]The Physical Can do His Duty to His Patients:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System Anyways, So You Wouldn't Have to Worry About Private Firms:I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. \"Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org...]. I\u2019d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn\u2019t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com...]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let\u2019s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn\u2019t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well.\" ~ DetectableNinjaFinally, All Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. Even then, doctors make lots of money, why would someone work for a suicide only business when they have their own private practices (notwithstanding doctors working in hospitals)? My opponents hypothetical rests on an appeal to emotion, fear mongering of the capitalist system, and finally, an absurd notion that the US's system is capitalist (when after Obamacare it clearly is not with individual mandate, nor has it ever been which was a supporting argument for individual mandate!). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Does not mean a rise in private firms(4) Doctor does his duty more(5) Save on costs Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!", "qid": 23, "docid": "fd123096-2019-04-18T17:20:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8124027848243713}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: Euthanasia is defined as physical assisted suicide for patients who are in extreme physical pain (judged by the patient). I am willing to debate on the moral stand point as well the legal part of the debate. Questions are encouraged . Good luck to my opponent.", "qid": 23, "docid": "ba1566fe-2019-04-18T15:13:06Z-00008-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8115794658660889}, {"content": "Title: Should Physician assisted suicide be legal Content: Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS is defined by Merriam Webster as \"suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information\" Two states, Oregon and Washington have already made this legal. I believe that a terminally ill patient who has undergone psychiatric evaluation and been deemed sane and competent to make their own decisions should legally be able to do so. I would like to debate someone who has an opposing opinion.", "qid": 23, "docid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8105712532997131}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide shoud be legal in Virginia Content: I have the same objects to Physician assisted suicide as I do with Euthanasia, they are it is immoral, they are subjective, there is no right to die, it will lead down a slippery slope to other things, it really isn't voluntary, it is against any every major religion, and it degrades human life. First lets address my opponents points. \"patients will be able to die with dignity, free from pain and a possible long, suffering death. \" You mentioned Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. In Oregon you qualify for PAS if \"An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner\" [1] It makes no mention of pain. Further, \"It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. \" [2] Since Pain can be controlled it should not be used as a reason to kill yourself. \"physicians should assume their roles in relieving the sick from suffering\" When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [3] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patient's interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. \"DWD is the humane thing to do\" This is basically saying it is compassionate to kill them because they have no hope of recovery. \"A century ago, high blood pressure, pneumonia, appendicitis, and diabetes likely meant death, often accompanied by excruciating pain. Women had shorter life expectancies than men since many died in childbirth. Antibiotics, immunizations, modern surgery and many of today\u2019s routine therapies or medications were unknown then. \" [4] It is never humane to kill humans, and there is always hope for a cure. Now to the objections 1. Immoral One of the most famous philosophers of ethics was Immanuel Kant. He came up with a system of figuring out if an action was moral or not called the Categorical imperative. The Categorical imperative is an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In using the this method Kant condemned all forms of suicide by saying the purpose pain is to protect one\u2019s life [5] , such as taking your hand out of a fire because it burns, and by using pain as a reason to end one\u2019s life was contradictory to the purpose of pain and was therefore immoral. We usually strive to be moral beings, so we should avoid from having immoral acts. 2. Subjectivity Due to the laws subjectivity there are never clear answers. In the Oregon Death with Dignity act Terminal Illness is defined as \u201cmeans an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months\" [1] Things such as pain, suffering, or terminal illnesses are all subjective and you could get different opinions between different doctors, and why is the limit six months for physician assisted suicide and not four or eight months? There is no sound medical reason for why six months are chosen. Since there is subjectivity, it makes the law hard to enforce and have safeguards for. 3. Right to Die The courts have ruled on physician assisted suicide and there was no constitutional right to die. In the case Washington v. Glucksberg the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Washington\u2019s ban on physician assisted suicide was not a violation of the fourteenth amendment and there was no constitutional right to die. [6] They ruled the same in the similar case of Vacco v. Quill. As far as the courts are concerned there is currently no legal right to euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. 4. Slippery Slope The legalization of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide would lead down a slippery slope to other non-voluntary euthanasia. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2001 but have they gone down the slippery slope? In 2004 the Netherlands passed something called the Groningen Protocol. This allows the non-voluntary euthanasia of infants. [7] So, as far as the slippery slope is concerned the Netherlands is well on their way down and there nothing stopping other countries from following. We should not legalize PAS because it will lead to other more damaging things. 5. Voluntary? Voluntary euthanasia is not as voluntary as you might think. The most famous euthanasia program was the one that took the lives of eleven million people in the 1940s, the infamous holocaust. The victims of the Nazis were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, Homosexuals, Freemasons, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, and people with disabilities. In particular the Nazis attacked people with disabilities with a propaganda campaign portraying them as burdens to society and their families. \"The principal reason people in a 1991 Boston Globe survey said they would consider some option to end their lives if they had \u201can incurable illness with a great deal of physical pain\u201d was not the pain, not the \u201crestricted lifestyle,\u201d and not the fear of being \u201cdependent of machines,\u201d but rather that they \u201cdon\u2019t want to be a burden\u201d to their families. Family members who support the suicide of a terminally ill patient often unwittingly reinforce the notion that the ill family member\u2019s life has lost all meaning and value and is nothing but a \u201cburden. \u201d\" [8] \"Many elderly people already feel a burden to family, carers and a society which is cost conscious and may be short of resources. They may feel great pressure to request euthanasia 'freely and voluntarily'. These patients need to hear that they are valued and loved as they are. They need to know that we are committed first and foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time and money. The way we treat the weakest and most vulnerable people speaks volumes about the kind of society we are\" [2] So, voluntary euthanasia/Physician Assisted Suicide is almost as voluntary as in Nazi Germany. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://euthanasia.procon.org... [2] . http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [3] . http://www.life.org.nz... [4] . http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [5] . http://www.siue.edu... [6] . http://www.oyez.org... [7] . http://www.nejm.org... [8] . https://www.nrlc.org...", "qid": 23, "docid": "a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8098660111427307}, {"content": "Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry\" How is this? just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other. contention one: the physician should try to save there life, not take it away. The physician is there to save the person's life,not to just give up and pull the plug. This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, \"oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?\"", "qid": 23, "docid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8097330331802368}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Euthanasia Content: As Pro has not defined euthanasia, I will do so: 'the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die' (1) I will be arguing that this practice ought not to be made legal. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 23, "docid": "faec40a-2019-04-18T15:15:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.8097109794616699}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: \"...pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg...\" Yes, legalizing Euthanasia would go against an old law... that is the whole point... we are trying to make a new law. Referencing an old law doesn't count as \"proof\" when the whole purpose of the debate is to create a new law.\"...doctor who administers it violates the medical profession...the Hippocratic oath which states 'I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;' The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.\"I'm pretty sure I pointed out that doctors wouldn't be ADVISING suicide if a patient came in requesting it. The doctor would then have an opportunity to help the patient through suicide prevention therapy. That opportunity would not have been available if the patient tried comitting suicide privately. If even suicide prevention therapy doesn't work then the patient's death is inevitable, and there is no problem with a doctor taking the patient's life painlessly, rather than the patient taking his own life in more painful methods like hanging or shooting.", "qid": 23, "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8096098899841309}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it Content: First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live. Value of human life. As stated in the constitution, \"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness. \" Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day. This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else. Undermines medical research I understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say \"i want to do\" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die. Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says \"suicide is ok. \" Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless. Contradicts right to liveHumans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly. Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths.", "qid": 23, "docid": "fbc5207f-2019-04-18T17:32:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8093283176422119}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: I thank you for a well though out response. I just want to state, no where in the United States has been euthanasia legal; however, there are 4 states with physician assisted suicide. 1. Immoral Pain is pain no matter what if it is physical or mental, its purpose is still to protect you by letting you know there is something wrong. Although my opponent offers his version of morality which is referred to as the Harm principle which is \"As long as the action involves only consenting adults it is morally permissible.\", but I don't believe this is really how he would determine morality. Irving Kristol wrote an argument to this saying \"[T]he plain fact is that none of us is a complete civil libertarian. We all believe that there is some point at which the public authorities ought to step in to limit the \"self-expression\" of an individual or group even where this might be seriously intended as a form of artistic expression, and even where the artistic transaction is between consenting adults. A playwright or theatrical director might, in this crazy world of ours, find someone willing to commit suicide on stage, as called for by the script. We would not allow that-any more than we would permit scenes of real physical torture on the stage, even if the victim were a willing masochist. And I know of no one, no matter how free in spirit, who argues that we ought to permit gladiatorial contests in Yankee stadium, similar to those once performed in the Coliseum of Rome-even if only consenting adults were involved.\" [1] If this is really does believe this then All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal and is morally permissible; however I felt that I have shown that it does harm people like the disabled and the elderly. 2. Subjectivity It doesn't deny that it is the patients that feel pain, it implies you can get different opinions from doctors weather an illness is terminal, or you are in unrelievable pain. In fact he actually elaborates further on my point with \"Pain can be tiny to one person but huge to another, the most basic example is that some people can walk over broken glass smiling!\" Measuring pain does have to do with it because in place where euthanasia is legal \"The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain.\" [2] Why does the family have to be okay with it? Should it not be solely up to the patient? I will address relief of pain later. 3. Right to Die No, I don't think this is a problem, but you said it was a Human rights; However, the supreme court unanimously disagrees. They also ruled similarly, 9-0, in Vacco v. Quill. [3] Also, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. [4] 4. Slippery Slope How isn't this a slippery slope? The Groningen Protocol is a form of Non-voluntary Euthanasia. How isn't it killing infants? You can't euthanize something that isn't alive. Yes, I would rather deny the infants right to life based on my subjective judgement that they don't want to live. When people receive their medical degree they have to take something called the Hippocratic oath. In the Hippocratic oath it prohibits directly or indirectly killing human beings. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. [7] By violating this oath how can we know the doctor is acting in the patients interest? A physician's role is to kill illnesses not kill patients. 5. Voluntary? You agree that elderly people feel they are a burden and would seek euthanasia because of it, but you think since it would be legal it would make families care more? Why do they need the ability for a doctor to kill them before families pay attention? Like you said if you knew a family member wanted to die, they could kill themselves many ways if they want to they don't need euthanasia to maybe have their families care. I also covered people with disabilities would also feel that \"burden\" too. In fact those are the two groups targeted by euthanasia the \"non-providers\", the weakest, and most vulnerable it only makes them feel worse. It was a euthanasia program. It is involuntary euthanasia, but it is still euthanasia. It rarely is an act of free will, so the comparison isn't as far off as you think because the Nazis were getting rid of the people who were \"non-providers\", the weakest, and most vulnerable. Euthanasia is \"The term normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die.\" [5] 6. Pain Relief People say euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. This is like saying cyanide relieves depression. It is true that they don\"t feel pain anymore abut they don\"t feel good because they are dead. Now try it with the other example. It is true that they don\"t feel depressed anymore but they don\"t feel good because they are dead. There is also ways to relieve pain besides death. \"It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.\" [6] In countries with euthanasia Palliative care is poorly developed. [8] Sources [1] http://www.mandm.org.nz... [2] http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... [3] http://www.oyez.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [6] http://www.ethicsforschools.org... [7] http://www.life.org.nz... [8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a37f4-2019-04-18T16:54:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8090103268623352}, {"content": "Title: euthinasia Content: First off, it was utterly painful to read my opponent's arguments... No periods or capitalization.. It was like reading a huge run-on sentence. ---Now to my case:\"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.\" (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997) [1] Supreme Court rules that physician-assisted suicide is unconstitutional. \"'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect\" (Hippocratic Oath) [2] The Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of the art and science of medicine, states that physician-assisted suicide should not be practiced. A five-year-old boy in Great Britain, after a long battle, survived deadly strain of E. coli, even though a doctor had said two years ago that he would have died over night. [3] Miracles (or, to the less religious, improbable phenomena) happen. It is not right to deny patients of a slim chance of recovery or a doctor's error. A misdiagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Also, a premature decision to commit suicide denies a patient of precious time to spend with family and friends. ---[1] http://law2.umkc.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...", "qid": 23, "docid": "fb67998b-2019-04-18T18:32:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8087953329086304}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements Content: Euthanasia should be legalized, and there should be no restrictions. People should be able to die whenever they want, regardless of their physical and mental health. Life, being wearing of these worldly bars, should always be able to dismiss itself.", "qid": 23, "docid": "6dbd1f79-2019-04-18T16:49:50Z-00008-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.8086751699447632}, {"content": "Title: we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives and a terminal illness Content: Stance: We should not support physician-assisted suicide for \"those living tortured lives and a terminal illness\". First and foremost, it would be preferable for this debate if the Instigator to give a precise definition of what a \"tortured life\" and \"terminal illness\" is. Until then, it will not be possible to supply articulated arguments against euthanasia (which I define as physician-assisted suicide). Since these vital definitions aren\"t provided, this opening argument will instead criticize Pro\"s opening arguments, which are flawed. The assertion that people\"s greatest fear is suffering, not death, is insofar unsubstantiated. Also, our intuition of what to do to dogs and what to do with humans aren\"t the same because humans are intrinsically more valuable than a dog (a dog, for example, cannot debate euthanasia on the Internet). The Instigator\"s argument that many of us would our loved ones to die than suffer is also unsubstantiated. Furthermore, being against state-sponsored physician-assisted suicide isn\"t so much about thinking the State is right; it\"s about not letting the State have the legal ability to allow one take another citizen\"s life. Finally, since even medical professions do not have total precision and accuracy of measuring someone\"s lifetime, euthanizing someone would have survived much longer otherwise will inevitably occur.", "qid": 23, "docid": "fad05e94-2019-04-18T15:56:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8082380294799805}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: Thank you, Con, for posting this and I look forward to having my first debate on DDO with you.Clarifications:1. For scope, \"legalized euthanasia\" (henceforth PAS for physician-assisted suicide) should be defined in this debate. Since, as Pro, I will be defending it (and, since Con has not made any particular definition in round one) I find no harm in laying down specifics.\"Euthanasia (noun): the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma\" [1] Pro will defend the verbal/written consent by the patient and written authorization of mental stability by an outside professional for the former, and prior written consent by the patient for the latter.\"Legalize (transitive verb): to make legal; to give legal validity or sanction to\" [2] The only purpose in this definition is to make clear the physician never has the say in euthanizing patients. The decision will rest solely on the patient.2. So as not to make the focus of the debate about semantics, it's probably a good idea to define the \"value\" of human life.\"Values (noun): principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what's important in life\" [3] As Pro, I will defend an individually based utilitarian approach on \"values\" (i.e. maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering). If Con disagrees with this, I think it's fair game to debate how the \"value of life\" should be interpreted and its consequential ethics.3. Both Pro and Con should share BoP when making positive claims. Pro should defend the benefits of legal PAS and Con should support claims otherwise. Without any reason to negate the resolution, the decision should default Pro.4. Sources should be cited when giving data or an empiric (or copy-pasting text from a cite [4]). Personally, credit should be given where credit is due.5. Any necessary clarifications between Pro and Con can be done in the comments, but the debate should remain in-round.All things considered, I'll continue with the debate.. . . . .As Pro, I will argue only one contention needs to be won to win this debate, or sufficiently negate Con's counter-arguments.Contention 1: The Value of LifeThe values of life, and those contained within life, should be the exclusive right of the person interpreting those values. The formulation of this is based on the following theorem:1. All that can be known exists in the physical world.2. Humans exist in the physical world.3. Humans are conscious beings.4. Conscious beings, ipso facto, create values.5. Genetic predispositions and experiences of conscious beings form values.6. No human beings observe the world simultaneously through experience.7. Therefore, humans create unique values separate from all others.Values are constructs of the human conscience and can only be based off of genetic predisposition and/or experiences. The latter is the focus, since predisposed values, such as procreation and good will, are exclusively left to the realm of evolution. Since it is safe to assume each individual human being has a unique set of observations throughout life, a person should have the ability to determine values of the self. The definition listed above supports this as values are defined as \"one's judgement of what's important in life.\" This leads into the second argument:1. Life has value, if and only if, it functions as a medium for experience.2. Life allows for observations and experience.3. Therefore, life has value.If a person is able to have the ability to gauge importance and observe the advantages/disadvantages to life (as a value), they should, when terminally ill, be given the right to choose between a peaceful end and suffering. From an individualistic utilitarian standpoint, a person is within reason to choose PAS when they have an excruciating terminal illness, as it avoids the inevitable pain in those last few moments of life.Contention 2: The Right to Life and DeathIn America, citizens have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as shown by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. [5] These rights are supported by the Government, \"deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.\" If Pro can prove the right to life necessitates the right to death, the government is obligated to support PAS as they are fulfilling their duty to serve the people.1. People have a right to life.2. A world beyond life cannot be known.3. If a world beyond life cannot be known, death is the end to values.4. Terminal illness guarantees death.4. Therefore, people have a right to death, if and only if, they are terminally ill.This provides the parameters for how people should view life in relation to death. Since all we know and all we can observe/experience exists in the physical world, values (a construct thereof) should only be taken as an extension of physical property. Life is something a person owns at his/her own will, not as an obligation. Once it is medically established beyond reason a patient will die from an illness, values may be taken into perspective, since they know their clock is, essentially, running out.Contention 3: MercyIt is well established a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment according to the U.S. Constitution's fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court consistently defends the right to life and liberty would be violated if a hospital forced treatment for their patient. [6] This catch-22 leaves the doctor in a lose-lose scenario. Either, the doctor abridges the patient's constitutional rights, or s/he carries the burden of knowing an alternate solution would have produced less suffering. A common retort is the fallacious argument that PAS is murder. The false assumption is that it is the doctor's decision to assist in the process. Since, it is exclusively the patient's decision, the doctor is absolved of all responsibility. Evaluating a paradigm of values, the doctor would actually be doing the wrong thing by barring PAS as an option, since this would lead to more suffering.. . . . .Rebuttal:\"Euthanasia devalues human life\"1. Con has the BoP to show how a patient ending their own suffering devalues their life (which, my first contention refutes).2. Arbitrarily deciding life itself has more worth than the values a patient follows, necessarily devalues that patients life.3. A patient who believes their life will be devalued during/after PAS is free to not choose that route.\"Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment\"1. It is Con's BoP to show how it will be used as such when the decision rides solely on the patient.\"Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death\"1. Con should defend why PAS is worse than patient refusal of treatment to speed up the process.2. This point was covered in contentions two and three.\"There is a 'slippery slope' effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later the laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.\"1. Empirical slippery slopes are difficult to defend because they assume same-case scenarios. Con's empiric cites no such data. BoP has not been met.2. Even if there are empirical examples, to say one good law shouldn't be passed because another law might be passed without proving why is an argumentum ad ignorantiam at best.3. Contention one indicates the value of individual life should outweigh this measure.Back to you, Con :)[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://www.euthanasia.com...[5] http://www.archives.gov...[6] http://law2.umkc.edu...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a37b6-2019-04-18T17:54:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.8065701127052307}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia will desensitize public to idea of killing to solve problems Content: Euthanasia will give the impression that it is OK to kill or to commit suicide when faced with a problem. This is a bad example to set.", "qid": 23, "docid": "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00124-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8050823211669922}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Content: Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient.\"If the person would like to end their life right away\" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.", "qid": 23, "docid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.8047590255737305}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalised Content: Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read \"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.\" Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states \"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;\" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.", "qid": 23, "docid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.8040933012962341}, {"content": "Title: People should be allowed to commit suicide Content: My opponent disagrees that as a society people should just consider suicide moral or immoral. However, the premise of this argument is if people should be legally allowed to take their life. Since legality is suppose to in some ways reflect morality, it is very important that people consider the issue as moral or immoral. My opponent has pointed out that there are two sides to every issue to which I agree. Thee statistics my opponent presented were taken from a gall up pole which was designed to assess Americans belief on if people should be allowed to help a \"terminally ill\" patient commit \"suicide\" if the patient requests it, and if doctors should be allowed by law to \"end\" a \"terminally ill\" patient's life by some painless means if the patient and family request it (1). Terminally ill is the status of a person expected to die within 6 months from a specific condition(2). This is important to define because my opponent is arguing on behalf of the emotionally and mentally disturbed. I feel it would be more of a challenge to argue the issue of the terminally ill and how active and passive methods for terminating a life compare morally to one another. My opponent however has argued that if an individual has any form of suffering they have the right to end their life. I would like to point out that there are advocates of assisted suicide that don't feel issues outside terminal illness give one the justification to commit suicide. For example Professor Lewis Wolpert states \"I am totally for voluntary euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses\u2026But depression is not a terminal illness.\"(3) I fail to see how the fact that the issue being controversial makes it logical to legalize it. There are many people with deferent beliefs that contradict our laws causing controversy and by the logic presented we should just legalize it. This logic to me seems illogical. The only advantage I have heard from the opposing side is that it ends suffering early. When it comes to a permanent action like suicide one should try every option available. My opponent's example of a person dropping a bomb who has not point for therapy, would most likely be suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (4). The most commonly prescribed class of medications for PTSD is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants (5). This added with psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, EMDR and hypnotherapy can be an effective treatment. When it comes to such a permanent solution as death a person has nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying alternative methods. Losing a parent to suicide makes children more likely to commit suicide and increases their risk of developing a range of major psychiatric disorders(6). Suicide can affect all those who have extended contact with the individual like neighbors, coworkers, classmates, friends, and etc. Suicides of entertainers, politicians, and other well know figures cause a spike in the suicide rate. Example after the suicide of Marilyn Monroe the nation's suicide rate rose by 12% (7). It is also found that the suicide of a co-worker or colleague increases the likely hood of individuals within that organization to attempt suicide (7). Media coverage of a suicide also increases the suicide rate (7). This is occurring with the attempt of suicide being illegal imagine if it was legal and more accepted in our society. What about the parents of a child who commits suicide? They have put time, money, and care into raising a child who dies way before their parents. The parents may wonder what they did to cause this and what they could have done better. What about the parent who can't have any more kids and their only child decides life is too hard and decides to end his life. Pity can only be a component of justice if responsibility is taken into account. My opponent disagrees every day an individual goes without killing himself is progression. Does that mean you should not exercise everyday because you still feel fat? No that is illogical and repairing mental health as easy as repairing physical health there are a lot more components to it, and also like building muscle the progress may not be quite as noticeable even though it is your mental health. I think that is absurd that my opponent thinks all the family deserves is a \"it is not you it is me\" letter. My opponent suggest the individual should set up care for their family, which is the most responsible suggestion my opponent has made. My opponent's statement on how the family will easily get over it has evidence to support it and sounds absurd. My opponent seems to care welfare of none family members over family, I feel we should be concerned with both. If suicides can influence others to commit suicide is that not indirectly killing them which according to you is irresponsible. Letting someone who is mentally ill commit suicide is as irresponsible as letting a child do whatever they want. Example little jimmy wants to juggle knives, let him it is body and I am sure his six year reflexes will be improved by this experience. I have trouble understanding my opponents end argument because there seems to be contradictions. It also seems that adding \"if nothing else works \" is my opponents way of making a irresponsible thing seem a little more responsible, but it is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing Source: (1)http://www.gallup.com... (2)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4)http://psychcentral.com... (5)http://psychcentral.com... (6)http://www.sciencedaily.com... (7)Comer, Ronald J.. Abnormal psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2010. Print.", "qid": 23, "docid": "225139a7-2019-04-18T18:41:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.8040519952774048}, {"content": "Title: Oregon's Death By Dignity Law. Content: Still definitions.I maintain that this act legalises physician-led euthanasia, for two reasons. This is because of the nature of the act means that the doctor gives the patient the means to kill themelf. The distinguishment between suicide and euthanasia is irrelevant, though, as the contentions remain the same.The Horror of the 5%As my opponent constructed a case where Matthew wanted to commit suicide, we must look at his life very carefully. What would Matthew rather do? Would he rather be dead, or continue living painlessly, and with full autonomy? It is blatant that he would rather continue living without pain. As the work by Kobler-Ross showed, people can live without pain with ease in our modern society: thus, the law in place is a lazy solution. Instead, we can help Matthew continue living freely and autonomously: what my opponent puts simply is taking an emotional case, and capitalising on it: using matthew as a means to her end of convincing people with rhetoric, not facts. But here are the facts: 5% of people will die. Only 5% of people can be not saved (though my source, who is more respected and unbias states that all can be saved from death) will die, and can die without pain thanks to modern technology, without having to give them the means to die. This means 95% can be saved, but will die, due to the initiation from this law. My opponent is pleading to allow this extreme minority of 5% to die quickler, not less painfully. I am pleading that we allow the 95% to live freely and not die. I could similarly provide an emotional case like Matthew's, but where someone is pronounced terminally ill, yet the doctors were wrong, and the person comes out alive and brilliant. John Matzke was diagnosed with 18 months to live[1]. He could have, and wanted to, die. However, the law was not on his side: euthanasia was not legal. So he tried to fight for his life instead. After the fight, he fought the disease into remission. If he killed himself, then this could never have happened. Assisted suicide would have been this person's worst decision. And this is but one case of the 95%. The death by dignity law is unintelligent, irrational, and cold-hearted.Death with \"Dignity\" is an unreasonable choice for those 5%Again, I'd like to reaffirm this. We know there is a better solution for those with euthanasia: Kobler-Ross' work shows us that we can give great quality of life, free of pain, to all with terminal illnesses. We also know many recover from terminal illnesses. Finally, we know that people would choose life over death. My opponent did not refer to my thief analogy, so I will refer to it again: a rational, uncoerced man knows stealing is wrong. Similarly, a rational, uncoerced mind knows that life is better than death. Only pain leads us to make irrational decisions - something we all know well - and the fear of living with pain is what troubles us. However, without pain, people have always decided to pick life. Again, referring back to On Death and Dying (by Kobler-Ross): \"Those in my care, when free [of pain], accept their time will come, and wait for it, not hasten it.\"[3] The only reason these people wish to die is the pain, which we can manage. My opponent has given no examples of any cases where the pain is uncontrollable: even the case of Matthew, with skin cancer, has simple and powerful control mechanisms to the pain to make it \"minimal\"[2], and patients have reported to \"forget the pain entirely\"[3]. Thus, the death with dignity is unreasonable for 5%, and unreasonable for 95%. However, we must finally state that hard cases make bad laws: the exception or two to the rule will open floodgates. Further, Kantian ethics remains the strongest answer to the Oregon question. We should not make exceptions for this law, simply because of the connotations of making exceptions. We cannot make laws based on exceptional cases. Hard cases make bad laws. I wish to make a very long quotation to explain this idea. I usually just rewrite the statement, but I am low on characters, so... \"issue hangs on the \"rarity principle.\" We all see the need for a law against murder. But do we need a law for a bad act that happens at one millionth the rate of murder? Probably not. Legality should offer only a blurry reflection of morality, not its mirror image. Whereas morals delineate complex fractal lines, laws should follow smooth contours free of singularities. As the saying goes, \"Hard cases make bad laws.\" This is not a weakness of the law but a strength: that's how it can be both universal and enforceable. TBS theorists will agree but say: \"Look, 1,000,000/1,000,000 = 1, so an action likely to cause one million deaths at one millionth the rate of murder matches the expected harm of murder, and hence merits its own law; ergo, legalize torture. QED.\" A three-word refutation: Break the law. No one's yet suggested a new speed limit sign: \"55 \u2014 Unless You're Taking Your Dying Uncle To The Hospital.\" Speed up if you must, and pay the price later. Tucking exceptions into law is courting the same trouble as overfitting a machine learning classifier, ie, loss of generalizing power and diminished appeal to universality.\"[4]The feeling of a pinprick...This argument went untouched. Maybe the audience can interpret a response better than I can, but I cannot see a response, so I cannot discuss this myself.ConclusionTo conclude, I shall end with a quotation by Bentham, a Utilitarian, as my opponent ended with Kant. \"The question is...can [humans] suffer?\" This is the important issue, and Bentham recognised this. Pain, not death, is what is important. Why? Because pain clouds judgement. By removing this pain, we address the problem. Oregon's law does not address the problem, it only ignores it: it hides it under the carpet. The problem is that these people are in pain, and it affects their judgement. We need to solve the problem of these people being in pain. People who aren't in pain don't want t die: it is irrational to kill them with this knowledge. Let us do the right thing, and ease their suffering, not just kill them off. Thank you.1 - http://discovermagazine.com...;2 - http://www.cancercenter.com...3 - On Death and Dying4 - http://www.cs.princeton.edu...", "qid": 23, "docid": "1cecaf86-2019-04-18T18:16:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.8038160800933838}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America Content: My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.8037817478179932}, {"content": "Title: Assisted suicide should be legalized Content: I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.", "qid": 23, "docid": "4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.8032580614089966}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legalized because people that is suffering should have the rigth to decide if they want to do euthanasia. Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people should approve it.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386e349-2019-04-18T16:54:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.8032418489456177}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: I believe that euthanasia should be legal in countries that it is not legal in. Let me just put in that the definition of euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal illness.", "qid": 23, "docid": "e21a50a3-2019-04-18T12:16:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.803179144859314}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: Alright, I will take the con side of this argument. I guess to start, euthanasia is illegal in most states and the question would be, why would making this legal be the right choice. The biggest thing with the opposing side is euthanasia is basically assisted suicide and is an inhumane way to end a persons life. I know this act is preformed to relieve a persons suffering, however it seems as though there are other ways to help with a persons suffering rather that just ending their life. Could there be another way to relieve a persons pain and suffering like certain drugs? A few questions for this topic I have are: Is euthanasia an only option for certain diseases? Is it the last resort in some cases? Out of the states where euthanasia is not legal, is there a large population of people that would support euthanasia? As I said before, could there be another option to relieve pain and suffering without ending a persons life?", "qid": 23, "docid": "6626ac2e-2019-04-18T13:30:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.8031170964241028}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US Content: I would like to remind for the 3rd time. The resolution is Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US. It doesn't have to do with believing in god. There can be arguments on god with Euthanasia, but that is not what the opponent is doing. Again, Euthanasia is merciful for patients who choose to seek that route. Due to the nonexistent clash in this debate. I would like to remind my opponent not to make any new arguments because I do not have a 6th round to finally talk about Euthanasia. However, because we have been talking about I do want to end with one quote from a doctor: \"If I do not help him, do I not play God, taking away from him the option of a gentle and, in his eyes, a rational death\" Life is about rationality. The separation between truth, and falsehood, is required to live a meaningful life. There should not be a grey area. So if a patient deliberately asks to end their painful terminal life, it should be our duty as a society to give them the dignity. Thus I offer a set line that will separate the rational and irrational in medical decision. That is to legalize Euthanasia for quality of life to terminally ill patients.", "qid": 23, "docid": "ba1566fe-2019-04-18T15:13:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.8028244376182556}, {"content": "Title: Legal Euthanasia Content: What would be necessary for you to switch sides in this argument? Would there ever be a situation in your opinion that made it ok to legally euthanize? Would there be a specific condition or disease that had specific symptoms that would make it ok for someone to commit suicide by chemical drugs? What if they didn\"t have any family or friends and they were all alone having to deal with so much pain? Would there be any situation that would make it ok for physician assisted suicide?", "qid": 23, "docid": "d8891c6f-2019-04-18T14:17:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.8015170097351074}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: This debate will be just your standard Euthanasia debate. The prompt: Euthanasia should be legal in the US.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386eb66-2019-04-18T15:17:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.8010495901107788}, {"content": "Title: we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives Content: whatever reasons the person wants to end his life, are sufficient, as long as he is understood by professionals to be tortured, like he is in pain etc.You're saying that suicide is moral. This is a slippery slope. At one point do we justify that euthanasia should not be permitted? If a patient is experiencing back pain and is suffering from it, do we allow him to kill himself because it's his right? You're arguing based on patient rights but the way you addres it brings up more problems than answers. If I bullied you all through highschool, would it be fair to kill me? These examples demonstrate that you need to have a clear understanding of why the patient is suffering and why he wants to be euthanaized, however, no one can justify a patient's choice but himself. It's a grey area that if not enforced properly, can lead to abuse of power.we have to make rules that catch the far and wide majority, which euthanasia laws do just that. There are currently no laws on euthanasia and when you're trying to make laws based off of opinions, they fail. Laws are definite, opinons are infinite. They are based off of people's own perception and experiences. You cannot make a law that can draw a clear distinction between right and wrong in this situation, because people's opinions fluctuates.'i can grant be considered, but asyou yourself ackowedge, there's a right ot the patient's body and soverignty Yes, part of the consideration is due to patient rights, however, patients rights are limited in certain circumstances for the safety of the individual or for society. If I was diagnosed with chronic depression. No matter what I tell my doctors that I want to do with my body, they will not abide to my decisions because I am considered to be in altered mental status. Again, in the case of euthanasia, the distinciton between patient rights and environmental factors becomes muddled (repeating reasons stated in R1)you are basically just listing some negative points. nothing is perfect. the bottomline essence is that we need to allow for people's suffering and soveriengty, but it is the right thing to doYou're right. Let's just kill them off cause it's easier.", "qid": 23, "docid": "e5fc1c66-2019-04-18T16:11:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.8007010221481323}, {"content": "Title: should disabled have the right to suicide Content: Assisted suicide, also known as Euthanasia, is a delicate topic. While I concede that there are many moral arguments on the side of the pro side, there are often factors that are not taken into account when debating Euthanasia. My opponent has brought up the pain argument. Yes, I agree that many disabled and terminally ill patients experience extraordinary pain. However, modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain.", "qid": 23, "docid": "45b24505-2019-04-18T12:16:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7998254299163818}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia must be made legal in India Content: It is time to support the concept of right to die with dignity in the same manner as the human race endorses dignity of life. A man in PVS will be suffering more mental pain than that of physical pain.There are limits to human suffering, especially when there is no light at the end of the tunnel. A terminally ill patient cannot be kept on life support with the hope that, in the foreseeable future, there may be developments in medicine which may save him or her. Quality of life is as important as life itself. People argue that if euthanasia is legalised, it could be misused; but isn't that the case with most of the existing laws? Strong safeguards should be put in place to avoid any kind of misuse, and euthanasia should be allowed only when no amount of palliative care can help the patient recover. This debate has caused a schism within people from all walks of life. The people who matter most are those who have to endure unimaginable suffering, both physical and mental, and who may be forced to take the route of euthanasia. Death is never the first choice, and people opt for this path only because there is none other left to take. To die on one's own terms can be a boon for both the patients and their families who have to go through this ordeal. Being a human one should not forget the humane values and must work for legalising euthanasia. Good luck to whoever accepts my debate!", "qid": 23, "docid": "57df115a-2019-04-18T18:41:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7990041971206665}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: First, you have significantly altered the debate with your statement that you are \"referring to terminally ill patients that doctors say will be dead in a couple months or so.\" That was not mentioned in your opening statement. However, I believe that all of my arguments still stand because it is not impossible for a cure to be discovered in that couple of months, or for the disease to go into remission, or even for a miracle to happen (even if you don't believe in God, quantum uncertainty and the laws of probabilities make it possible). I disagree with your statement that a contract and further tests would \"bypass the doctors' ethical obligations.\" If physician assisted suicide was legalized, it would solve the LEGAL problems, but it would do nothing for the ethical issues. I still hold that a doctor knowingly allowing a person to kill themselves is a breach of ethics under nearly any circumstances. (there are exceptions such as warfare, but none that are relevant to this debate). In completely agreeing with my second argument, are you also agreeing to the part that says \"The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct.\" ? Augustine's point stands regardless of actual innocence. It is just as illegal for me to walk up and shoot a terrorist in broad daylight as it is for me to do the same to a child. This argument is based more in philosophy than in enforcement. Obviously, I am not arguing that there should be a penalty for committing suicide, but rather that it is wrong to do so. It is therefore wrong to help someone do so.", "qid": 23, "docid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7989062070846558}, {"content": "Title: euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is indeed a very complicated process, and questions on the basis of our own mortality will always be extremely difficult morally and spiritually. There are many questions, as my opponent has shown, that can prove to be difficult in answering whether or not euthanasia should be a legal practice. I will attempt to answer these questions now, providing a suitable basis for moral and ethical euthanasia. >Is it an option when a man is suicidal? You may think that people who want euthanasia are suicidal because they want to die, or you may not think that. If it is indeed suicide, it would depend on the circumstances. >Is it the choice of the man to be mercy-killed? Euthanasia is a very complex choice for those who wish to do it. If somebody is suffering and will not survive their illness, then it is justified for the person to terminate their own life to avoid the prolonging of their own suffering and the suffering of others. >Is it the choice of his friends and family? No. If a terminally ill person wants to live on, that is their decision. >Can any man say it was a mercy-kill? This depends on what you mean, again. Since it is up to the patient, the death is caused by a terminal sickness but suffering is reduced by the patient's own actions. >Can we trust the doctor? Doctors are generally trustful, but I understand your scepticism when it comes to deciding death. I would make necessary for euthanasia to have consultations with TWO SEPARATE physicians to determine whether an illness is terminal and if euthanasia could be justified from the suffering, and a psychiatrist to determine if the patient has a sound mind to decide their own death. You suggest that euthanasia cannot be regulated, but this is what supporters of euthanasia are trying to do. Currently it is not illegal for a terminally ill person to kill themselves, it is only illegal for those to assist him. Making euthanasia LEGAL AND REGULATED would place necessary barriers to make euthanasia open and safer for those who are terminally ill and suffering.", "qid": 23, "docid": "cf4017a5-2019-04-18T16:44:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7985811233520508}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be allowed. I look forward to a lively debate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386dc62-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7984451055526733}, {"content": "Title: Should euthanasia be legal Content: In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence \" Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live...\" According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.", "qid": 23, "docid": "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7984274625778198}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized. Content: I would like to reinforce my statements that for a doctor to kill someone or help them kill themselves, they must go against ethical guidelines, killing someone is never in their best interest, and that a desire to commit suicide is a sign of mental illness. Assisted Suicide is immoral, unethical, and should remain illegal.", "qid": 23, "docid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7983066439628601}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: I'll state my position and then my contentions. My position is that Elective Suicide is Okay. My position is that Assisted Suicide is Not Okay. My contention is that power of attorney is too easy to abuse and people can be coerced or end up with a person who doesn't have their best wishes at heart making the decision. My contention is that there is not good way to fix this problem and therefore Euthanasia is immoral. That is not to say that I am against the elderly killing themselves. Your floor.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386f9ee-2019-04-18T11:08:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7982329726219177}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide. Content: I stand in strong negation to the following resolution that assisted suicide should become legal. Contention 1: Assisted suicide is immoral. Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. Contention 3: Suicide doesn\"t solve anything. Contention 1: Assisted Suicide is immoral. Would you help someone kill another person? No. So why is it any different if you\"re helping someone kill themselves instead of helping them? Contention 2: Assisted suicide is against what god wants for us. God put us on this earth to learn. Helping someone kill themselves ends their opportunity to learn. Contention 3: Assisted suicide doesn't solve anything. We can\"t just kill ourselves every time life gets hard.", "qid": 23, "docid": "49cd40b7-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7972487211227417}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Let's start with Pro's concessions: (1) euthanasia creates risks of abuse/error, and (2) not all terminally ill patients suffer. The first concession means that euthanasia shouldn't be legal if there's better alternatives. The second concession undermines all of Pro's offense on suffering, because the resolution requires that Pro support euthanasia for all terminally ill patients, not just those who suffer. Pro's case is vague, inconsistent, and incoherent. In R2, for example, Pro says the government doesn't have the right to intervene in matters of death. I pushed back on that, so in R3, Pro says the government should intervene in death, enact appropriate safeguards, record the event, and so on. Pro even says the government should help us make moral decisions, which sounds like paternalism rather than libertarianism. Now, in R4, Pro advocates some sort of bizarre paternalistic libertarian framework, where the government gets to help us make moral decisions, like stopping us from committing suicide, but it doesn't get to prevent doctors from killing their patients. And apparently the government also gets to intervene in death, decide who is expendable enough to be killed and who isn't (i. e. someone who suffers enough and is terminally ill apparently isn't worth fully protecting), and create a system where risks of abuse/error are preferred to alternatives without risks of abuse/error. This simply makes no sense. The framework underlying Pro's argument is incoherent. The strangest argument Pro makes is his argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide. Specifically, Pro says euthanasia is preferable because suicide is against the rules of two religions. But Pro doesn't advocate for these religions or their beliefs. Instead, Pro's argument rests on the idea that suicide isn't acceptable to these religious people, regardless of whether the religions are right or wrong. This argument isn't remotely compelling. The idea that voluntary euthanasia isn't suicide is bizarre: in both euthanasia and suicide, the patient intentionally acts to end their own life. The key difference is that euthanasia involves numerous risks of abuse and error because it empowers doctors to kill their patients, while assisted suicide and regular suicide don't. And the notion that we should enact a human right based on the preferences of a few religious people is simply unconvincing, especially when these two religions probably prohibit euthanasia anyway. Pro says we should enact rights based on the majority, but the entire point of human rights is to protect the minority from the majority. So that point also fails. Pro says I'm denying these religious people the right to die, but I'm not denying them anything. Their decision to commit suicide or to live through their suffering is a personal one that they make, on the basis of their religious views. They're free to change their religious views just as I'm free to change mine. Either way, the government shouldn't be enacting human rights on the basis of religious views. The reason risks of abuse/error matter is because there's other options with no risks. For instance, suicide -- no doctor can mistakenly or intentionally end your life against your wishes when you commit suicide. The decision is completely yours. The same goes for assisted suicide, since you personally have to end your own life. Euthanasia simply gives doctors too much power over our lives, and the risks that entails aren't worth it, because there's other ways to end our lives, end our suffering, without any risks. Pro's responses aren't persuasive. On suicide and the right to refuse medical treatment, Pro says he supports both but they're illegal in some places. However, that argument has no impact on the resolution, since the resolution is a normative one. Pro is advocating a change in the law, which means I can advocate a different change in the law that's preferable to Pro's change. I advocate the right to suicide, the right to refuse medical treatment, and in extreme cases, the right to assisted suicide. And my point is that there's no reason to legalize euthanasia simply because patients aren't allowed to commit suicide or refuse medical treatment. The solution to that problem is recognizing a right to suicide and a right to refuse treatment. You should prefer my solution because it doesn't have any of the risks associated with euthanasia. On involuntary euthanasia, Pro says it's illegal everywhere. But this is untrue. The Netherlands legalized involuntary euthanasia a few years after legalizing voluntary euthanasia. This happened because both forms of euthanasia rest on the same logic: ending suffering. Pro's entire case rests on this same logic. The utilitarian project of weighing suffering against the right to life inevitably leads to involuntary euthanasia when suffering significantly outweighs the right to life. Of course, that determination is left to doctors and the state, which is what makes involuntary euthanasia such a frightening proposition. In response, Pro says that doctors won't be able to kill their patients painlessly if euthanasia is illegal. But that's untrue. And even if it's true, it's irrelevant. The point is that we need to discourage doctors from murdering their patients. If euthanasia is legal, there's less deterrence. There's always the excuse that it was a mistake (hence the risks of abuse). And there's risks of coercion. Pro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. Pro's torture point wasn't ignored; it was addressed by recognizing the right to refuse medical treatment. Doctors aren't under any obligation to prolong suffering. I also addressed it by pointing out access to palliative care. And in extreme circumstances, doctors can terminally sedate their patients, ending all suffering while still keeping their patients alive. This ensures that the medical profession remain focused on curing disease rather than killing. Finally, extend my argument on equality. Pro's asking us to enforce an arbitrary distinction between people. In response, Pro says he's giving the right to euthanasia to everyone, except you only get the right when you're terminally ill. Well, not everyone is terminally ill, so not everyone has the right to euthanasia. Pro simply misunderstands my argument. Or his argument makes no sense. Or I'm too stupid to understand it. Either way, it's not important, because I win the debate on all the rest of the points addressed above. Also, remember that euthanasia rests on the notion that human life only has instrumental value. Pro completely ignores that point, so extend it fully. The impact is that any rationale for equal protection of the law drops away, because there's no reason to treat people equally if we don't actually think they're equal. Equality requires that we recognize the intrinsic value of human life.", "qid": 23, "docid": "a7b24794-2019-04-18T14:18:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7967466115951538}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: First off, I would like to state that I am actually AGAINST Euthanasia, but I am trying to sharpen my debate skills right now. A good debater can see both sides of the issues and figure out what their opponent to say next. So this is just me experimenting a bit. Now that I have explained my real position, let me start off with some reasons why Euthanasia should be legal. 1. Dying with Dignity: If they are able to speak for themselves and they say that they would like to go ahead and peacefully die, then they should get that as their last wish. 2. Suffering: Would you rather somebody suffer for days with an imminent fate, or would you just let them be peacefully put out of their misery? I don't think that they should have to suffer. 3. Free Will: I think that if the patient is in his right mind and wants to go ahead and end it, they should have the free will to have their wish. I look forward to hearing your response and/or counter-argument. I am glad that I accepted this debate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386dc43-2019-04-18T17:39:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7964112758636475}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill Content: Pro makes three fatal errors. First, Pro focuses entirely on justifying euthanasia for patients who suffer. This undermines Pro's case, because Pro concedes that \"not all terminally ill patients suffer.\" Thus, Pro fails to uphold the resolution with respect to terminally ill patients who don't suffer.Second, Pro concedes that the government has a right to intervene in our lives, to helps us make moral decisions, and to provide security. This undermines the vast majority of Pro's offense, as his libertarian framework crumbles the moment he accepts the legitimacy of government intervention in morality.Third, Pro concedes that there's risks of abuse/error. At the same time, Pro fails to explain why euthanasia is preferable to suicide, to refusing medical treatment, or even to assisted suicide. Each of these options allow a person to end their life without imposing severe risks of abuse/error.Vote Con for either of these reasons. To be thorough, the rest of Pro's arguments are addressed below:(1) SuicidePro suggests that we should legalize euthanasia but punish failed suicides. Or at least that seems to be what Pro's arguing. Of course, that argument is bizarre. Pro's C1, C2, C3, and C4 all support a right to suicide. It makes no sense to say we should legalize euthanasia but prohibit suicide. Pro says suicide isn't legal everywhere. This might be true, though I'm not sure. Pro didn't offer any sources to back up his claims that suicide isn't legal everywhere. Either way, who cares if suicide is illegal in some random parts of the world? Suicide is beyond the reach of the law; you can't punish someone who is dead. Besides, the issue in this debate isn't what the law is but rather what it should be. And no matter how many laws prohibit suicide, the question is still whether those laws are right or wrong.This means I'm free to advocate a right to suicide as an alternative to euthanasia. And all of Pro's arguments support a right to suicide, so don't let Pro argue that we should legalize euthanasia because suicide is illegal. That argument is simply absurd.(2) Assisted SuicidePro's argument to prefer euthanasia over assisted suicide isn't compelling. Pro states: \"it is a controversial issue on whether or not euthanasia (where the doctor ultimately kills the patient) is considered to be suicide - as a result of this euthanasia is by far a better option. The legalization of euthanasia will benefit a much larger group of people than it will if assisted suicide is legalized.\"This argument is bizarre. Pro suggests that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide because euthanasia isn't suicide. But why should it matter how many patients will prefer euthanasia to assisted suicide? This debate isn't about the personal preferences of particular patients; the debate is about whether euthanasia should be recognized as a right. And just because more patients will choose a certain way of dying over another doesn't mean that way of dying should be embodied as a human right.Furthermore, Pro's argument is nothing more than an assertion. And it's far from self-evident that more patients will choose euthanasia over assisted suicide. On the contrary, lots of patients will choose assisted suicide over euthanasia because they prefer suicide to murder. And to be clear, Pro's advocacy is the equivalent of condoning murder, as euthanasia is nothing but the intentional destruction of another human being's life. Why will more people prefer murder to suicide? And even if more people prefer suicide to murder, why should we be encouraging the terminally ill to end their lives? The message Pro sends is that some people aren't just expendable, they should be killed by their doctors. The slope to involuntary euthanasia isn't far when you apply that logic.(3) SufferingPro's argument rests on the notion that people who suffer should be allowed to end their lives. And Pro explicitly asks for an alternative to euthanasia if suffering patients want to end their lives early. Well, those people are free to commit suicide. And they're free to refuse medical treatment. And in extreme cases, they can even request terminal sedation (assuming their religion doesn't allow suicide or euthanasia). Or you could make lethal drugs freely available in pharmacies, provided that you have mental heath checkups and are capable of rational thought. There's lots of alternatives to euthanasia for people who want to end their life early as a result of immense suffering.The point I'm making in this debate is that in no cases should doctors be allowed to intentionally kill their patients on the basis of a determination that their patients are experiencing immense suffering. Doctors have alternatives to relieve suffering, including terminal sedation (i.e. put to sleep but not killed). The problem with allowing euthanasia via suffering is that it leads to involuntary euthanasia. And as I explained in R2, the empirical evidence bears this out (e.g. in the Netherlands). This happens because euthanasia is predicated on an utilitarian calculus that weighs suffering against a person's right to life. If the suffering outweighs, a doctor is allowed to intentionally kill the patient. Of course, this utilitarian calculus allows a doctor to decide their patient should be killed even if their patient wants to keep living, as long as the patient's suffering outweighs other factors. The reason this happens with euthanasia is because euthanasia assumes that human life has instrumental value rather than intrinsic value. If life has intrinsic value, it's never okay to intentionally destroy it. But when you start distinguishing the value of individual lives on the basis of instrumental factors, such as suffering, or mental disabilities, or being terminally ill, it suggests that certain instrumental factors must be present to give someone's life the full protection of the law. When those instrumental factors are absent, a doctor has the right to kill a patient. And in extreme cases, a doctor arguably has a duty to kill them, to end their suffering, even if the euthanasia is involuntary.(4) ReligionThe law should not turn on the religious view of a few. There may be religions that believe suicide is not allowed but euthanasia is. Those religions should not dictate public policy. Pro refers to Christianity. That's a bad example, because Christianity wouldn't allow euthanasia or suicide. This example actually works against Pro.(5) DiscriminationPro says that's specific to certain places, like the United States. This puts Pro in a bind: he either accepts that this debate should take into specific locations, in which case this argument is fully extended, or Pro admits the debate isn't specific to location, in which case all his arguments about suicide and medical treatment not always being available are irrelevant, since we're not talking about specific places but rather a general notion of what public policy should look like.(6) CorruptionPro admits that euthanasia turns doctors into killers. In response, Pro says prohibiting euthanasia turns doctors into torturers. But that is simply untrue. The doctors aren't imposing pain on anyone. They're simply refusing to kill their patients. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't give their patients pain medications, or allow their patients to commit suicide, or allow their patients to withdraw from medical care. The doctors aren't required to prolong a patient's life or to stop them from ending their own life. The only requirement is that doctors don't murder their patients, because that corrupts the medical profession.(7) EqualityPro says \"equality is being offered the same rights.\" Yet Pro argues that only the terminally ill get the right to euthanasia. Everyone else gets the right to having their lives protected from intentional destruction by others. Either way, a critical rationale for equal protection withers and drops away, as a result of treating life's value instrumentally.", "qid": 23, "docid": "a7b24794-2019-04-18T14:18:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7963842153549194}, {"content": "Title: physician assisted suicide should be legalized Content: \"This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?\" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. \"pulling the plug\". (http://depts.washington.edu...) \"just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other.\" Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.", "qid": 23, "docid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7962166666984558}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Thanks Con.Rebutals: The doctors duty isn't to euthanize Dcotors won't be forced to euthanize patients, similiar to how they aren't forced to perform surgeries. The docotors who do it would do it by choice.Lives are still worth livingEven if I agree to this, I would say that people have the right to choose whether they live or die. As I've shown before, this is lifting the pain from their shoulders. The right to life is a negative right if we don't allow the right to death .\u201cFurther, in nearly every country where a form of physician assisted suicide is legal, the vast majority allow the killing of people with mental illness. In the Netherlands--which my opponent cites directly--the mentally ill are often euthanized. In Belgium, the mentally ill are euthanized in order to take their organs. The fact is, whenever you legalize physician assisted suicide, the law eventually evolves into a death-on-demand structure which leads to many people not capable of making these decisions wisely being killed [2]\u201dThis calls for the law being enforced more sternly, not the law being withdrawn. By withdrawing it, we force the patients who would have been euthanized to suffer until their death, unless an unexpected event occurs. While if we keep it up, we can help these people.\u201cFurther, there is an issue of people in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada being murdered, as they are killed without explicit request. Obviously this is not legal, but the fact is that if it is legal to kill someone intentionally if they ask, it is easy just to put in your records \u2018asked for death\u2019 with minimal questioning from the law. In Oregon, the law began fairly successful. For 1/4 of patients asking for death, they received psychiatric care before their decision. They were walked through the process. However, by 2010, this has disintegrated. None of the people killed were told to seek mental care first\u201dAs I said before, this calls for a stricter enforcement of the law, as people should be checking with other doctors, which directly violates the procedure. Furthermore, as I had also said before non voluntary deaths occur regardless of whether we make it legal or not. In the study I had cited \u201cRecent pieces by doctors bring excellent points to my opponents argument. When death becomes the answer, doctors see their patients have less faith in medical care. It is well established that people in the medical profession are a source of hope for their patients. To allow death leads to less hope, and it makes them feel unwanted--that at a certain point, life is not worth living. This is, as doctors argue, is one of the largest blows to human dignity. Further, this has led to a decrease in palliative care. Instead of easing pain and making the life worth living, physicians often choose death as a mean to end the pain, instead of attempting to help the patient.\u201d The alternative wouldn\u2019t be very different, as the patients who have pain that can\u2019t be eased by a few pills are still suffering. They\u2019re wondering why they don\u2019t have a right to guide their own life. The patients should be able to choose between pills and death. They would know that their disease isn\u2019t curable anyway, trying to hide it from them won\u2019t help. Economic ImpactsHere my opponent seems to agree that euthanasia would benefit the economy. He brings up that different cuts could be made, but this doesn\u2019t matter. The point is that there\u2019s a benefit to the economy, showing a better way doesn\u2019t take that fact away. Why not impliment multiple cuts?Non voluntary deaths will always occurMy opponent seems to mix \u201cVoluntary\u201d deaths with \u201cnon voluntary\u201d deaths. Non voluntary acts of euthanasia will happen regardless of whether it\u2019s legalized or not. It was just pointing out that deaths happening against the patients will are going to occur regardless of whether euthanasia is legalized or not. Now he then shows how the number of deaths from euthanasia are rising. This doesn\u2019t matter, however, as I\u2019ve already shown how euthanasia helps the patients who are in pain. My opponent hasn\u2019t yet fully addressed the arguments given or misunderstands them. I\u2019ve supported my arguments and rebutted his contentions. Good luck to Con, as next round is his final round for arguments.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386e729-2019-04-18T16:05:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7955821752548218}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legal Content: Attempting suicide is against the law. Since euthanasia is painless suicide, then it is illegal. There should be no reason why we legalize painless suicide but not painful, convenient, or other methods of suicide.", "qid": 23, "docid": "e21a5046-2019-04-18T15:14:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7953222990036011}, {"content": "Title: Bsh1 Debate Tournament: The U.S. Government Should Legalize Euthanasia. Content: We Already Allow Suicides:First of all, if a person is actually determined to commit a suicide and carries his/her actions out successfully, it does not make sense to have this action as illegal. We cannot imprison a body as a result, nor can we fault the family of the person committing suicide, ergo in this context of legality it simply makes more sense to legalize assisted-suicide by default. If the legal system is a set of state-enforced mechanisms to deter undesirable behaviours and to offer incentives to desirable behaviours, then we can see there is no reason to keep assisted suicides illegal, we cannot force that person to no longer want to kill themselves should they be successful. Say your life is only held onto by \"life support\", this machine is breathing for you, feeding you, and is the only thing actually keeping you alive due to a critical injury. You are in fact allowed to refuse it, causing your own death. In other words, by complicity the doctors allowing you to refuse treatment, they are assisting your suicide. Now one might say the doctors ought to force the patient, however this would void power of attorney, and ergo would be illegal in such an event. Doctors are suppose to comply with the consent of their patients, thus if the patient refuses treatment, this is a form of suicide. In fact, the following states already have legalized assisted suicides: Montana, Oregon, and Washington (State)http://www.cbc.ca... This Furthers the Liberty of the Individual: This argument is simple and straight-forward. You do not choose to be born or not. This seems to be in a half-determined part of the world. We all start as cells, and morph into people. If that is the case, then why can't a person refuse this life by euthanasia? The Physical Can Complete His Duty to His Patients More Intimately:In medical ethics, the doctor must do his best within the limitations of the law to relieve the pain of the patient. Along with the fact that he must preserve the dignity of said patient. If a patient has a terminal illness, then in the name of relieving pain, that doctor can and should put to death his patient to lessen the suffering. (Again on the condition of informed consent)Less Costly to the System: I shall quote a fellow DDO member on here in another debate, he put it elegantly. \"Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com......]This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [http://www.nejm.org......]. I\u2019d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn\u2019t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [http://www.funeralswithlove.com......]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Let\u2019s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn\u2019t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/she be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well.\" ~ DetectableNinjaAll Countries Named Have Universal Care When Giving Suicides:Legally, the only person capable of administering said assistance to suicide would be the doctors, that is it, not some private firm. This would ideally prevent anyone from trying to convince someone to undergo PAS for any fraudulent reasons. Finally, Say You're Married, and You Are a Proxy For Someone Incapable of Making Decisions: This can lead to a very uncomfortable scenario. The person trusted with making decisions may suffer from depression or other psychological trauma wondering if they're making decisions consistent with that patent's wishes. If someone was unable to move or speak, and was in pain, would they want to continue to fight? Or finally die and be at peace? Likewise, what about other people putting pressure on that proxy that might be in direct violation of the patients wishes? How would they feel? PAS is another option which enables this scenario to be completely by-passed, and not allow that poor person designated as a proxy to have to shoulder so much burden when the time comes (should it ever come). Thank you!Summary:(1) Already allow it, cannot charge a body(2) Furthers liberty(3) Doctor does his duty more(4) Save on costs (5) Relieves strains on proxies Therefore, we can conclude that the US ought to legalize doctor assisted suicides (a.k.a PAS) Over to my opponent!", "qid": 23, "docid": "d1a9845d-2019-04-18T16:38:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.795019268989563}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Euthanasia for the Sick and Elderly Content: This issue is not as pressing as it has been in the past, but euthanasia, in general, has largely been debated, and I would like to continue that debate, arguing for the \"Pro\" side of euthanasia for the sick and elderly. Euthanasia, by definition, is the intentional taking of life in order to relieve pain and suffering, and for the sake of the argument, I would like to say that I believe euthanasia should be committed by a medical doctor, and only if the person requests to be euthanized. That being said, I really think that euthanasia should be legalized across the US. The rights given to the people by the United States Constitution include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that death, regardless of cause, is an inevitable part of life, the Constitution also gives the people the right to die. If we are then given the right to die, why can we not choose how it is done? Secondly, there is no reason why the federal government or a state should interfere with the private matter of someone's death. Euthanasia itself causes no harm to any other person that would possibly be involved (like a family member in the room or something), and as such, should be left alone by any form of government. If anyone would like to argue the \"Con\" side of euthanasia, I would appreciate it - and if you really do believe that it shouldn't be legalized in America, what would it take to convince you?", "qid": 23, "docid": "6626ac2e-2019-04-18T13:30:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7949411273002625}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: In this debate I will be arguing in favor of legal Euthanasia programs globally, although with specific references to more western countries, and in particular the US, where only 4 states have legalized euthanasia. In my personal view I believe euthanasia to be a critical discussion as I see the illegality as straight-up restriction of the human right. The right to intentionally end ones life is one in which I feel should 100% be gratified. People who are perhaps in significant physical or mental pain who want this certainty upon them quicker than what perhaps their body can last is, I feel, fully justified. Of course there would have to be bureaucracy so the establishment that one is ready to die is fully committed and no other outside players were involved. I believe that the person wanting to end their life should be subjected to questioning before the act is taken, for example if the person is mentally unstable, irrationally wanting to end their life but is willing to accept help and try to get better then this could avoid lots of irrational endings of life as euthanasia is made legal. Euthanasia should maintain its controlled assessment of patients and should be a last resort, but however, should most definitely be made legal. I look forward to hearing your arguments.", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a37f4-2019-04-18T16:54:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7948886752128601}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice Content: Thanks, Con. I will present a (very) brief constructive case, this round. Please note that I am only arguing for euthanasia *with* the consent of the patient-- if legalized, it would not be the decision of the patient's family members or the attending physician. The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life, though I can certainly support that notion further if he wishes to contest it. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. The government simply does not have the power to *force* someone to continue living when they do not wish to do so, as that would be a clear rights violation. So it has been established that people do, indeed, have the right to death. Now, why does this lead to the conclusion that euthanasia should be legalized? It is simply a matter of practicality. Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death (my opponent would have to provide some sort of counter-example to successfully contest this); by criminalizing euthanasia, the government is doing nothing more than unnecessarily causing suffering to citizens, which is clearly contradictory to the role of the state (i.e. promoting general welfare). Hence, euthanasia should be legalized. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": 23, "docid": "950a295-2019-04-18T15:44:41Z-00006-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7942901849746704}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia is the act of putting to death in a painlessly way an animal or human when they are on a painful disease or condition. Should it be legalized?", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386e349-2019-04-18T16:54:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7942342162132263}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia should be legalized Content: Rebuttal I made three arguments to support my contention: 1. The right to die and self determination My opponent and I both support assisted suicide, and the right to commit suicide. But as he mentioned in round 2, we disagree whether euthanasia is a basic right. He argued that \"under an autonomy principle, we'd have to honor requests to be euthanized from all competent individuals\". I want to explain to my opponent that he appears to be misunderstanding what euthanasia is. Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to commit suicide otherwise [1]. Euthanasia is less about the method (how it's done)\u2026 but more about the purpose (the right to die). The dying person couldn't care less about who would euthanatize them or how. They just want to die peacefully. By denying them the right to euthanasia, they are essentially being denied the right to die\u2026 they are denied the right to self determination\u2026 they are denied the right to autonomy. My opponent argues that \"Pro can't justify euthanasia through autonomy, since his advocacy restricts the availability of euthanasia. \" The reason that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed to everyone else is because most people have the ability to commit suicide. As I mentioned earlier, euthanasia is about the purpose (dying) not the method. There's no need for euthanasia for the average joe since they can commit suicide. For example, a Winnipeg woman travelled to Switzerland to take lethal pills and die [2]. There was no justification for euthanasia for her; however I hoped that Canada would have allowed her to receive the lethal drugs. 2. Wasted health resources and public funds My opponent challenges my claim that euthanasia would \"reduce waiting times and improve the overall quality of care. \" My opponent didn't agree or disagree that waiting times will be reduced (which logically would improve the quality of care). But he argues that economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions. This is a straw man argument. I agree with my opponent that economic matters shouldn't factor much into moral decisions. But what I argued was: \"To spend these resources to forcefully preserve the lives of patients against their will is ridiculous. \" Health resources are scarce\u2026 By denying those patients euthanasia, you are hurting two birds at the same time\u2026 the patient that you are denying his or her dignity to die, and the patient that you are not providing a hospital bed. How moral is this? 3. Prohibition targets innocents My opponent challenged my arguments with straw man arguments. He said for example that \"in the Marie Fleming case, nobody innocent was ever prosecuted. \" I agree, but that's not the point. Marie Fleming's partner didn't kill Marie because he was threatened with 14 years in prison. There are numerous reports were innocents were charged for assisted dying [2] [3]. Other points a. Pain My opponent argued that pain alone is not the main reason for euthanasia. I don't argue that pain is the central argument of my claims. The three main reasons shown by my opponent are: loss of autonomy (93%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (89%), and loss of dignity (73%) [4]. This doesn't change anything. My opponent also claims that \"we shouldn't change the law out of pity. \" This is a clever statement, but it's misleading. It's not out of pity that we give people human rights and the freedom of opinion. I personally, due to my religious beliefs, don't support euthanasia, assisted suicide or suicide in principal. It's not out of pity that I think euthanasia should be legalized. It's because I realize that I don't have any right to deny them their rights, even if I disagree with what they decide to do. This is not about pity. b. Equality (1) My opponent claims that \"telling disabled people that doctors are legally allowed to kill them but not allowed to kill others clearly sends a message that they're expendable\". This argument is invalid because disabled people have the ability to kill themselves (through assisted suicide which my opponent supports). Euthanasia only applies to those who don't have the means to end it on their own. (2) My opponent argues that \"equal protection of the law only applies if human life is valuable in and of itself\". I don't disagree. However it doesn't follow that the protection of the law means the suppression of their right to end their lives. c. Slippery Slope My opponent argues that I \"didn't address the slippery slope argument\". He also doesn't agree that it's a red herring fallacy for this debate, which in fact it is the case. He claims that it\u2019s an empirical reality that non-voluntary euthanasia will follow by citing one example. This is a fallacy. This is similar to saying that \"All people will become gamblers after going to the casino because that's exactly what happened to my friend\". I'm sorry con \u2013 I don't accept this argument at all. I can discuss it on a separate debate. d. Hippocratic Oath I was disappointed that my opponent brought the ancient Hippocratic Oath and not the modern one [5]. That ancient oath, which no one follows, starts with this: \"I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment. \" You couldn't possibly believe that modern doctors follow this. The modern oath (shown in my source [5]) doesn't contradict euthanasia. e. Refusal to commit suicide My opponent states \"If a patient can commit suicide, but chooses instead to have a doctor euthanize him or her\u2026etc\" I don't disagree with my opponent! For those cases, they should be subscribed lethal pills (as Con also suggests). We are not in disagreement. f. Euthanasia discourages research? My opponent argues analytically (not with empirical evidence) that euthanasia will discourage research. Without empirical evidence, you can only speculate. I argue that there should be no impact because the rate of euthanatized people is too small for this to have an impact on the research. There's no reason to believe that all, or most, terminally ill people will choose euthanasia (I certainly hope not! ). I also find it interesting that my opponent places moral decision above all when he says \"economic matters shouldn't factor into moral decisions\". I could also argue that \"research shouldn't factor into moral decisions! \" But what disturbs me about the \"analysis\" is that you're denying people their rights out of fear of some hypothetical impacts. This is irresponsible. It's more responsible to study the impact first before justifying denying people their rights\u2026 not the other way around. g. Suicide My opponent argued that terminally ill people \"have an option of refusing food and water as long as they can communicate their wishes\". This is horrific! To die out of voluntary hunger and thirst is the better option is shocking. In my earlier round, I showed a lady who starved herself for 17 days before quitting! I can't accept this argument. h. Deadly drugs available to everyone My opponent argues that \"we should make deadly drugs available to everyone\". We've already agreed that assisted suicide is the better option for those who can kill themselves. However, for those who wish to die but have no means to do so, this is not a solution and we're back to square one. Remember\u2026 euthanasia is about the purpose (which is the wish to die), not the method (how to peacefully die). [1] . http://www.ethicalrights.com... [2] . http://www.righttodie.ca... [3] . http://www.ncregister.com... [4] . https://public.health.oregon.gov... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 23, "docid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7940303683280945}, {"content": "Title: THBT: Voluntary Euthanasia shall be legalized. Content: Thanks for your reply and it is good we are taking the debate a global level without referring to one country. It is also good that you have based it only on voluntary euthanasia in which the patient chooses to live or die. I didn't have an argument because I was waiting for yours as the proposition to tell me all you want because you only stated that a person whose life is depending on machine for instance should decide to live or not. My question to that is how will someone whose life is depending on machine make the right choice?? Is he or she in the right state of mind?? I don't think so. I oppose the legalization of euthanasia in any circumstance and believe that doctors should always look for a solution and not just abandon research because that is what is going to happen in the long run. I am supporting the status quo because right now it is not allowed and that is why you are proposing to legalize it. People might talk of freedom to choose and so what but it is not absolute. People might also think that people should be allowed to end their suffering but we have to know that there are always possibilities to solve things. My arguments to against this are: 1-killing is wrong: One objection to voluntary euthanasia is that it involves killing, and all killing is morally wrong. This principle may be based on religious views (e.g., the sixth commandment) or maintained on purely secular grounds. It also violates our duties to God if we are believers. It violates our duties to our families and our society too. 2-An incorrect diagnosis is possible or a new treatment might be discovered. There is always the possibility of an incorrect diagnosis or the discovery of a treatment that will permit either survival or recovery. This should be actually be the doctors' focus and never give up. They should do everything possible to save lives instead of being lazy by allowing euthanasia. 3- State of mind versus the right choice: i asked this question earlier and how do you expect someone in this critical situation to make a right choice for himself. he or she might be depending on drugs or machines and so on.... 4- It goes against the doctors' job: Physicians don't want to be nor should be involved in this kind of activity. The medical profession exists to provide important professional services, and neither wants to be nor should be involved in the kind of bureaucratic activity involved in responsibly administering voluntary euthanasia. it will also discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.It will encourage patients to give up and significantly decrease their chances for recovery. i hope to hear from you and will have more arguments in my next too. thanks", "qid": 23, "docid": "2d902d00-2019-04-18T20:03:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7939928770065308}, {"content": "Title: euthanasia should be banned Content: Just to clarify, i'm not questioning people's right to suicide. You life is your own and if you believe you are better off dead, that is ultimately your choice to make via free will. However, in the situation of euthanasia, several problem arise. The main problem is that you are now involving a third party, licensed professional to assist in your suicide. These people are trained to help and save lives. Most of them develop a passion for it and build a connection to their patients. This is viable to cause the problems i mentioned before, in that some doctors may end up becoming to eager to say die. and Some may slowly break down when they finally have to. Allowing someone their final moments may give people that time to reconcile and make peace with loved ones. Suffering is subjective... there are those whom may not realize that sticking around a little longer, may be worth while in terms of providing the people close to them time to properly grieve and say their peace. Many of us, religious or not, believe that life is sacred. We aren't like robots that you can just switch to \"off\" and it's not our place to say when someone's time is up. The religious sort may hold faith that perhaps even in the worst situations, there is still a chance that said loved one may pull through and make a tolerable recovery. There are the scientific individuals that hold a lot of faith in modern medicine and technology and know that there is always something else we might be able to do. (but choose not to in order to save, time, money, etc.) Again, this allows for a wide margin for slippery slope argument. When euthanasia exists, why bother having any reasonable care for those whom appear to be pretty much done? The value of life decreases, and who's to say that somewhere down the road we won't start euthanizing people with down syndrome or mild retardation? All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live but euthanasia may blurry that statement and shape us into being selective. Finally, it gives doctors too much power. It's a massive cop-out. What if the diagnosis is incorrect? what if the prognosis is incorrect? Many of us fail to realize that although doctors are trained professionals, they too are often wrong. What if you're particular doctor is simply unaware of non-fatal alternatives for the patient's particular case? Euthanasia is easier, quicker, and cheaper than putting in effort, so the likelihood of it becoming an abused solution seems probable. Yes, awaiting death is probably very traumatic. However; human life is valuable. The everyone always appreciates more time. And in many cases, there is more that can be done...", "qid": 23, "docid": "94c429fc-2019-04-18T15:58:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7937706708908081}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: Euthanasia should be legal under the circumstances that the person requesting it have good reason (as determined by the person asked to perform the euthanasia), and they should be required to wait for a certain period of time so that can think over their decision in case they decide they do not want to go through with the procedure. I also think they should be given a psychological analysis to see if they have something that can be treated and if so attempt treating it before allowing them to ask for euthanasia.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386f64c-2019-04-18T12:23:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7937125563621521}, {"content": "Title: Open Debate Content: With such short rounds we'll need as much substance as possible in our arguments. To go with my opponent's preference, I will affirm that: Doctor assisted suicide is morally acceptable. My opponent can offer definitions if he wants, although I'm pretty sure we both know what the topic is about. Good luck.", "qid": 23, "docid": "e5282d07-2019-04-18T18:58:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7934095859527588}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral Content: I think that euthanasia in a medical setting can be morally justified. I'll let you start the debate.", "qid": 23, "docid": "782073eb-2019-04-18T19:34:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7933880686759949}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: I believe that euthanasia should be made legal. And although there may be flaws if we are to legalise it, I believe that a lot of good will come from it. Take my grandma for instance: she lived a long thirty years Before she became ill, after this the illnesses kept pilling on and on till the point that she spent twenty years unable to move, in the same house and in constant agonising pain. Twenty years of torture, sure she may spend a brief amount of time with her love. But still she begged and the doctors could not supply. Many other people experience this and euthanasia will allow them, at their own will to decide whether they die and release themselves from their undying pain!", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386df4a-2019-04-18T17:21:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7932754755020142}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide. Content: Thanks for the timely response. Now as for the definition. If we observe the medical definition of Physician Assisted Suicide we will find the following definition, \"Somewhat of a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known as voluntary passive euthanasia.\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) This means that it is voluntary Euthanasia, but just by a different name. In this debate I will be arguing that the legislation of this type of Euthanasia will lead to the legislation of other types of Euthanasia outside of Voluntary Euthanasia. Now I will warn that I will give my arguments, but may not get to all of my opponent's argument here and some of them may have to wait until the next round. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181\u20137. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, \u201cIf there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.\u201d However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) The euthanasia\u2019s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia\u2019s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. \"\"Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?\" From a pre-1950 dictionary: \"Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain.\" From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): \"1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases.\" From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): \"1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease\" (http://www.all.org...) You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...) Contention 3: Self Ownership and Sickness Consent from a palliative specialist is also very important, but recent euthanasia\u2019s have not been doing so and consenting them. In Belgium, before 2002, all euthanasia cases without concent of a palliative specialist were denied, but from 2002-2007, that number declined from 100% to only 9% as only 19% of all euthanasia cases was a palliative contacted for their opinion. (Same source as the first one used in this round) Now I know that my opponent is against some of these, but this plays a key factor in my slippery slope argument that I will get into next. In 2003, Terri Schiavo recovered from a vegetative state that she had been in for 13 years. She had been dubbed dying, but she began to recover and eventually died on TV. (http://www.rense.com...) They had removed her feeding tube and she had been without food and water for a few days even when she began to show signs of recovery. This is an event that occurred in the United States and we can see how this can easily go wrong when we try to give someone a peaceful end. In New York, Dr. Dimancescu's program has increased the ability for patients to get out of comas by a total of 91% compared to regular machines which have only 11%. (http://www.nysrighttolife.org...) For this next part I will argue that of self-determination. The reason I say that only those who are faced with death should be able to decide whether or not euthanasia is justifiable for them, but only when they are in the correct state of mind. Those who chose willingly can either be suffering from depression or from that of sickness and that sickness can impair the way they think by forcing an unbearable pain upon them. Under Self-Determination one must first mentally defeat the sickness and then when they are in the correct state of mind then they should be able to make any judgmental decision and it is likely under this case that they would choose life over death. (http://www.vatican.va...) Another anti-Euthanasia advocate is Jeremy Bethem who is quoted saying, \" \u201cit is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.\u201d (http://www.bmj.com...) This means that we must observe the weight of the individual's value to the comunity verse the needs of that individual. Though the individual may be in pain they are still in the wrong state of mind as I brought up earlier meaning that the person cannot properly think for themselves and have lost the ability to choose between right and wrong as they are attempting to end their lives with no reguards to others. They belong to the collective comunity and because of that the value of them is together a great impact. For this we are reminded of the allusion of For Whom the Bell tolls meaning that we as a society are joined together as one and it's because of that one person missing from society the entire society will feel the loss in everything from emotionally to the person's productivity that the contribute to better the community would vanish and that one person's death and their suicide would harm the entire community. So it maters not the level of pain the person is expierencing as if they kill themselves they would be robbing the community and it in turn harms society.", "qid": 23, "docid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7932442426681519}, {"content": "Title: Should assisted suicide be legal Content: I believe that assisted suicide should be illegal because of the following reasons in my argument. Suicide is a horrible thing and should not exist so assisted suicide just helps a person do something horrible.", "qid": 23, "docid": "41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00008-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7929916381835938}, {"content": "Title: Euthanasia Content: ), I also look forward to this debate as it is my first one on here! Good luck. I like your suggestions as well, yes. I think euthanasia should be legalized for many reasons. In fact, don't understand why euthanasia is a controversial debate in the first place. What is so immoral with ending someones life if they are in insufferable pain and who want to die? I would say it is more cruel to keep someone alive against their wishes. You put animals to sleep and put them out of their misery, why not human beings? If you want to look at euthanasia from a liberal point of view, people have an explicit right to die and I don't think that someone should take that option away from them. Most people agree with human rights e. g. right to life, right to liberty and life to a fair trial etc. Why not right to die? Also, this could lead us to another point, we shouldn't even need a separate right allowing us to die as I think 'right to liberty' gives us the right to euthanasia, and euthanasia being illegal is in a sense, prevents our right to liberty. You can also look at euthanasia on an emotional level. If you allow people the right to die it can give the family of the deceased some comfort that they did not suffer anymore than they needed to, and that they were in the comfort of their family, you would also be able to say a final goodbye to your loved ones. Euthanasia also allows the deceased to retain their dignity, so they don't have to be seen helpless, suffering and in chronic pain. I think one of the most important points when fighting for euthanasia is why should someone be kept alive, especially when they know they do not want to live. A perfect example of this is the case of Tony Nicklisnson: . http://www.bbc.co.uk... He had to starve himself in the end has his appeal was rejected and he could not end his life any other way without the help of his family (active euthanasia), which is murder or manslaughter. In fact, Britons have had to go over to Switzerland to have the legal right to die. One important sentence in the article is \"For those who traveled with them, there was always the fear of prosecution but, to date, no-one who accompanied any of the 182 Britons has been prosecuted. \" Although no one has actually been prosecuted, there has always been a fear. Which I think is bad enough! . http://www.bbc.co.uk... To look at the argument from a philosophical point of view, is death actually a bad thing? In some cases people prefer death over life, that's why people commit suicide. Why should death be regarded as such a bad thing? If you are going to die anyway, an example of this could be a cancer patient who has discovered the cancer in too late a stage to act on it, and who is going to die anyway. Euthanasia isn't the act of killing someone healthy, it is the act of giving someone a dignified end to their life, who is going die anyway.", "qid": 23, "docid": "9386df88-2019-04-18T17:16:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7928169965744019}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: This debate was created due to a discussion in the forums which you can view here: . http://www.debate.org...Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources (1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...", "qid": 23, "docid": "7301ab1c-2019-04-18T14:05:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7926448583602905}, {"content": "Title: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering Content: Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1). Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2). Sources(1) . https://www.google.co.uk...(2) . https://www.google.co.uk...", "qid": 23, "docid": "7301aafd-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7921231985092163}, {"content": "Title: Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering Content: R1: Swiss Model Of Assisted Suicide My quote was to show that people have a right to die. It could have been about anywhere in the world - I wasn\u2019t arguing about that specific place. You, however, have argued specifically off a point that has no impact upon the resolution. I extend out my rebuttal because it has not been counter - refuted. R2: Oregon USA My opponent has completely avoided my argument here and hasn\u2019t even responded to the quote that I provided. They have asked where I have got the quote from when it is clearly labelled that I got the quote from my 2nd source which is directly off the official website regarding the right to die. It doesn\u2019t matter if they are chipping away at the legislation or not. My point was that there have been no cases of abuse. The results have been successful and the restrictions in place have been working. If they are removing the legislation then I am sad to hear this however I do not see what that had to do with my point. I extend out this argument.R3: Montana Judiciary I will quote from my opponent\u2019s source (that is actually bias in my favour, not his): \u201cThe Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally patient to die with dignity. That is to say, the patient may use the assistance of his physician to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life. The patient=s right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient=s physician from liability under the State=s homicide statutes. The Court recognizes compelling State interests in protecting patients and their loved ones from abuses, in protecting life in general, and in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. However, those interests can be protected while preserving a patient=s right to die with dignity\u201d This is quoted from the conclusion of my opponent\u2019s source. My opponent may believe that the article that he was referring to could be used to benefit his case however if he had read the whole article he would have realized that the source did come to the conclusion that assisted suicide was good not bad, as my opponent may have originally thought.R4: Conclusion I don\u2019t usually make rebuttals to conclusions however I think that this rebuttal is necessary because my opponent has made many mistakes and accusations. My opponent begins by stating: \u201cNobody is leaving people to die in agony and it would be disingenuous to paint this picture of our options here.\u201d My opponent states that they agreed to the resolution however, if they read the full resolution provided in R1, they would realize that we are only legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill, suffering and those that have had the correct mental checks. Therefore, the patient must be suffering and in pain. My opponent should be arguing that assisted suicide is not okay for these people, again this relates back to my argument regarding my opponent\u2019s semantics. This point is left uncontested by my opponent. My opponent continues, \u201cAs you can see from the above depiction from Montana,\u201d Firstly, the Montana description is invalid because he has been quoting and referring to a source that actually agrees that assisted suicide is preferable and is should be used for the terminally ill and suffering (as demonstrated by my quote). My opponent attempt to prove that euthanasia is a greater alternative by saying: \u201cWouldn't Euthanasia be more humane where at least they could inject a quadriplegic cancer sufferer with this poison rather than watch them attempt to sip from a 'passed cup'.\u201d The problem that you have with euthanasia that you don\u2019t get with assisted suicide is that in euthanasia transforms the roles of doctors into killers. With assisted suicide, the person kills themselves and is ultimately keeping the role of the doctors as to what it is supposed to be (1).Conclusion To conclude I believe that I have won this debate, my opponent has run a semantics argument that is clearly against the rules. This has not been contested with by my opponent and therefore it still stands. Since no new arguments are allowed in the final round a response to this point is also against the rules so this argument is extended. My opponent has also attempted to alter the resolution and the burden of proof throughout the debate which was accepted to in R1 therefore by arguing against it they are also breaking the rules. All of my argument are extended since none of them have been directly contested with. I clearly have clearly provided rebuttals that directly refute every point provided by my opponent and I have neatly organised them into contention headings in order for it to be easier to respond to by voters. All my contentions are extended and they cannot be contested within the final round. I thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and I strongly urge voters to vote Pro!Sources(1) https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk...", "qid": 23, "docid": "e1261232-2019-04-18T14:14:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7914743423461914}, {"content": "Title: Semi Finals: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the suffering Content: Resolution: Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for those that are mentally stable and suffering from a terminal illness== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic8. The burden of proof is shared9. First round is for acceptance only10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss == Definitions ==Assisted Suicide is the act of a medically trained professional deliberately providing assistance to help somebody to willingly kill themselves (commit suicide). Legalized is to make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law (1).Mentally stable is when you are able to make a justified and in formed decision without any problems that are affecting your thought processing and frame of mind. Suffering is when you are in unbearable pain. Terminally ill is when a person who is sick is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life in a few months or years (2).This is for the Beginner's tournament semi finals and I wish zeromeansnothing the best of luck in this debate.Sources(1) https://www.google.co.uk...(2) https://www.google.co.uk...;", "qid": 23, "docid": "e1261232-2019-04-18T14:14:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.790920615196228}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Euthanasia Content: To start out I am not a good debater but I just had this idea and want to see both sides of the argument. Euthanasia should be legalized in the United States. Euthanasia would help the US and its citizens in many ways. As defined by Merriam-Webster Euthanasia- the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy: 1. People who live in great pain and suffering would have a way to get out of their pain and misery and die with dignity. Instead of becoming vegetables in their old age and wearing adult diapers or suffering throught a terrible disease they could have a way out. 2. I don't remember where I got this fact but I believe about 60% of medicare is spent in the last 2 weeks of a patients life. With Euthanasia hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars could be saved and spent on things such as education or simply reducing the multi trillion dollar deficit. Euthanasia could be set up rather easily. There could be government run centers where people of sane mind could come and provide in writing and in video something showing they wanted to die.", "qid": 23, "docid": "ddc4d7ee-2019-04-18T18:45:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7908504009246826}]}
{"query": "Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Taxes on the Rich should be Increased Content: There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs. There is an extensive academic literature on this subject, and it all lends itself to the same conclusion: tax cuts are not conducive to growth, but is to income inequality and middle class stagnation. First, let\u2019s discuss the reality of the current state of taxation in the United States. Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute, in examining post WWII tax rates, noted this observation (1): Since the end of World War II, U.S. top individual income tax rates have declined markedly, as have effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances. Consequently, the federal tax code has become much less progressive (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate has fallen from just over 90 percent in the 1950s, to 70 percent in the 1970s, to 50 percent in the mid-1980s, to 35 percent for most of the past decade (TPC 2013a). The taxable income cutoff above which the top rate is applied for married joint filers has also fallen precipitously, from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars), to roughly $1 million in the early 1970s, to just $388,350 for 2012 (TPC 2013b). The overall decline in progressivity is most striking within the top income percentile: The effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile (i.e., 99.99\u2013100 percent of filers by income) has fallen by more than half, from 71.4 percent in 1960 to 34.7 percent in 2004, versus a decline for the 99.5\u201399.9 percentiles from 41.4 percent in 1960 to 33.0 percent in 2004 (Piketty and Saez 2007). To elucidate this piece, here are his conclusions: 1. Tax rates, which ranged from 70 to 91% in the first three decades of the post-WWII era, have fallen substantially. 2. Effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have fallen as well. 3. The tax code, with time, has become increasingly less progressive. We also have data telling us that the tax systems in most states are regressive \u2013 that is, a disproportionate portion of the burden is falling on lower-income people \u2013 as many states move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes (2). At the same time, corporations are getting giant breaks. Not only are they low by historic standards, as Thomas Hungerford points out (3); the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice conduced an extensive study (4) of 288 Fortune 500 companies over a 5 year period, and came to the following conclusions: 1. 111 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing paid negative tax rates. 2. One third paid no federal income tax less than 10 percent over the period. 3. The average tax rate was only 19.4%. 4. 55 of the 288 companies enjoyed several years of new taxes, with a total of 203 years of no taxes. So, now we have examined the evidence as to the current state of taxation. Let\u2019s review: 1. Many states have regressive tax burdens. 2. The very affluent have seen their tax rates at near historic lows \u2013 in spite of significant growth in the post-WWII era with significantly higher tax rates \u2013 and are enjoying significant breaks on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, who have been forced to shoulder the burden. 3. Corporations are receiving unheard of breaks. So, we know that the essence of trickle-down economics is already in play: taxes are already low. What are the results, however, of these breaks? Let\u2019s go back to Andrew Fieldhouse, whose study concluded this: Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth\u2014private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity\u2014nor on overall economic growth rates. Interesting. But what about the Laffer Curve, conservatives may ask? Is there not a point beyond which the government simply cannot raise taxes lest it loses revenue? Of course there is. But what is that rate, and are we anywhere near it? Fieldhouse addresses this, as well: Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate\u2026. Historically, decreases in top marginal tax rates have widened inequality of both pre- and post-tax income. Emmanuel Saez and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond also weighed in as to what the effective tax rate ought to be, and concluded that the optimal tax rate on high-income Americans would be 70% (5). We also have data from a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Service (6). Here is their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. For more on income inequality, let\u2019s go to Robert Reich (6): During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion \u2014 as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day \u2014 growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It\u2019s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners\u2019 share of the nation\u2019s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 \u2014 the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. And, for a bit more, let\u2019s go to Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, who cites World Bank economist Branko Milanovic (7): From 1988 to 2008, Mr. Milanovic found, people in the world\u2019s top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 60 percent, while those in the bottom 5 percent had no change in their income. And while median incomes have greatly improved in recent decades, there are still enormous imbalances: 8 percent of humanity takes home 50 percent of global income; the top 1 percent alone takes home 15 percent. Income gains have been greatest among the global elite \u2014 financial and corporate executives in rich countries \u2014 and the great \u201cemerging middle classes\u201d of China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. But how bad is income inequality? Let\u2019s ask Stiglitz: Last year [2012] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation\u2019s income; the top 0.1 percent, 11 percent. Ninety-five percent of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. Recently released census figures show that median income in America hasn\u2019t budged in almost a quarter-century. The typical American man makes less than he did 45 years ago (after adjusting for inflation); men who graduated from high school but don\u2019t have four-year college degrees make almost 40 percent less than they did four decades ago. So, there is certainly a moral argument at play: the middle-class has stagnated since the 1980s \u2013 the rise of Ronald Reagan, and the inception of the supply-side economics experiment we\u2019ve been experiencing for about 34 years now. But what are the economic effects of income inequality? Should we be worried that income inequality is constraining the economy? Yes, says Stiglitz again. He makes the following four arguments: 1. Income inequality will lead to underconsumption, as the rich spend relatively smaller portions of their income than poor people due to the diminishing marginal returns of income. 2. Income inequality leads to a waste of human talent, as the non-affluent cannot access high-quality education as readily as rich people. 3. Income inequality gives way to financial crises. 4. Income inequality lowers tax receipts. And we also know that income inequality in the United States, coupled with social mobility, is significantly lower than it is in Europe. We know that countries in Europe \u2013 Finland, Germany, Norway, et al. \u2013 and even the U.S. in the three decades post-WWII had higher tax rates, more government investment, less income inequality, and more growth as a result. European countries also beat the U.S. on health, life expectancy, happiness, economic mobility, etc. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming, and there isn\u2019t much time to waste. Supply-side economics is a fantasy. Sources: 1. http://www.epi.org... 2. http://www.itep.org... 3. http://www.epi.org... 4. http://www.ctj.org... 5. http://pubs.aeaweb.org... 6. http://robertreich.org... 7. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "d7aa69c4-2019-04-18T16:31:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7604283690452576}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: The DebateIn this debate, I will argue that the American corporate tax rate should be reformed and lowered in order to benefit the economy and the government.RulesRound 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Present argumentsRound 3: Refute opponent's argumentsRound 4: Make final cases/refutations and conclusion", "qid": 24, "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7530208826065063}, {"content": "Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved? National corporate tax rate: 30% Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed. 1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed. 20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.) Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned. This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business. This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more. This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.", "qid": 24, "docid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7512065172195435}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector\u2019s need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate\u2019s primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu...", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7421286702156067}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7386343479156494}, {"content": "Title: There should be no minimum wage. Content: No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue. As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.Let's address some of your other points:\"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls. That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!", "qid": 24, "docid": "2f9bf209-2019-04-18T17:39:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7383635640144348}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: My opponent seems to blame the recession on corporate taxes. His argument has no substance at all and only includes baseless conjectures which somehow add up to why corporate taxes should be lowered. Corporations pay significantly less in taxes today than they did 50 years ago due to increased globalization and offshore subsidiaries which allow them to essentially avoid corporate taxes. http://www.cbpp.org... As my opponent is attempting to say that corporate taxes should be lowered because it would benefit the economy, yet he has offered nothing to support this resolution. I await his logically structured arguments, and compelling evidence for why corporate taxes should be lowered. I agree that lowering taxes in general is always going to increase GDP if government spending remains unchanged, however this will ratchet up the national debt via larger deficits ultimately leading to higher borrowing costs and more painful taxes later. Quantitative easing will likely end this fall. This will (and already partially has based on bernakes recent comments) ratchet up interest rates and quickly make debt payments extremely costly You can see based on yield curve history rates are already rising and will dramatically rise when the program ends. http://www.treasury.gov... Bernake has already said that debt will be a huge long term drag on the economy. http://www.youtube.com... In the short term lowering taxes on anyone/anything will benefit GDP. However I believe my opponent will agree that long term health of the economy is of far greater import.", "qid": 24, "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7332396507263184}, {"content": "Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.", "qid": 24, "docid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7225481271743774}, {"content": "Title: Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Content: Thank you very much for your rebuttal and taking the time to debate this subject. Let me begin by addressing your contention that my scenario's are incorrect. You stated in your rebuttal that \"In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower\". And that, \"the reasons for the less money include\": 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy To address these points: 1. EBIT = \"Earnings before Interest and Taxes\". This is a term well-known to CEO's and CFO's the world over. It's basically a companies \"Operating Earnings\". You state that 'more money has to be paid to the government' so my scenario is inaccurate. I disagree. The $1,000,000 in earnings would be the same in both scenarios because they are PRE-TAX earnings. No money has been paid to the government in either Scenario. 2. While, theoretically, this point is true. I believe it to be irrelevant to this debate. This more of point in discussing international trade agreements & tariffs. 3. Companies cannot \"write-off\" as expenses, investments in other companies or economies, so there isn't a \"tax incentive\" for them to do so. A CEO's motivation is to lower the companies tax burden while simultaneously growing their own company. In short, the scenario's I've illustrated are correct, and valid. They are indicative of the way 'Real World' CEO's view taxes and their effect on business decisions. I know this from first-hand experiences. In your rebuttal, you referenced the study, 'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases'. While this study may be accurate and insightful, it doesn't address the topic of this debate. It addresses tax cuts vs. increased government spending. Hence, I find it irrelevant. However, I did find an article which illustrates my point very well in an even more extreme example. The link is below. To Summarize, higher corporate tax rates DO encourage business investment. The higher the tax rate, the more motivated a CEO is to avoid paying the taxes. The best way for them to do this is to spend the money on growing their business (invest) instead of giving a large amount to the government as taxes on their NET profit. The Mind of a CEO: Tax rates high = Cheap to reinvest in company Tax rates low = Cheap to declare profits Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject - I look forward to many more discussions! http://www.alternet.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7161627411842346}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt a negative income tax. Content: Thank you for the definition. You can be more specific about what plan for a negative income tax you support in your argument, so I will use this round to argue against the tax in general.Contention #1: A negative income tax decreases incentive to work.Experiments in Seatle and Denver tested the effectiveness of a negative income tax. The Stanford Research Institute analyzed the results and found a 9-18% reduction in productivity, and that 50-60% of those recieving the tax used it to replace wages they would have otherwise earned themselves. [1]The same study also found that the tax decreased family stability because families no longer relied on wage-earners.Contention #2: A negative income tax would be expensive to implement.Even proponents of the tax estimate a cost of $38 billion a year, and that is underestimated:\"And if once the main principle of either proposal were accepted, the minimum subsidy or guarantee demanded would be bound constantly to increase. Anyone who doubts this need merely consult the history of unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits since those plans were initiated in the 1930s.\"Implementing this system would be very expensive, possibly reaching trillions of dollars.ConclusionA negative income tax would be ineffective because it decreases incentive to work and causes family instability, and it would also be costly.I will not have access to my computer this weekend, so I would appreciate it if you could take your time to respond.[1] http://www.econlib.org...[2] https://mises.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7148691415786743}, {"content": "Title: Trickle-down/Supply-side economics is a failed system Content: Income taxes and economic growth a) The graphs cited do not have a control variable. As the economy has many confounding factors affecting growth or contraction, it is necessary to control for other variables. The economy in the 1950s is far different from what it is today; indeed, as the rest of the world was torn apart by WWII, America was the only power left able to supply goods to the rest of the world. As these variables are not accounted for, my opponent\u2019s data is weak at best. b) My opponent charts marginal tax rates, but not effective tax rates. Effective tax rates tell us a lot more because it is what people actually pay to the government. The tax code used to have many more loopholes 20, 30, and 40 years ago than it does today. If we look at effective tax rates, the progressivity (i.e. how much the rich pay) has not significantly changed between the 1960s and 2004 [1]. Effective income tax rates have stayed the same, not fallen, like my opponent assumes. c) The graphs assume that marginal tax rates apply to the same number of people, at any given time, at any given income bracket; but the cutoff for who pays the top rate has changed significantly over time. In the 1950s, a person making $3 million (in today\u2019s currency) would pay the marginal tax rate [1]. In 2014, those who pay the top tax rate of make $400,000 dollars a year [2], much less than the $3 million one would have to make 65 years ago. As the top tax rate affects many more people now than it did 60 years ago, any economic effects would be larger today than they used to be (as more people will experience behavior-changing tax changes). Corporate taxes and growth I did not clarify my position well enough and my opponent seems to think that I was arguing for reducing middle class taxes (which I am all for, by the way). The argument was not that we should cut middle class taxes, but that the corporate tax in effect harms workers. By increasing the cost of doing business, the wealthy put the cost onto the worker by reducing their pay in order to reduce labor costs. By reducing corporate taxes, you help the poor by increasing their wages. According to the research I posted last round, 56-70% of the corporate tax burden falls upon the worker.My opponent cites a study by the Tax Justice Network and claims that reducing taxes would only benefit the rich. Under Pareto's principle, that is not a bad thing--as long as it benefits some people, without harming others, the policy change is beneficial. As noted, both the CBO has demonstrated that it is the poor who is harmed by excessively high corporate taxes. Reducing them would, in turn, increase their income. The Tax Justice Network seems to assume that corporate taxes only affect the wealthy, when nonpartisan organizations have already disproved this notion. The Tax Foundation argues, \u201cfor every one dollar increase in state and local corporate tax revenues, wages can be expected to fall by roughly 2.5 dollars.\u201d[3] Research by Fehr et al. further backs up my claims. They argue that eliminating the corporate tax to zero would produce rapid and dramatic increases in U.S. domestic investment, output, real wages, and national saving. The authors also touch upon the distributional aspects, noting, \u201c[abolishing the corporate tax would] produc[e] welfare gains for all U.S. cohorts.\u201d[4] R: Taxes and growth My opponent\u2019s evidence here suffers from the same flaws as the data used in his rebuttals. It does not use effective marginal tax rates, does not account for the fact that modern marginal tax rates affect many more people than they did in the past (making their macroeconomic effects much larger), and does not control for other factors that affect economic growth. Taxes have a powerful effect on growth, but it is not the only factor--monetary policy, spending policy, regulatory policy, and what is happening in foreign markets are all extremely important. If we simply compare taxes and growth, we shouldn\u2019t get any correlation because of these other, more important, factors! This does not mean taxes have no effect--the evidence that controls for these variables proves this. One good proxy to control for this is to look at smaller areas, like the states. Using tax revenues as a proxy for effective tax rates, we can see that higher taxes correlate with lower growth, and lower taxes correlate with higher growth [5]. The following data excludes severance taxes (from oil) and growth related to the oil industry. The Tax Foundation has reviewed the burgeoning literature and concluded that a \u201c[p]ro-growth tax reform that reduces the burden of corporate and personal income taxes would generate a more robust economic recovery and put the U.S. on a higher growth trajectory, with more investment, more employment, higher wages, and a higher standard of living.\u201d\"[19] One of the studies they cited found that a 1% cut in the marginal tax rate increased GDP per capita by 0.5% the following year. R: Income inequality a) This debate needn\u2019t occur in a vacuum. Indeed, I can propose other policies to mitigate the distributional effects while the positive growth effects of taxes continue to thrive. Expanding EITC alongside tax cuts would help combat the inequality effects while not hindering the economic growth effects of taxes [6]. b) Inequality is not inherently bad. The IMF study my opponent touted earlier relies upon data from developing countries. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, offers caution when interpreting these results as demonstrating that inequality is bad for growth. They write, \u201cthe literature [on inequality] focuses mostly on the experience of developing countries, and its applicability to the challenges currently facing the United States [and other developed countries] is not entirely clear.\u201d\"[7] As developing countries differ from the United States and other countries in very significant ways, it is foolish to assume that what happens in the third world is applicable in our advanced economy. IMF economists who have reviewed the literature concur with the Center for American Progress, saying that existing research has \u201cdata and methodological issues [which make them too] imprecise to deliver definitive answers to this old and central question in economics research.\u201d[8] Some research finds that in developed nations, inequality increases growth. A study looking at 12 developed countries has found that an increase in the share of top income is associated with increased GDP growth [9]. The following graphs come from a Manhattan Institute Study [10]. They seem to show the same thing: inequality has a positive effect on growth. The reason for the discrepancy is simple. In developing countries, the wealthy are often rich because of corruption--which harms economic growth. In developed countries, the wealthy tend to be wealthy because they produce items that make everyone better off. This conclusion is backed by a study by the Institute for the Study of Labor, noting that inequality\u2019s effect on growth is not significant when corruption is accounted for [11]. R: Instability Academic research has concluded the opposite: increasing the progressivity of a tax code, causes recessions. Increasing progressivity dramatically changes the expectations of consumers and investors, which leads to more volatility. This is the opposite of what my opponent is arguing. UCR economists have found that \u201craising the tax progressivity may destabilize an endogenously growing economy by generating fuctuations driven by agents changing non-fundamental expectations.\u201d\"[12] Taxes began being reduced in the 60s. I will look at the number of recessions since 1900 through today, so there are about 60 years on either side (60 before, 65 after). There were 14 recessions in the 60 years preceding the major tax reductions started by Kennedy. There have only been 7 recessions since then [13]. The statistics show no real correlation between taxation and recessions--if anything, they confirm the research cited above showing that taxing the rich increase volatility. Reducing taxes on the wealthy is unlikely to increase the number of recessions. R: Stable incomes a) Looking only at wages/earnings is misleading. You have to look at total compensation. Total compensation takes into account benefits, like health insurance. Even if one\u2019s wages stay the same, if an employer begins paying for health insurance, your standard of living will increase because your cost of living falls. This, in effect, is a wage increase; but we would never see this using my opponent\u2019s data. When total compensation is looked at, wages have actually increased 77% since 1973 [14]. The effect of total compensation can be seen below [14][20]. b) Looking at households over individuals tells us a different story. Looking only at income, an individual has only seen a 3.2% increase in their income since 1979. This seems to support my opponent\u2019s position--but look closer. If you measure households instead, the increase since 1979 is 12.5%. If you take into account government transfers, that rises to 15.2%. If you take into account middle class tax cuts that came with the tax cuts for the rich, income growth was 20.2%. If you adjust for household size, the number is 29%. Accounting for employer paid health care plans, income for the average family rose 36.7% [15]. That is a significant increase. c) The claim that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer (or stagnated) has also been researched in academia. Richard Burkhauser has found that the income for the middle 5th quintile has risen by 1/3 between 1979 and 2007 [16]. The CBO, when accounting for benefits, has found that incomes for the middle class have risen 45% since 1980 [17]. d) Mobility is high. 58% of those at the bottom rose to a higher income bracket between 1996 and 2005, and 50% of those in the second poorest bracket moved up in that time frame [18]. http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "39648fb-2019-04-18T14:28:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7134623527526855}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: I will be arguing that Corporate Tax should in fact be lowered as to accommodate for growth as well as incentivize investment into our private sector. Rules are as follows: Round 1: Acceptance/Informal short summary of primary argument. Round 2: Statement of Opening Arguments. Round 3: Continuation of Argument and Rebuttal. Round 4: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion. Please, do not troll.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7124038934707642}, {"content": "Title: Progressive tax vs. flat tax Content: Progressive taxes help increase employment rate", "qid": 24, "docid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00028-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7114524841308594}, {"content": "Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: Thanks to tcow2970 for initiating the debate.Opening statement will be short, as the nature of the debate demands that pro must uphold the proposition that Taxes were indeed *excessively high* prior to tax reform. Government SpendingOver several decades, overall spending as a percent of GDP has followed a positive trend, as noted by reference [1]. That being said, to supplement such increased levels in spending, we either (a) raise taxes, or (b) accept higher levels of national debt. Option b) is undesirable because long-term debt does play into the devaluation of US treasury bonds, which would eventually reduce the ability to defecit-spend your way out of a recession. Thus, we are left with option a). Suggestions could be made to decrease spending, but such discussion is outside of the scope of this debate.Effectiveness of Reducing Corporate TaxesAs I am not intending to prove that lowering the tax is effective, but rather that the taxes prior to the tax cut are not excessive, I am not required to advocate for any specific position. Instead, I intend to question the impact a reduced tax rate will have on the general economy. Commonly it is said that lower taxes often produce a 'trickle-down effect' - that is, essentially when corporate taxes are lowered, they are better able to finance the cost of a larger number of workers at higher salaries. However, such logic has never actually been verified in practice. It is also important to note that corporate income taxes aren't fixed at the 35% number often thrown around by Republicans. The corporate income taxes rates also follow brackets. [2].References[1] https://blogs-images.forbes.com...[2] https://www.thebalance.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7095218300819397}, {"content": "Title: The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses Content: Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1", "qid": 24, "docid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00016-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7090358138084412}, {"content": "Title: Basic income tax should be abolished Content: Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.", "qid": 24, "docid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7086674571037292}, {"content": "Title: Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Content: The myth of tax cuts (removing the capital gains tax would be a huge tax cut to the wealthy) for the wealthy is good for the economy because they are the \"job creators\" has been thoroughly debunked by the last 3 years since we sailed over the supposed fiscal cliff in January 2013. As a quick refresher, the fiscal cliff was the term used to describe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that Obama had extended upon taking office, which included restoring the capital gains rate back to 20% (from 15%) for those earning over $400k, and increasing the peak marginal rate on the highest income earners from 35% to 39.6%. Conservatives warned that this looming fiscal cliff would handcuff our nations \"job creators\" and force us back into a double-dip recession. While the chart linked below (released with the jobs report last week) admittedly demonstrates only one large data point from the curret business cycle, and so I would acknowledge it doesn't prove that increasing the capital gains rate ALWAYS has no impact on job creation. But it does at least confirm that converse is also not true. Based on the continued strength in the job market post-fiscal cliff, we can at least be confident that raising the capital gains tax is not always a bad thing. In the case of the last 3 years, it has appeared to be pretty non-consequential. https://www.whitehouse.gov...;", "qid": 24, "docid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7078703045845032}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: Because recession is such a general term, let me narrow to the part I'm trying to show you. You make an important point that taxes are lowered if they relocate overseas, especially to China or Japan. This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does. Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits. Corporations do this to avoid corporate taxes, and take their business somewhere that doesn't normally have corporate taxes like we do. And if corporations have had lower taxes than they have 40-50 years ago (which is somewhat true), then why are they shipping jobs overseas? Because they're not low enough. And why is this such a big deal? Because the more money made, the higher the tax rate is and corporations make a lot of money. The IRS reports that since 1988, the tax rate per income began to fluctuate and people with lower incomes started to be taxed at a higher percentage than those making more (to this day). They got tired of this, and since then began to relocate to countries with cheap labor and low or no taxes. Since the late 1980s, this caused a whole range of economic problems which can be obvious when seen. It's no coincidence that the countries that we owe trade deficits with are the ones that corporations decided to relocate to. As for my sources, did you not see the entire article filled with 10 benefits of lower corporate taxes? And what \"program\" are you talking about? And yes I do agree with the long-term health of the economy, which means that we have the same goals. We have different theories on how to meet them however, and if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit because more people would make demands. It's simple math. If the tax rate was 8% for a candy bar, only 1 person would want to buy it. But if the rate was 4% then 3 people would want to buy it, so the government would be making 4% more if the taxes were lower. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.americanprogress.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7073831558227539}, {"content": "Title: Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth. Content: Here's a better idea: Corporate tax rate: 0%, that way buisnesses will have more money to invest in creating more jobs. Instead tax those who receive checks from that corporation, derived from those profits.", "qid": 24, "docid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7065378427505493}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)Well, here's my case.Laffer CurveDuring the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate. Companies Move OverseasPfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" The Heritage Foundation.2. Giobanetti, Tom. \"As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California.\" RealClearMarkets.", "qid": 24, "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7053666114807129}, {"content": "Title: Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate Content: The idea is that the top payroll tax for people should esentialy be targeted at the tax optimizing rate. We are going to need many more tax brackets to achieve this system. For this debate this will mean the government will attempt to estimate the tax optimizing tax rate for income above 1 billion dollars. Then all income above 1 billion dollars will be taxed at that rate. Tax rates will then be phased down below that level.Format:Round 1: Definitions and AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Summarize the round. No new arguments.EDIT: It seems I didn't define the tax optimizing rate. The tax optimizing rate is the rate at which increasing the percentage of tax decreases the total amount of tax money you receive. The idea is that at some level of taxation people's incentive to work declines so quickly that when you increase the tax rate you decrease the amount of tax collected.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5ad9ec0c-2019-04-18T17:16:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7049773335456848}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: Select winner, 10k, minimum ELO 1500, blah blah blah. I made this impossible to accept. Say if you want it in comments. If you want to complain about my rules then say so in the comments. This is a resolution for a program I am doing this summer, so yeah. Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance only 2. Second round is for cases only 3. BOP is shared 4. No kritiks/semantics 5. Voting is on arguments only 6. Breaking rules = loss 7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link. 8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race 9. You accept definitions 10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. == Definitions == Income tax: \"An income tax is a government levy (tax) imposed on individuals or entities (taxpayers) that varies with the income or profits (taxable income) of the taxpayer. Details vary widely by jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions refer to income tax on business entities as companies tax or corporation tax.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The marginal tax rate is currently 39.6%. I will argue for the reduction of across the board tax cuts. Not only do the rich get cuts, but also the poor. And don't pull some \"can't cut the taxes on the poor if they already pay 0\". Corporate tax rate: \"Corporate taxes are taxes against profits earned by businesses during a given taxable period; they are generally applied to companies' operating earnings, after expenses such as COGS, SG&A and depreciation have been deducted from revenues.\" The current corporate tax rate is 35%. kewl added judges BlackVoid thett3 Blade-of-Truth F16_Fighting_Falcon Varrack tejretics 1Historygenius Romanii whiteflame ResponsiblyIrresponsible tell me if that works", "qid": 24, "docid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00007-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7033582925796509}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets Content: C1) We should reduce the corporate tax rate Having a competitive tax system is increasingly important in a globalized economy. Globalization means firms wishing to invest capital in a region can be easily encouraged\u2014or deterred\u2014if taxes increase or decrease. High corporate taxes discourage investment and reduce economic growth. America has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.1%.[1] This is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%. The harmful effects of high corporate taxes are visible in our economic system. Johansson et al. has a paper published by the OECD investigating the impacts of different types of taxes and economic growth. The paper found that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are the most detrimental to economic growth. The study found that a 1% shift of tax revenues from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by 0.25 \u2013 1% in the long run.[2] Johansson also found that statutory corporate tax rates of 30 to 35%, which the US now surpasses, reduces investment by 1.9%. To quote Johansson, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate would \u201clead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.\u201d The reason for this is because many of the firms that are productive also rely on retained earnings to pay for their expansion. Tax cuts would increase the amount of retained earnings and increase prospects for future firm expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold confirms the findings of Johansson and concluded that corporate taxes \u201chave the most negative effect on GDP per capita.\u201d[3] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent.[4] The biggest problem with having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is that it reduces our international competitiveness. Incentives matter, and taxing labor and capital simply means that the incentives to make more of it decrease. If a country has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than we do, it is our companies and workers that suffer. The current corporate tax rate caused companies to shift $50 billion away from the United States to countries with lower corporate taxes.[5] Despite our high corporate tax rate rayr, we do not have much to show in the way of revenue. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset have found that the revenue maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%.[6] Any corporate tax rate above 26% would decrease revenue. This is not surprising as the average OECD corporate tax rate is 24.8%. As international businesses can relocate to a location where taxation is lower (which means more profits), having a tax rate far above the OECD average would deter potential businesses from entering the country. This means a smaller tax base. Brill\u2019s and Hasset\u2019s study is supported by basic cross sectional data. In the US, corporate income tax revenue makes up 2.2% of our GDP; for the OECD, that number is 3.4%.[7] Despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the percent of our corporate tax rate revenue to our GDP is over one percent lower than the OECD average. This confirms the Brill and Hasset analysis that current corporate tax rates are on the far side of the Laffur Curve. Studies claiming that corporate tax cuts do not cause growth have no solid foundation. Owen Zidar, who opposes tax cuts for the rich, finds that tax cuts for the middle class cause economic growth.[8] It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class would increase consumption and cause growth. Luckily, corporate tax rates do cut taxes for the middle class. According to another study by Zidar, workers receive 35% of the benefit from corporate tax cuts.[9] The literature says tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, and corporate taxes benefit the middle class; it seems illogical to claim corporate tax rates would not help the economy. The Zidar estimates are a bit on the conservative side. The CBO has found that \u201cdomestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.\u201d[10] Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that workers of unionized industries carry 56% of the tax burden from corporate taxes.[11] A tax cut would bring a huge benefit to middle and lower class workers. C2) Reduced income taxes cause growth Lower income taxes cause growth; yes, even for the rich. It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, so I assume the majority of this debate will revolve around tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes for the wealthy make up for the majority of our revenue, and it is only the top quintile of incomes that actually pay significantly more to the government than what they cost (e.g. they pay more taxes but use fewer social services).[12] Using tax revenues as a proxy for tax rates would work out pretty well. The following graph, using local tax revenues as a proxy for local tax rates, compares tax revenues to growth rates. Here is the data: There is a clear and strong correlation between lower tax revenue and faster GSP growth. According to the data, 40% of the variance in growth rates at a local level are determined by the tax burden.[13] This data does not include severance taxes or growth related to oil and gas. This is because merely having an abundance of resources could interfere with the results. While defending tax cuts we must look at the 1980s. I will defend Reaganomics responsibly. You think tax cuts in the 80s were the cause of the rapid growth during that decade? They weren\u2019t. Federal Reserve policies must be credited for that. But that does not mean the Reagan tax cuts were a failure\u2014they were a great success. The benefits from the tax cuts were long term; they increased innovation and heavily contributed to the growth in the 1990s a decade later. According to the American Enterprise Institute, \u201cReagan\u2019s economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. \u2026 [T]he changes Reagan championed in the tax system fostered innovation and entrepreneurialism even as they encouraged the development of venture capital and investment in human capital.\u201d[14] His policies allowed businesses, which may not have been created due to high risks from a terrible tax code, to come to fruition. Tax cuts do not benefit us in between each business cycle; tax cuts take years for the benefits of increased investment to show up. Reagan\u2019s tax cuts didn\u2019t cause mega growth in the 80s, but it caused growth well past his term and beyond. The example of Reaganomics\u2014that tax cuts take time to kick in\u2014is confirmed by peer-reviewed literature. A study by economist Robert Reed argued that \u201ctax policies take time to work,\u201d and that when the effects kick in, \u201ca negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges.\u201d[15] When we increase taxes, it takes time before the negative effects fully take hold\u2014the reverse holds true. More progressive tax systems lower economic growth. A progressive tax system means the wealthy pay more than the poor; the larger the gap between the amount the rich pay and the poor, the more progressive a tax system is. When a tax system increases in progressivity, meaning the rich pay more taxes, there is less growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve study observed that \u201ca decrease in tax progressivity did lead to higher growth \u2026 differences in tax code across countries could explain up to a two and half percent variation in economic growth.\u201d[16] The negative effects of high taxes, even on the wealthy, has been confirmed by studies by the Mercatus center as well as the American Economic Association.[17-18] Reducing tax rates on the wealthy would promote more economic growth. C3) Revenue As I showed in the case of corporate taxes, we could reduce the corporate tax rate by over 10% and increase revenue.Income taxes are a different story. Depending on how a tax cut is crafted, tax cuts may or may not pay for themselves. If the marginal rate was extremely high, reducing it to a moderate level would reduce deficits. There are always Laffur curve effects, so the changes in revenue could be exaggerated by a static analysis. This is not to say that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Despite revenue losses, tax cuts would still increase GDP growth. If we reversed the 2012 4% hike in taxes, revenues would only fall by $14 billion, but GDP would grow by 0.43%.[19] In fact, revenue maximizing policies would be detrimental to our economy as a whole.[21] Instead, we should focus on reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Sweden, for example, reduced the top marginal rate by 20% in the last recession, but they also prevented going into debt by reducing welfare spending. Countries that successfully reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios find that spending cuts rather than tax increases are a better way to fix the problem without reducing economic growth.[20] Spending cuts can increase growth. According to a research paper by the Mercatus Center, \u201cfiscal adjustments on average reduced debt-to-GDP ratio by 0.19 percentage points of GDP in a given year. GDP grew by 3.47 percentage points in total, which is 0.58 percentage points higher than the average growth of G7 countries.\u201d[20] I am in favor of reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Reducing the corporate tax rate would increase revenue\u2014abolishing the corporate tax rate would have little effect on our budgets.[22] http://bit.ly...;", "qid": 24, "docid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.701564371585846}, {"content": "Title: Implement a Flat Tax w/ Standard Deduction Content: Thanks to Valladarex for suggesting this topic and for agreeing to debate me. I\"m looking forward to a spirited discussion.In this round, I will briefly outline what I see as a series of fair and equitable adjustments to the U.S. Tax Code. In Round Two, both my opponent and I will go into greater detail and advocacy for our basic plans.The United States Tax Code as currently constituted reflects a series of political compromises. This has made it complex and unwieldy, but it also has the virtue of reflecting a balancing of political interests through the democratic process. My aim, then, would be to preserve the basic structure of the tax code without making any radical changes, while also seeking to implement reforms that simplify personal income tax and eliminates various perverse incentives.Here is a basic summary of what I would propose:Lower corporate income tax: The United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. In our global economy, this has encouraged many corporations to keep their cash reserves overseas and avoid the hefty tax bill that would come with repatriation. We should lower the corporate income tax rate to be more commensurate with other Western economies to encourage those assets to be brought home and spent in America.Treat capital gains as ordinary income: Returns on investment are taxed at a much lower rate than income earned from labor, which is why people like Warren Buffet will talk about paying less in taxes proportionately than his secretary, or why Mitt Romney only paid about 17% in taxes the year before he ran for President. Part of the justification for this has been our high corporate income tax rate, which is so high that investors can credibly argue that treating capital gains as ordinary income effectively subjects them to double taxation on the same earning. Thus, in conjunction with lowering the corporate income tax rate, increase capital gains rates so that the investor class pays the same on their passive income as they would if they had worked for it.Eliminate the cap on payroll taxes: Medicare and Social Security are not funded by income taxes, but on a flat 7.65% payroll tax on earnings up to $118,500. People making $800,000 a year, then, pay the same amount as someone making $120,000. The bulk of this tax burden falls on the middle class, who make less than $118,500. There are two great reasons for eliminating the cap: first, this is an incredibly regressive tax, and the tax burden should be shared more equitably with higher earners. Second, eliminating the payroll tax limit makes Social Security solvent into the indefinite future.Eliminate taxes for income earned overseas: The United States is one of the few nations to subject its citizens living abroad to its income taxes - income that a citizen earns while living in Paris, France, for example, is still taxed as though the individual lived in Paris, Texas. Often, the income is subjected to taxes in the country of residence as well, leading to a significant tax burden. This policy should be ended.Increase tax rates on higher earners: For decades, we have slashed at tax rates for high earners under the theory that these tax savings would be plugged back into the economy, creating jobs and boosting spending. George H.W. Bush, before being selected as Reagan\"s running mate, called this \"voodoo economics,\" and the intervening 36 years have not proved him wrong. The American economy, and the American middle class, were at their strongest during the era of significant progressive taxation. Make the IRS do taxes for you: For most people, the tax code is a pain because you have to prepare your own return, and risk auditing if you get it wrong. In most nations, the tax collecting authority prepares the return for you, and you simply need to make corrections if any errors have been made. While this is a bit reductive, the basic reason the United States doesn\"t already do this is called \"H&R Block lobbyists.\" To simplify taxes for the vast majority of Americans, we should make the process as convenient and painless as possible. That means not wasting a pile of consumer money on one or two tax preparation companies.Thank you, and I\"ll eagerly await the details of my opponent\"s plan.", "qid": 24, "docid": "7af1d731-2019-04-18T13:35:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7006121277809143}, {"content": "Title: American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform Content: \"The American People are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed.\" It is because Ronald Reagan pinpointed the issues with the overtaxing in America I believe that the corporate tax rates (before the tax cuts) were too high. To hopefully convince everyone viewing this debate I provide some points. First, we had some of the highest tax rates in the world NPR News in 2017 found the claim that the United States had the highest corporate tax rates in the world to be \"generally true\". There are even some instances in which corporations pay upwards of 50-60% of their profits. If that doesn't scream borderline socialism / government abuse, I don't know what will. Second, the super high tax rates cause international outsourcing The Balance in 2013 found that United States companies have 14 million employees overseas in jobs that could be employing Americans. Why? Because of my first point that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Congressional Democrats from the ways and means committees reported that at least 47 major corporations have moved overseas in the past decade alone. Those are millions if not billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of jobs. How do we bring them back? Lowering the corporate tax rate. Finally, outsourcing jobs causes unemployment which leads to more crime This is a pretty self explanatory point, but the example I will be using is the rust belt. The place that used to be the manufacturing hub of America but is now a crime ridden ghost-town. Places like Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh all used to be flourishing economies in America that were known for being vibrant and industrial revolution havens. Now, due to the outsourcing of jobs, their unemployment has skyrocketed and their crime rates have skyrocketed. Thanks for reading! Format for debate 1. Opening Cases 2. Responses to opening cases 3. Final addresses", "qid": 24, "docid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.700311541557312}, {"content": "Title: Tarrif penalty on imports not manufactured to U.S regulations for polution, safety, child labor, etc Content: For this topic we\"re addressing federal income tax not federal payroll tax. State taxes aren\"t addressed. To address federal payroll tax we would need to address how to ensure people have adequate retirement support and medical coverage, as well as address unemployment insurance. But, payroll tax does bring up another important statistic because is a regressive tax as in the web site you mentioned (http://www.cbpp.org...). Note what this means when looking at the graph, \"Sources of Federal Tax Revenue,* 1945-2013,\" also on that site. Note the increasing trend in the percentage of payroll tax in the total federal tax revenue from 1952 until 1995. At the same time, consider that people paying Social Security and Medicare taxes are also paying individual income taxes. Individual income taxes percentage during this period had a flat trend during this period while corporate income taxes percentage had a decreasing trend. Payroll tax is a reflection of who is paying individual income taxes. The increase in the percentage of payroll tax versus the decrease in the percentage of corporate income tax shows that income taxes have in actual practice become less progressive than designed. While inflation caused the monetary numbers of individual income to go up during the period, the actual value of the average income of those paying individual income has actually gone down during this period. Manufacturing jobs are the mainstay of the US economy and exports (http://manufacturing.gov...). This decline in income from 1952 to 1995 corresponds to a loss in manufacturing jobs. \"Manufacturers in the United States are the most productive in the world, far surpassing the worker productivity of any other major manufacturing economy, leading to higher wages and living standards.\" (http://www.nam.org...) The percentage of US jobs in manufacturing declined from about 28% in 1962 to 9% in 2011. (http://manufacturing.gov...) \"The United States lost 6 million manufacturing jobs between early 2001 and late 2009. And despite small gains during the last two years [2010 and 2011], the trend in manufacturing employment for the last 30 years has been downward.\" (http://money.cnn.com...) Particularly disturbing with the downward trend is the loss in higher paying technical design and engineering jobs (http://www.computerworld.com..., http://www.todaysengineer.org..., http://www.infoworld.com..., http://www.usnews.com...), the middle and upper-middle income jobs, that are significant contributors to individual income tax. In our present recovery, the gains are for the rich. (http://www.economist.com...) Essentially the corporations and their executives who have outsourced their manufacturing have made great gains in the recovery. But, the people who previously worked in manufacturing jobs are not economically recovering. The outsourcing of manufacturing by US corporations has redistributed wealth among nations. In 2000 the US produced three times the manufacturing in China, but now China\"s GNP exceeds the US. (http://www.marketwatch.com... ) However, as seen in the previous paragraph, the distribution of wealth among people has become worse, with rich getting richer and middle class decreasing and poor increasing. At the same time, pollution and product safety has become an increasing issue in China. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., http://www.greenpeace.org...) Tariff penalties on imports are different from tariffs. They aren\"t an across the board tax like income tax or sales tax. They are more like a traffic ticket, and the penalties specific to maintain competitiveness. Penalties would be on a case by case basis just as is currently done when there is a non-competitive practice complaint against importers now. Just as with non-competitive practice cases, penalties for lack of regulation compared to US regulations would only be applied when it severely affected US manufacturing\"s ability to compete. Just as traffic tickets encourages drivers to keep traffic laws, the threat of a tariff penalty would encourage importing manufacturer to follow US regulations. It is unlikely that a small foreign company independent of any US company would be considered a competitive threat. The bulk of the importers with this issue are tied to large US or international corporations. They have large legal staffs. The real issue is who will represent the US manufacturing workers who work for the same corporation that imports products and defends the importer. This is the most likely scenario. This might take a chartering an organization such as the EEOC. While enacting penalties might be rare, the publicity of the hearings would have an effect on corporate practices. A prime example is Apple and FoxConn. (http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://www.forbes.com...) Sales tax can be either regressive or progressive. The way federal sales tax was implemented in the 1960\"s was progressive. It was a 20% sales tax on only luxury items such as jewelry. While we don\"t want sales tax to be as complicated for the average citizen as income tax, it can be progressive by exempting necessity items such as food, clothing, and medicine. Income tax essentially taxes US industry as opposed to imported manufacturing; thus, making it harder for US manufacturing to compete. Even corporate income tax encourages corporations to move their headquarters overseas, an issue President Obama touched on in his recent news conference. What other ways to do you have to address the problem of loss in manufacturing jobs in the US and its effect on the economy? I\"m open to other options, but think we need to use all the good options we have available.", "qid": 24, "docid": "ea7f6323-2019-04-18T15:24:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6988613605499268}, {"content": "Title: The GOP Tax Cuts will, on average, not help the middle class. Content: Very recently, the U. S. House of Representatives, then the Senate, and then President Trump signed into law tax cuts for corporate America (rich people). Supposedly, this money is supposed to be reinvested into the economy and trickle down to the middle class. My position that I'll be arguing is that these tax cuts will, on average, negatively affect the middle and lower classes. You will argue that they are beneficial.", "qid": 24, "docid": "824ee5c0-2019-04-18T11:53:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.698668360710144}, {"content": "Title: High taxes on rich has coincided with great economic growth Content: Robert Creamer. \"Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich.\" Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: \"The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a 'job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession.' Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero.\"", "qid": 24, "docid": "63cad73d-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00044-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6972569823265076}, {"content": "Title: Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Content: This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, \"Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?\". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that \"high\" income tax on any profits.", "qid": 24, "docid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6970822215080261}, {"content": "Title: 'Adoption of the Populist Party's ideals would/is beneficial for the United States of America.\" Content: Thanks for the debate, Lannan. ==My case== FrameworkCompletely dropped throughout the entire debate and therefore conceded. Weigh the round on a cost-benefit analysis. My opponent hasn't offered any way to weigh his impacts on this scale, so presume a negative vote. I. TaxationA. Corporate taxPro has dropped throughout the entire debate the card from the National Bureau of Economic Research showing why corporate taxes are a really, really bad idea. I don't really know what else to say here. Pro's only response is that the government provides services with the tax money but: a) he's dropped the warrant from the Forbes card and the sheer common sense of the matter that the private sector is more efficient, b) he's failed to impact *any* of this. Why is the welfare state good? And c) he dropped my counter that even if you buy the need for lots of government revenue we still don't need the corporate tax because the income tax exists and the removal of the corporate tax increases the taxable base vastly. Keep in mind how vastly the corporate tax harms incentive, to the point of destroying what would've been an extra 5% of our GDP. Along with the obvious societal benefits of a huge increase in wealth, this would create a larger national income for the government to draw from. Obviously my position has been against the income tax, but to tax personal income and then corporate income is just redundant and harms the economy vastly. B. Income tax Pro drops in his final round my counter proposal--even if we need an income tax, a flat tax is preferable. Keep in mind that Pro has never justified why we need an income tax other than vague references to services the government provides that he presumes to be good. However even if you buy the need for an income tax, I gain his advocacy because the card from the National Center for Policy Analysis has gone completely dropped throughout the entire debate and shows us that a flat tax, not the progressive tax the populists wanted, would let the economy grow more. This allows for the government to increase revenues as well because of a larger taxable base. Literally the only advantage of a progressive tax Pro cites is income inequality but he's failed to establish: a) Why inequality is bad, b) how this outweighs literally hundreds of billions of dollars and c) if a progressive tax actually helps inequality in a noticeable way. Pro has also dropped the logical warrant on why increasing taxation as wealth increases harms incentive. From my economic impacts alone I outweigh everything Pro has brought up. Vote Con. II. Government control of industry A. RailroadsPro makes no response whatsoever to state run railroads being a terrible idea economically. You can extend that through every round, even in his rebuttal Lannan prefaced it with me focusing on efficiency over some other ideals, which is an implicit concession. It's pretty obvious that handing over such a vital part of the economy, then and now, to the government would've been a terrible idea. Lannans only impacts come from the Railroads practicing sleazy business tactics that were only possible due to government regulation (stock watering), a populist ideal if there ever was one. Pro argues that the ICC was good but he dropped my argument on how his own source said it was useless, and my turn on how it helped set the framework for the regulatory state that's killing the economy today. Pro tries to argue that the ICC was good because it \"delayed\" the panic of 1893, but not only does he provide no warrant at all for how this happened or why these two things are linked, the panic of 1893 happening anyway should be good enough evidence that any impact Pro manages to have at this point is irrelevant. B. CommunicationThis is the most confused point of the round (partly my fault). My point was that the populists wanted a state run telegraph service. The telegraph was soon obsolete due to the telephone. I compared what this service would've been like to the postal service in the US today that loses $25 million per day because its outdated and inefficient, and compared this with companies that used to offer telegraphs that have moved on to show why the private sector is better. Lannan's response was just that the US has the best postal system, but if \"best\" means \"loses only $25 million per day\" than this shows only the sorry state of postal services abroad. A state telegraph service would've been even worse. Vote Con here. ==Opponents case== I. MoneyPro drops that the federal reserve isn't a good system and that the previous system would've been superior with less government regulations that rendered the banks helpless. Pro also drops that the value of the Dollar has dropped exponentially, losing 96% of its value in 100 years. Pro argues that this will help the poor because it erases the debt of the farmer. First, he doesn't quantify this, secondly while it's true that inflation helps farmers and other debtors in the short term, in the long term it harms us all by destroying the value of our savings. Recall also that the Federal Reserve system witnessed and failed to alleviate the worst economic depression in United States history. Maybe a few farmers got to keep their farms, but a lot more lost theirs during the depression. The Federal Reserve was at least just as bad, but more likely worse than the previous system. Another populist economic suggestion that's led to disaster. II. Transportation and regulation Pro admits that the ICC was a failed act, his only impact coming from it \"attacking\" the railroad industry--the sole link allowing for meaningful commerce and travel between many parts of the country in the populists day. Lannan attributes the bills failure to an uncommitted legislature, and whatever the reason this shows how Populist demands and expectations were inconsistent with political and economic reality. My opponent argues against the laissez faire economy by saying companies were corrupt and bringing up a few new arguments. First don't let him get away with this in the last round, but his arguments are pretty poorly impacted. Never mind the fact that I wasn't advocating a totally free market (just less stifling red tape--remember compliance costs alone are around $1.76 trillion), he fails to explain why these arguments, things like OSHA and anti-trust legislation should supersede my impacts. As for companies being corrupt, corporations are not the only entities that can be corrupt, but more importantly since the only major legislative achievement he cites, the ICC, was a complete failure this means that we have no government action to look to that solved the corruption. His impact simply doesn't exist. III. Direct legislation Pro drops that populist demands led to sloppily written legislation. We're still paying for the civil war, not metaphorically or figuratively, but literally. Pro attributes the adulteration of the Senate to the Americans people's \"greatness\" declining. This is an argument against democracy and direct elections. Honestly there just isn't much argument here. He never showed any difference in policy actions based upon the method of selection of Senators, nor has he explained how this small increase in democracy outweigh every other bad thing the populists did. Pro says that populists would've supported term limits. Fine, even if we grant this he doesn't explain why this is good. Term limits are a huge debate by themselves. There is just a lack of positive tangible results coming off of Pro's case.", "qid": 24, "docid": "28ebab7a-2019-04-18T17:01:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6952893733978271}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: It seems then that we are in agreement about the untenability of altering the tax code without addressing the tax loopholes. My point is that when it comes time to actually fix a rate, we will be only grasping in the dark so long as those loopholes are closed. We are also in agreement about the amorality, or moral neutrality of corporations. As you mentioned, the main costs of a corporation are wages, supplies, or means of production however broadly construed, and taxes. Lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes will actually result in an effective tax raise for many corporations. So why would they return their operations to the U.S. if the reform measures you are seeking only address taxation? My point about the welfare measures the corporation receives on behalf of the taxpayer, e.g. in the form of slave wages, indicates that lowering the tax rate alone is not sufficient. It is here instructive to take a brief glance at the historical development of the corporation. (Hegel discusses it in an interesting way in The Philosophy of Right, but that is maybe too far afield.) It is a historical fiction to think that corporations emerged in a free market and then only later came under the burden of government regulation and taxation. From the inception, the interests of the corporation were facilitated by government policies. There are countless examples of this, but the most pronounced is perhaps the railroad barons at the end of the nineteenth century. So it is too simple a dichotomy to present the government on one side and the corporation on the other. This is why, for instance, Roosevelt warned against the military-industrial complex, and it is still vividly relevant today in the Middle East. In light of this, your alleged benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate can be seen as wishful thinking of fallacious supply-side economic theory. Yes, a lower tax rate might raise wages, might boost incentive, attract foreign investment, eradicate poverty, end war, save the polar ice caps from melting, help us colonize the moon, make us beautiful, rid us of all evil, and so forth. I'm not trying to be sarcastic--it's just that these are the perennial and familiar promises of the proponents of free-market economy that have not materialized, even as the system has increasingly favored corporations since the sixties. The most clear indication that a lowered tax rate is not advisable or desirable is that the rate has in fact incrementally lowered for over the period of the past forty years. Wages have stagnated, while CEO pay has skyrocketed, completely independent of CEO performance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... There is a lot of mystical beliefs about the invisible hands that will guide wealth into the nation and keep business in the U.S. but there are no reasonable historical tendencies to justify this thinking. There are two principal reasons for this: 1. The intimate interactions of corporate interests and governmental policy have created a situation of pronounced inequality, and have effectively redistributed wealth to the top one percent. 2. The corporation, by its very nature, tends toward either implosion or monopoly. The public was compelled to intrude upon the free activity of the corporation because that activity threatened its collective good. I appreciate your Libertarian views--even though I usually find myself in general disagreement, the Libertarian wing of the Republic party is, in my modest estimation, the only one that is self-consistent and philosophically and economically astute. But let me for a moment broaden the perspective. I don't judge negatively people who desire profits, and I agree with your implication that to associate the desire for profits with greed is not all that useful. But not all values are moral values. We can still admit that the corporation is essentially amoral and still talk about its ethos, its system of values. I mentioned above that one of these is the fundamental translation of various kinds of activity into exchange value. In the same sense, not all work is labor. The corporate system reinterprets growth, time, work, nature, and even political engagement financially. Corporate taxation is the imperfect result of this necessary translation. I only have about ten minutes left, so let me just give one easy example of what I mean here. A mining corporation--e.g. the Pebble Mine Company up in Alaska--goes into a place, digs the minerals out of the earth, then moves on when those resources have been exhausted. From the corporations point of view, the land is nothing more than the ultimate dollar amounts that will be made on the market. But land is something different than that--it gets left behind, and has been altered irrevocably. The toxic tailings ponds that every mine leaves behind last forever. (Cf. the spill in Durango right now.) No matter if the tax rate were twice what it is, there is no way to recover that land. The same goes with fracking--the toxins that are pumped into the ground will last millennia. So it is not as simple as just saying that corporations benefit from infrastructure and public safety--it is that they translate the world, both the human world of activity, work, time, and the natural world as monetary values. Taxation is therefore the only way for the corporation to legitimately participate in the system. It might seem as though I'm changing my fundamental objection--but these latest remarks are bound up with what I've been saying from the start. Either way, I'm learning a lot from this discussion and look forward to your response.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6942856311798096}, {"content": "Title: flat tax Content: I agree with a flat tax. You show me why not and show another type o tax that you would think works better. It would substantially increase the take-home pay for American workers from not only the lowering of the income tax brackets but the elimination of both the business side and employee side of payroll taxes. U.S. federal tax rates go as high as 35% in 2011, and additional surtaxes are scheduled to hit when Obamacare kicks in. On top of that, employers and employees both pay 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% per employee. All these taxes would be replaced with the 9% individual rate. So if your taxable income is $50,000 and your average tax rate is 40% counting payroll taxes, under Cain's plan, instead of $20,000 in taxes, you would only have to pay $4,500, for an extra $15,500 in take home pay! Regardless of your income level, those people that pay income tax will receive a cut. Corporations and businesses would have a massive inflow of investment cash, leading to business expansion and new hiring. Since capital gains and dividends are no longer taxed, banks and investors who have kept trillions of dollars on the side would be pouring money into capital investment. Businesses that have been limited in growth due to lack of funds would then be able to start expanding, hiring workers as part of the process. All that new hiring would have a chain reaction, as previously unemployed Americans spend their paychecks, providing a jolt to the demand side of the economy. People who criticize the flat tax plan and emphasize its riskiness ignore the vast number of problems & riskiness of our current job-killing, de-motivating, freedom-sapping tax system. http://www.hermancain.com... http://www.forbes.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6936295032501221}, {"content": "Title: Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0% Content: Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.", "qid": 24, "docid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6929377317428589}, {"content": "Title: Tax cuts for everyone Content: Laffer curve1. Your arguments center on the framework of the laffer curve where by a hypothetical economy would receive diminishing returns after a certain margin of taxation. (just rephrasing your argument) 1.10 Diminishing returns1.11 the idea that the curve slopes downwards is because there are no incentives for entrepreneurs to work at 100% tax rate. However, there is research that shows it is possible (Malcomson, J, 1986). In brief, it depends on technology and the elasticity of labor supply in which they share a negative relationship.1.20 Government spending1.21 What we see as taxes by the government are mostly pure transfers. Taxes by the government are usually spent on building infrastructures, which also improve the condition of businesses. With a reduction in taxes, the onus is thus placed on the businesses to come up with such infrastructure themselves.1.30 Market failure1.31 This leads to my next point. In the situation of having free-riders, it is possible for the market not to produce the goods needed as aspiring entertainers could benefit without contributing for said infrastructures.1.32 in the event of negative externality, it may be possible for the government to spend more to internalize these effects. For instance, pollution being an externality would become more than expected and government need to spend money cleaning up the environment which may be greater than the increase in tax. 1.40 Saving1.41 In most economy, saving plays a huge role in the multiplier effect. In countries where saving is a great deal, consumer spending would hardly seem to increase as the money would be hoarded by them. in contrast, if saving isn't a huge percentage , reduction in taxes would plays a more prominent role. Optimum point2. In your argument, you state that the highest income earners need taxes to reduce by 2% and the next income bracket by 3%. However, there isn't any economic backing to these clams.2.10 Proving too much2.11 By saying that reducing taxes increases spending, you are going in to the fallacy of \"proving too much\". This is so as by throwing back your argument to itself, one could keep reducing taxes ad infinitum until the government hasn't any percentage to tax from thus voiding the original premise.2.20 Optimum point 2.21 from wolfram|alpha, we could see a decrease in tax around 2003 led to decrease in state revenue even at prevailing mean value of 15-12%.2.22 In addition, statistical tax rate differ across countries and while some countries might have low tax, high tax revenue, it does not apply universally. ReferencesMalcomson, J (1986). \"Some analytics of the laffer curve\". Journal of Public Economics 29 (3): 263. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(86)90029-0", "qid": 24, "docid": "3350cfd3-2019-04-18T18:26:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6928544044494629}, {"content": "Title: Expiring Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 Content: Over-taxing wealthy impairs trickle-down effect and job-creation", "qid": 24, "docid": "63cad73d-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6922017335891724}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the top 1% Wealthiest Americans ought to be raised. Content: I based this on three empirical observations:1. ) Higher tax rates reduce economic growth.2. ) More progressive tax rates reduce economic growth.3. ) Rich individuals have unusually large behavioral responses to changes in tax rates. I provided empirical evidence for all of these claims in the last round. My opponent makes the mistake of looking at each of these three points individually and arguing that, on their own, they do not make a very strong case against raising taxes on the top 1%. The mistake here is looking at each of these points in isolation. My opponent is correct that the fact that higher tax rates reduce economic growth, by itself, does not wage a strong case against taxing the rich at high rates. However, once you combine this with the fact that more progressive tax rates also reduce economic growth and that rich individuals have large behavioral responses a case for not raising taxes on the rich begins to emerge. The mechanism through which higher and more progressive tax rates harm growth is of central importance. It is supply side effects of taxation that harm growth. This means that behavioral responses to high tax rates are responsible for reduced economic growth. Behavioral responses to high tax rates, as I argued in the first round, explain most of the difference in hours worked between the USA and Europe [1]. This is important because rich people have unusually large behavioral responses to changes in tax rates. I provided evidence for this in the first round as well by showing that the ETI (elasticity of taxable income with regards to taxes) is unusually high for rich people [2]. This means that when taxes go up, taxable income of rich people goes down. There are a number of reasons for this. Greater tax avoidance is one. When tax rates are higher, investing in tax lawyers and moving income to avoid taxes makes more sense because tax avoidance brings greater rewards. Another mechanism is hours worked. In particular, tax rates affect decisions on such things such as whether or not a family will have a second earner, since this second earner's entire income will be taxed at the top marginal rate. The 1986 tax reform act significantly reduced marginal tax rates for wealthy families. This led to an increased incentive for married women to enter the workforce. Indeed, Nada Eissa of Berkeley looked at this very question by exploring the impact of the 1986 tax reform act on the labor force participation of rich, married women. She found [3]:\"I find evidence that the labor supply of high-income, married women increased quite substantially after the Tax Reform Act of 1986. .. The observed responses imply an hours worked elasticity with respect to the after-tax wage that is somewhat high, in the range of 0.6 to 0.8. \" In other words, lower marginal tax rates for the rich led to significantly higher labor force participation for rich, married women. The question then, of course, becomes why we should care. After all, my opponent argues, does it really matter if rich people avoid more taxes or work less? Actually, yes. It matters for a couple reasons. First, the supposed benefit of higher tax rates on the rich is more revenue for the federal government. If the rich avoid taxes more and have less taxable income in response to higher taxes, this benefit is reduced as revenues will go up by substantially less than expected. This means that the benefit of taxing the rich is much smaller when taking this into account. This also matters because the investment decisions of the rich affect the entire economy. If rich people choose to invest more in tax lawyers in response to higher tax rates, that means less investment in more productive ventures. That means less new capital for entrepreneurial ventures. Resources will go towards innefficient uses such as tax avoidance. Another point I made was the negative effect of high, progressive tax rates on entrepreneurship. My opponent responded with a number of dissapointingly weak objections. First, he has a problem with the evidence I provided that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth because it is written by a college student. This is an ad hominem attack by my opponent, but, for the sake of argument, I will provide further evidence by professional economists of the negative impact of progressive taxes. Fabio Padovana and Emma Galli looked at a large panel of countries over a 30 year period and found [4]:\"We find that marginal effective tax rates and tax progressivity have a negative influence on economic growth. This negative correlation turns out to be robust after controlling for state and policy variables. \" My opponent also has a problem with my claim that entrepreneurship is important for economic growth. His objection is that my source for this is \"an abstract\". Indeed, I did link to a study that documented the importance of entrepreneurship on growth, which includes an abstract. I am not sure I understand this objection. If my opponent doubts the importance of entrepreneurship for economic growth, I would direct him to Dr. Ercan Ekmekcioglu [5]:\"Entrepreneurship leads to introduction of new goods withnew quality and value. Their innovativeness introduces new ways of production and new markets thathave not been exploited. It is through entrepreneurship that new source of supply are discovered andcreation of new business organisations that directly affect the economy. Creation of new businessopportunities through entrepreneurship, productivity and innovation leads to economic growth. This therefore means that when there is more entrepreneurship in an economy more growth is expected. \"I have actually never had anyone object to the idea that entrepreneurship is good for growth. Yet, my opponent calls this a \"wild idea\". I look forward to hearing more about why my opponent believes that entrepreneurship being good for growth is a \"wild idea\". I then used a hypothetical example to show how high, progressive tax rates on the rich would reduce entrepreneurial activity. My opponent entirely missed the point of this hypothetical example. His counterargument, quite amazingly, is that $200,000 isn't the top 1%. It seems that the fact that this was simply a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the effects of taxation totally went by my opponent. I picked $200,000 as an arbitrary number just for the sake of argument. You can replace \"$200,000\" with \"$700,000\" in my hypothetical example and the same economic logic and incentives still exist. For those who are interested, I also cited a study documenting the negative effect of tax progressivity on entrepreneurship in the first round [6]. My opponent also makes the all too common argument that high taxes in some wealthy European countries is proof that high tax rates don't hurt growth. This could not be further from the truth. I do not deny for a second that countries like Germany or Sweden have high standards of living. However, this argument is specifically about economic growth. In terms of per capita GDP, the USA comes out well ahead of the countries mentioned by my opponent. The USA, according to the IMF, has a per capita GDP of about $51,704 [7]. By comparison, Sweden has a per capita GDP of $40,304 and Germany of $38,666 [7]. I will note, however, that Norway does have a higher per capita GDP than the USA. This is, however, almost certainly due to high per capita oil production, because Norway is quite rich in oil. Indeed, Norway is fifth in the world in terms of per capita oil production [8]. As I noted earlier in the debate, there is also evidence that high tax rates explain the relatively low hours worked in some European countries [1]. Current Level of Taxes on the \"1%\"I will agree with my opponent that whether or not one thinks the rich are paying \"too much\" or \"too little\" in taxes is largely a question of individual vales. I even acknowledged this in my original argument. My goal here was simply to show that most rich people pay tax rates of around 40%, which I think most people would find excessive. But, this is certainly a value question. MoralityMy opponent pulls a favorite tactic of advocates of higher taxes here. First, he \"explains\" the need for roads, police, and other public services and then argues that this somehow strengthens the case for higher taxes. This would be okay if he was arguing against someone who opposed all taxes. He is not. Instead, I am merely arguing that taxes are not too low. I think that a 40% tax rate should be more than sufficient to pay for all of the aforementioned services. If it is not, the problem would be public sector efficiency instead of low taxes. My opponent needs to realize that he is arguing for higher taxes relative to the current tax code not taxes in general. If he wants to argue that higher taxes on the rich are necessary to pay for basic services, he is free to make that argument. This argument is not, however, whether or not we should have taxes. It is whether or not the rich should pay more. Those are two very different arguments. ConclusionI thank my opponent for an excellent debate thus far. Sources1. ) . http://www.economics21.org...2.) . http://www.economics21.org...3.) . http://policydialogue.org...4.) . http://www.sciencedirect.com...5.) . http://www.academia.edu...6.) . http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu...7.) . http://www.imf.org...?8.) . http://www.nationmaster.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "6a58de71-2019-04-18T16:29:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6914680004119873}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: So, the economy is still in bad shape. By that, I mean that there is still less buying and selling because corporations have to pay so much to stay in business. After sales, consumption, income, property, and corporate taxes businesses would barely have enough for salary or profit (if any). The result would be a decrease in spending which can be a precursor for recession. The recession is based on the health of the economy by how much people buy or sell, and the law of demand states that even the slightest price increase can lead to significant results. Another result would be high unemployment, because different companies have to pay their workers on top of these taxes which they sometimes find hard to do. Some people might think that the people already working there would just be paid more, well it depends. Most trustworthy and intelligent managers would hire more labor instead of investing more in what they already have. Given these facts, I think that taxes should be lowered overall for businesses so that they can hire more labor, get more resources, and supply better qualities of the product. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://taxfoundation.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6897843480110168}, {"content": "Title: Higher taxes discourage hard work. Content: \"America\u2019s producers can compete successfully in the international arena \u2013 as long as they have a level playing field. Today\u2019s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.\"", "qid": 24, "docid": "70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00119-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6877011656761169}, {"content": "Title: High Tax Rates Hurt the Economy Content: I argue that high tax rates do hurt the economy. I will employ both theoretical and empirical support for this assertion. Why High Taxes Hurt The Economy? Higher tax rates hurt the economy because they discourage productive behavior. If labor taxes were to be higher, then labor would be less desirable relative to leisure. This is because the higher taxes on labor would reduce the reward for labor. This would reduce the incentive for people to choose work over leisure. The same is true of capital taxation. If the government were to tax capital higher, the potential reward for successful investment would be reduced. This would then reduce the level of investment. Reduced investment leads to less capital reinvestment, less new jobs, less new equipment, and lower productivity. These higher tax rates would also reduce the potential reward from entrepuenership. This would mean that higher taxes would lead to less new businesses and less entrepeunerial ventures in the economy. Furthermore, taxes also deeply distort economic behavior. When tax rates are higher, the value of tax deductions are much higher. When the tax rate is 80%, there is more reason to try to avoid taxes through deductions than at a tax rate of 40%. This leads to many misused economic resources. Right now, our tax code has a full deduction for employer provided Health Plans. Due to this, 59% of Americans are on Employer Provided Health Plans. This has led to extreme distortions in our Health Care System, as it kept patients from buying individualized Health Care Plans. High tax rates also encourage tax dodging. Billions of dollars go to tax lawyers to help people avoid taxes. These are wasted resources that could go to more productive uses. If tax rates were lower, there would be less incentive to use resources to avoid taxes, meaning that more resources would go towards more productive ventures. Finally, high tax rates in one country, particularly high progressive tax rates, typically lead to a many companies and high skill workers emigrating to lower tax countries. This leads to job loss in high tax countries (as some corporations move to lower tax countries, brining jobs with them) and productivity loss, as some of the most productive and innovative members emigrate to lower tax countries. Empirical Evidence on High Tax Rates and Economic GrowthEmpirical Evidence generally supports the notion that higher tax rates reduce labor supply, and, therefore, economic output. Nobel Prize Winning Economist Edward Prescott looked at the difference in labor supply between the G-7 Countries and found that different tax rates are responsible for almost allof the difference in labor supply between countries: \"Americans now work 50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians. ' This was not the case in the early 1970s, when the Western Europeans worked more than Americans. This article examines the role of taxes in accounting for the differences in labor supply across time and across countries; in particular, the effective marginal tax rate on labor income. The population of countries considered is the G-7 countries, which are major advanced industrial countries. The surprising finding is that this marginal tax rate accounts for the predominance of differences at points in time and the large change in relative labor supply over time. \" These results go a long way in showing that high tax rates do, in fact, reduce labor supply over time. Another common result in empirical studies is that the Corporate Tax is particularly harmful to growth. This is a common result found in numerous studies from the OECD, World Bank, Joint Comittee on Taxation, Oxford, and a number of reputable independant economists. These studies typically find that high corporate tax rates reduce investment and entrepeunership. On top of this, high corporate taxes typically send corporations to lower tax nations. High tax rates also tend to correlated with lower growth rates. One empirical study on this was published in the Cato Journal, which, after controlling for numerous factors, found that high marginal tax rates have significant negative impact on growth in US states: \"This article explores the impact of tax policy on economic growth in the states within the framework of an endogenous growth model. Regression analysis is used to estimate the impact of taxes on economic growth in the states from 1964 to 2004. The analysis reveals a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on economic growth. The analysis underscores the importance of controlling for regressivity, convergence, and regional influences in isolating the effect of taxes on economic growth in the states. \"This study is not an exception to the rule. There are numerous studies finding that taxes have a negative impact on economic growth (look at links to see numerous other studies). Conclusion Based on both these theoretical and empirical facts, I conclude that taxes have strong negative effect on the economy. Sources. http://en.wikipedia.org...(for Prescott study on Taxation and Labor Supply) . http://www.minneapolisfed.org... (for CATO study on Income Taxes and Growth) . http://www.cato.org...(for numerous other studies that show high taxes hurting growth) . http://pirate.shu.edu...", "qid": 24, "docid": "f536e531-2019-04-18T18:43:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6874558925628662}, {"content": "Title: Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy Content: With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country. As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1] I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "a1064dfa-2019-04-18T15:49:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6874058246612549}, {"content": "Title: corparate companies not paying tax Content: I know that the corporates are making a lot of money. But, they are also the job makers. Without them people will be unemployed. Therefore, corporates are already doing a favor to the society, and therefore they do not need to give more to the society by paying taxes.", "qid": 24, "docid": "8e1cbc04-2019-04-18T17:28:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6863802671432495}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased Content: Burden of proof is indeed shared. Higher tax rates on the wealthy will reduce economic growth. The literature on taxing the rich and economic growth is quite weak. There are studies purporting to look at this question, but they are often little more than looking at a historical correlation between tax rates and growth, which is simply not a very sound research method as it ignores other factors that have larger impacts on growth among other reasons. First, we have evidence that higher tax rates in general have a negative impact on growth. An overview of this literature is available the sources. The Tax Foundation chronicles these sources [1]. We also have evidence that higher tax rates are responsible for the relative decline in hours worked in Europe relative to the USA, which has contributed to Europe being less productive [2]. Second, we have the evidence that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth. An example of some of this evidence is in the sources [3]. Finally, we have the evidence on how the behavior of rich people changes when taxes are changed. The evidence suggests that the behavioral responses are significant [4]. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that higher tax rates reduce economic growth in general, more progressive tax rates reduce economic growth, and rich individuals have quite large behavioral responses to changes in taxation. This is important as the main channels through which high tax rates harm economic growth are on the supply side rather than the demand side. Entrepreneurship is one of the central drivers of economic growth [5]. After all, entrepreneurs are necessary to continually innovate in a constantly changing economy. Unfortunately, highly progressive taxation decreases entrepreneurship. This is simple to imagine if one looks at two men who both have a job that pays $200,000 and a potentially good idea. Both men pay 20% tax rates on their $200,000 income and, if they are to pursue their idea, they would be forced to give up their job. The difference is that one man lives in a country with a flat tax regime of 20%. The other man lives in a supposedly \"fairer\" society where the first $200,000 are taxed at 20% but every dollar after that is taxed at a punitive 80%. This would dramatically lower the chances that this man would become an entrepreneur. This is a rather extreme example, but the logic applies to any progressive tax regime to varying degrees. Not surprisingly, there is strong evidence that progressive taxation has a negative effect on entrepreneurship [6]. High tax rates discourage productive behavior such as investing, working, and taking risks and encourages unproductive behavior such as tax avoidance. The evidence provided in the sources suggests that this effect is quite powerful and makes a meaningful difference in the economy. It's also important to note that wealthy individuals are more able to change the composition of their income so they can more easily avoid taxes, which is why they have such high elasticities of taxable income [4]. There is a widespread belief that taxes on the richest 1% are low. This is simply not the case. It seems that this perception is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. There is no doubt that some rich people pay low tax rates, but, as a whole, the richest 1% pay quite high taxes. The CBO estimates that, in 2013, the top 1% paid an average federal tax rate of 33.6%, compared to 18.1% average for all quintiles [7]. This does not include state and local taxes which, according to reasonable estimates, add another 6% or so to the average tax bill of the top 1% [8]. In total, this suggests a tax rate of around 40% on average, with some higher and some lower. I find it very hard to argue that one's \"fair share\" is more than 40%. Admittedly, this is a bit subjective because everyone has a different belief system about what is fair, but I think the fact that wealthy individuals already pay almost 35% of their income to the federal government and 40% to all governments would come off to most reasonable people as, if anything, too high, especially when realizes that the wealthy are already paying a higher tax rate than other classes. The practical problems with raising taxes on the rich have already been discussed, at length here. I also believe there is a moral element to this debate. Do we really want to live in a society where nearly half (or over half) of somebody's income is confiscated by the government? I certainly don't. America was founded as a free nation, with free enterprise at its core. One of the key tenets of free enterprise is that the government sets no limit on wealth. It is understood that taxes are necessary to pay for basic services and such, but I think it is hard to say that people paying 40% of their income in taxes are not paying their \"fair share\". No, raising taxes on the wealthy, at this point, would bring us to a place with tax rates that are better described as \"confiscatory\" than \"fair\". Confiscatory tax rates on any class or group is totally contrary to the moral core of the USA. Raising taxes further on the wealthy would be a moral and practical mistake. 1. http://taxfoundation.org... 2. http://www.economics21.org... 3. http://business.pages.tcnj.edu... 4. http://www.economics21.org... 5. http://www.nber.org... 6. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu... 7. http://www.cbo.gov... 8. http://www.itep.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "ffb8146b-2019-04-18T16:31:52Z-00007-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6862390041351318}, {"content": "Title: Tax Rates Content: Higher tax rates on the wealthy will reduce economic growth. The literature on taxing the rich and economic growth is quite weak. There are studies purporting to look at this question, but they are often little more than looking at a historical correlation between tax rates and growth, which is simply not a very sound research method as it ignores other factors that have larger impacts on growth among other reasons. First, we have evidence that higher tax rates in general have a negative impact on growth. An overview of this literature is available the sources. The Tax Foundation chronicles these sources [1]. We also have evidence that higher tax rates are responsible for the relative decline in hours worked in Europe relative to the USA, which has contributed to Europe being less productive [2]. Second, we have the evidence that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth. An example of some of this evidence is in the sources [3]. Finally, we have the evidence on how the behavior of rich people changes when taxes are changed. The evidence suggests that the behavioral responses are significant [4]. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that higher tax rates reduce economic growth in general, more progressive tax rates reduce economic growth, and rich individuals have quite large behavioral responses to changes in taxation. This is important as the main channels through which high tax rates harm economic growth are on the supply side rather than the demand side. Entrepreneurship is one of the central drivers of economic growth [5]. After all, entrepreneurs are necessary to continually innovate in a constantly changing economy. Unfortunately, highly progressive taxation decreases entrepreneurship. This is simple to imagine if one looks at two men who both have a job that pays $200,000 and a potentially good idea. Both men pay 20% tax rates on their $200,000 income and, if they are to pursue their idea, they would be forced to give up their job. The difference is that one man lives in a country with a flat tax regime of 20%. The other man lives in a supposedly \"fairer\" society where the first $200,000 are taxed at 20% but every dollar after that is taxed at a punitive 80%. This would dramatically lower the chances that this man would become an entrepreneur. This is a rather extreme example, but the logic applies to any progressive tax regime to varying degrees. Not surprisingly, there is strong evidence that progressive taxation has a negative effect on entrepreneurship [6]. High tax rates discourage productive behavior such as investing, working, and taking risks and encourages unproductive behavior such as tax avoidance. The evidence provided in the sources suggests that this effect is quite powerful and makes a meaningful difference in the economy. It's also important to note that wealthy individuals are more able to change the composition of their income so they can more easily avoid taxes, which is why they have such high elasticities of taxable income [4]. There is a widespread belief that taxes on the richest 1% are low. This is simply not the case. It seems that this perception is based entirely on anecdotal evidence. There is no doubt that some rich people pay low tax rates, but, as a whole, the richest 1% pay quite high taxes. The CBO estimates that, in 2013, the top 1% paid an average federal tax rate of 33.6%, compared to 18.1% average for all quintiles [7]. This does not include state and local taxes which, according to reasonable estimates, add another 6% or so to the average tax bill of the top 1% [8]. In total, this suggests a tax rate of around 40% on average, with some higher and some lower. I find it very hard to argue that one's \"fair share\" is more than 40%. Admittedly, this is a bit subjective because everyone has a different belief system about what is fair, but I think the fact that wealthy individuals already pay almost 35% of their income to the federal government and 40% to all governments would come off to most reasonable people as, if anything, too high, especially when realizes that the wealthy are already paying a higher tax rate than other classes. The practical problems with raising taxes on the rich have already been discussed, at length here. I also believe there is a moral element to this debate. Do we really want to live in a society where nearly half (or over half) of somebody's income is confiscated by the government? I certainly don't. America was founded as a free nation, with free enterprise at its core. One of the key tenets of free enterprise is that the government sets no limit on wealth. It is understood that taxes are necessary to pay for basic services and such, but I think it is hard to say that people paying 40% of their income in taxes are not paying their \"fair share\". No, raising taxes on the wealthy, at this point, would bring us to a place with tax rates that are better described as \"confiscatory\" than \"fair\". Confiscatory tax rates on any class or group is totally contrary to the moral core of the USA. Raising taxes further on the wealthy would be a moral and practical mistake. 1. http://taxfoundation.org... 2. http://www.economics21.org... 3. http://business.pages.tcnj.edu... 4. http://www.economics21.org... 5. http://www.nber.org... 6. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu... 7. http://www.cbo.gov... 8. http://www.itep.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "7a4698ab-2019-04-18T16:31:39Z-00007-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6861882209777832}, {"content": "Title: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy Content: I argue that my opponent's argument would make sense if we weren't over 16 trillion dollars in dept. [1] The first priority should be reducing that debt through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. While my opponent argues that raising the tax rates further would decrease productivity, the lowest revenue-maximizing rate estimate is between 32.67% and 35.21%. [2] Current total effective tax rates lie at around 23.9%, so there is still plenty of room for an increase. [3] Considering that the interest on the federal debt is now the fifth largest budget expidenture, coming in at about $265 billion [1], and that it is expected to rise to almost $1 trillion by 2022 [4], it seems prudent to minimize it as quickly as possible.1. http://www.usdebtclock.org... 2. http://www.sciencedirect.com...3. http://www.cbo.gov...4. http://money.cnn.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "137919fb-2019-04-18T17:51:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6857087016105652}, {"content": "Title: Flat Tax Content: \u201cThe increase in the poor's demand for money would lead many people away from low paying jobs, ensuring that companies compete more for their employees, raising their wages and benefits.\u201d First off, my opponent conceded that implementing a flat tax would be completely unfair. My opponent claims that a flat tax would benefit countries. But, flat tax can shut down companies, more so than having a positive effect. [1] Not only would a flat tax widen wealth inequality in the country, opponents say it might allow the rich to duck paying taxes on a large portion of their income. Many proposals exempt investment income, which can be a major source of money for some affluent households. Small businesses may also suffer under a flat tax if they are unable to deduct expenses that cut into profits. In 2011, we had already tried out a flat tax, which failed, miserably. [1] 2011. Several Republican presidential candidates embraced the flat tax that year. Herman Cain recommended it be set at 9 percent while Rick Perry proposed an optional 20 percent tax. However, these proposals and others like them have failed to gain traction. It\u2019s not necessarily because people love the current tax system. Even those who oppose the flat tax say our current tax code is broken. This is why we have \u201cHistory\u201d in schools, to learn from past mistakes, and to not repeat them. \u201cThis leads into the argument against your claim that the taxes would benefit the rich. The vast majority of the rich are owners of large companies, with a large number of employees.\u201d My opponent is making the assumption that all wealthy people are business owners, which isn\u2019t true. As I have stated previously, regardless how you get your money, and if you\u2019re rich, a flat tax is completely unfair. [2] It gets worse. Flat tax proposals would exempt investment income, which largely goes to the rich. Our personal income tax already taxes capital gains and stock dividends at lower rates than wages, which mostly benefits the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. Rather than eliminating these and other special breaks, the flat tax proposals would expand them into one big exemption for investment income. As we can see, not only is a flat tax, completely unfair, but it is also bad for businesses which refutes my opponents arguments. Sources: [1] http://finance.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.usnews.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "72004c60-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6853593587875366}, {"content": "Title: Corporate taxes should be lowered Content: \"This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does.\"Lowering taxation period leads to higher GDP ceteris paribus\"Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits.\"You are ignoring the law of comparative advantage. Your statement is blatantly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org...\"Corporations do this (ship jobs overseas) to avoid corporate taxes\"This is incorrect. Corporations shift profits overseas to avoid taxes. They shift manufacturing jobs overseas because the lower cost of living allows the goods to be manufactured at cheaper wages than by unionized wages. \"if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit\"No. We are not that high on the Laffer Curve as evidenced by the historic corporate tax lows.http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6850529909133911}, {"content": "Title: voting for trump is irresponsible Content: First of all I never said that lowering taxes increases revenues, though in the long term this is true- for example, if you taxes people 100% there wouldn't be ay moremoney in circulation anymore, so then ta revenues would be 0 from then on. Besides, just because Uncle Sam gets more money does NOT mean that overal revenues have increased. Taxes just get rid of work incentives, why would I go out and earn more money if I end up with less money after taxes? If you could earn 10,000$ but pay 20% taxes, you would have no reason to earn 12,000$ and pay 40% taxes, because, even though you earned 2,000$ more, you end up with 2,800$ less than last month after taxes. Getting rid of work incentives WILL reduce revenue since people earn less money. Second of all, getting rid of Obamacare will NOT leave people without healthcare. Everyone wo uses Obamacare really wants to get off of it, all it does is relace your current healthcare plan with the sh*ttiest one imaginable, then charge you money for it, on top of taxing you to subsidize it, and it inflates the healthare cost. So let's imagie a hypothetical scenario; tons of people are working with obamacare, then obamacare is repealed, they will most likely go get their previous healthcare plans that they had before obamacare, which will create competition amongst insurance companies. Even if you cannot afford another plan, it wouldn't matter; you would be better off paying out of pocket that with obamacare. Third of all, healthcare isn't that compecated, the industry behaves like any other industry, so Trumps plan doesn't really have to do much. Also I have now read his plan and its pretty basic, https://www.donaldjtrump.com...This will work, you don't have to be an expert to tell that since this is a really basic system. Clinton Conspiracies:These aren't conspiracy theories, we all know this:1. Hillary Clinton sold US military secrets to China:http://www.nytimes.com...2. Hillary Clinton let 500,000 Iraqi children starve to death (this is an exerpt from a news story)3. Hillary Clinton laughed about Kidaffi getting tortured to death:4. Hillary Clinton wants to instigate war with Russia:http://www.washingtontimes.com...5. Hillary Clinton isn't even the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party:That was Bernie, he won the primaries they just committed election fraud and gave it to Hilary Clinton. 6. Hillary Clinton killed JFK Jr:http://www.morningnewsusa.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "434a7215-2019-04-18T12:52:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6848927736282349}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished in the United States Content: My opponent did not as I asked prove the amount of inflation that would be reduced if the jobs where done in america. All he said was he vowed for 40% not 50%. W/e, still you gotta show me something to go off of. My opponent reverse income taxes idea is still flawed because it would take a huge large scale over hall of the American bussiness system that would not only be costly but almost impossible to fund or implement. Furthermore, his reverse model makes noone under that 40,000 dollar mark paying taxes, meaning that the most succesful and wealthy individuals in America would be responisble to support 45% of America. Also, people who did work (example with .40 a year; I can find that the street) would be getting welfare (basically same thing) for not work and since everyone would get it regardless then noone would have any insentive to work 'cause they can get free money. My insourcing argument has yet to be succesfully awnsered. My opponent brings up the logic mexican illegal immigrants can't work in America. Yes obviously, however my opponent fails to relize that any company can bring over anybody they want to work on work visa's. Without a minimum wage, these companies would look for the cheapest labor. If they couldn't find it in the US, then they would look else where and bring it here to eliminate or severally reduce shipping cost my opponent himself claimed where so high. My opponent states that insourcing would 'remain about the same regardless'. However, his logic is flawed. Yes, as he said 'more immigrants are attracted into the country due to the increased wage' however their is a snag: NO company is going to bring workers from other countries to work here for minimum wage if people here are willing to work for the wage. Thus, since Americans are willing to work for the set minimum wage, companies will use them and not foreigners. And when they can use foreigners for jobs they outsource them to countries that are cheaper. Thus, with a minimum wage insourcing does not take place for low skilled jobs. Without one, companies can bring in people to work for lower wages. Analogy: It would just be like the old coal mine days, a bunch of people are get paid current minimum wage, then suddenly its gone. Employers cut pay by 80%. Everyone goes on strike. Company brings in workers from other countries to do the work at the desired wage which is higher then what they are getting paid now. Boom, suddenly American mimimum wage jobs are being done at fraction of the cost and low skilled americans are screwed. In China, people work in the factors for .40 cents a day because it is better then the alternative: Starving to death trying to farm a 1/2 acre plot of land that needs to feed 20 people for a year. Those people would be happy to come to America and work for .40 or even .50 cents a day. We can keep building factories their because they're are so many of them we've yet to max out the number of jobs they need. Furthermore, Chinese, Mexicans, and Indians all want to come to America anyway for a 'better life' (Even though it will be worse if we abolished the minimum wage.) So the insentive to some here would be there for any of them. Without the abiality to effectly reduce the insourcing or the mass exstortion of employees for insanly low wages there is no reason the minimum wage should be abolished.", "qid": 24, "docid": "32155510-2019-04-18T19:21:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6846849918365479}, {"content": "Title: On the following proposed \"economic stimulus\" plan Content: My opponent has dropped his tax argument entirely. He has also dropped his case for a minimum wage. UNIONS: My opponent drops his economic argument against the shift of power from regulatory bureaucracies to labour unions. My opponent also makes a crime argument. White collar crime has become an increasing problem in the United States, and the FBI has implemented strategies to combat it [1]. Further, since the crime my opponent refers to, the FBI has increased its ability to address white collar crime and its like [2]. Also, the DoL function that investigates labour racketeering would likely be incorporated into the FBI, where it belongs [3]. So, eliminating the DoL does not weaken law enforcement. The criminal concern is minimal, and the economic benefit is massive. CHILD LABOUR Child labour is most common in the poorest families of the poorest countries [4]. Child labour would be much less common, if not non-existent, in America, a wealthy nation. The additional income that families will have because of the other factors improving the economy that my opponent has conceded along with the additional income recieved because of the end of the income tax and the income returned due to less government spending in general make American families less likely to be in need of their children's labour. In addition, child labour is frowned upon in America. This cultural aspect would further discourage child labour. Even with the DoL, Child Labour in the United States is still a \"significant concern\" [5]. EDUCATION My opponent has presented new arguments in the later rounds; however, I will address them. The benefits of education are significant enough for people to willingly pay for it. My opponent states that parents are not compelled to enroll their children in schools; however, he does not argue why children would not enroll in schools without this mandate. My opponent has dropped his case as to the benefits of private education. Private institutions could easily buy up old public institutions (see PUBLIC LAND), so there would be an easy transition. Private education would benefit the poor [6], encourage competition [7], and focus more on skills needed in the workplace. For these reasons, private education would benefit the economy. PUBLIC LAND The summary of my opponent's argument is that most businessmen think in the short term. However, most of the things my opponent mention are potential business assets. It currently has an income of $800,000,000 annually [8] [9], and is therefore most likely to be used as an asset. That is, you can buy it now, make money off of it, and then sell it later for more than you bought it. Contrary to my opponent's (unwarranted) claim, businessment DO think in the long term and their businesses would not last long otherwise [10]. Whatever decision they decide will be in the interest of long term profit (conceded by my opponent); therefore, the economy is improved. Besides that, most of my opponent's complaints do not concern the selling of downtown government buildings that are no longer necessary. This will yield the effect I described in the first round and will not yield the consequences my opponent predicted. INDIAN RESERVATIONS Indian Reservations have sovereignty [11], so this argument is irrelevant. Indian Reservation land is not \"public\". SUMMARY With free trade, the demand for our exports increases. My opponent has conceded that this will help our economy. With no income tax or capital gains tax, individuals will be able to spend their money more voluntarily, yielding more effective allocation of capital. My opponent has conceded this point. With no corporate income tax, prices can fall even more, and American goods can be more competitive in foreign markets. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy. With no corporate income tax, the cost of living decreases. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy. With no regulatory bureaucracy, there is less capital waste. The same functions will be achieved through the invisible hand. My opponent has conceded this point. With a gold standard, our currency will have a stable market value. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy. Without the minimum wage, unemployment will decrease and the business cycle will be less severe. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy. Without subsidies and corporate welfare, market surplus will more effectively be the result of public demand, and my opponent has conceded that this is beneficial. Those reasons alone are enough to VOTE PRO. However, there are more reasons than those: -Public education waste will be eliminated -Private education will allow the workforce to more easily meet the demands of the global market -The general decrease in the size of the public sector will allow a greater size of the private secor as less market surplus is drained into bureaucracy So, on balance, my plan will improve the economy. Therefore, a PRO vote is eminent. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. [1] . http://www.fbi.gov... [2] . http://www.fbi.gov... [3] . http://www.oig.dol.gov... (The OIG investigates government fraud as well as labour racketeering). [4] . http://www.america.gov... [5] . http://pangaea.org... . http://pangaea.org... [6] James Tooley: \"Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor? Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor? \" (Summary: . http://www.eric.ed.gov...) [7] Milton Friedman: \"Capitalism and Freedom\", Chapter VI. [8] . http://www.eric.ed.gov... [9] . http://www.nau.edu... [10] . http://www.roomreview.net... (It takes a creative approach, but it is still legit) [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "d99d90b9-2019-04-18T19:20:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6842315196990967}, {"content": "Title: Should the United States Outsource jobs to other countries Content: I understand what you are saying regarding unemployment rates. However according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, unemployment is at a low of 4.7. Therefore your argument about outsourcing causing more unemployment rates is not necessarily correct. Since some corporations are outsourcing and the unemployment rate is lowering, I disagree that we are harming our economy. As I stated before, outsourcing is justified in the long term by providing more efficiency within a corporation, it also helps the consumer, and lastly the more we outsource the more other countries we also try this practice. I believe that we must look at the federal numbers to prove whether outsourcing is hurting or helping the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor, it is definitely helping. Thank you for your debate.", "qid": 24, "docid": "277a399d-2019-04-18T12:19:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.683322548866272}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: There is an important distinction to make between the tax rate for publicly traded companies and the actual percentage amount they pay. The disparity is due to tax loopholes such as off-shore banking and a host of other maneuvers performed by corporate lawyers. Even if these loopholes were closed through legislation, I disagree that the corporate tax rate should be lowered. There are two fundamental lines of reasoning behind my objection. The first is based on empirical observations, the second with philosophical issues about growth. Both of course are interrelated. Like private citizens, the private sector benefits from public goods such as public education, publicly owned and operated infastructure, general law and order maintained by police, and various federal agencies, especially in maritime contexts. The integrity and efficiency of these public goods would suffer if corporate tax rates were lowered, and this in turn would cause business costs to rise. If corporations tried to shoulder these costs themselves, for instance through privatized security, their ability to remain solvent would diminish. In general, the costs of doing business would increase, and those costs would be passed onto the consumer. Corporations also benefit from social welfare funds in ways that are not always obvious. Many retailers and restaurant corporations do not pay their workers a living wage. As a result those workers are forced to seek assistance from the government through such aid programs as food stamps. The taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the costs of maintaining a workforce for many corporations. Some of the societal benefits stand in direct conflict with the interests of the corporation. For instance, federally funded advocates of environmental defense and consumers rights must maintain freedom from the machinations of the corporation in order to do their job. The second aspect of my objection is theoretical, that is it has to do with the determinations of concepts. (I don't want to sound condescending, it's just that in mainstream discourse there is usually some confusion about the distinction between the practical and theoretical spheres.) Corporations are not free agents; that is, they cannot, by definition, self-legislate. I mean this in the descriptive, not normative, sense. The concept of a corporation demands that it profit; it must answer to shareholders, and all other considerations--whether ethical, aesthetic or even legal--are subordinate to this demand. That means that the costs of growth are always ultimately translated into dollar amounts. Likewise, the benefits of growth, strictly speaking, can only be reflected in dollar amounts. Of course, they can be translated once again into societal benefits of all sorts, but that is a matter of interpretation that lies beyond the calculus of corporations. This is partly why, for instance, from a legal point of view, a corporation's liability is limited to its investment. My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector. I only say this because it seems to me useful to also bring into question some of the grounds on which the claim is being made. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6829863786697388}, {"content": "Title: Businesses do not pay any taxes Content: Just to clarify where we are at the moment: The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes. The rest of these points have been mere tangents, as Pro's against the idea of corporate taxes. Pro's case is that, since costs are directly transferred to consumers, taxing corporations is bad. My response to that has been to show that that is not necessarily the case. It therefore fails as an argument against taxation. There is a difference between taxation at the level of \"take all their profits!!!\" and \"Make them actually pay taxes above 0%\". Pro is arguing that all taxes on corporations are bad. I believe I have demonstrated that he has failed to make that case. Pro's response was long enough that my response, if done point by point, would exceed the character allotment. I will, therefore be responding holistically. Pro ignores the fact that his arguments would apply exactly as well to people as to corporations. This is special pleading. He also seems to take exception to my points regarding the necessity of the profits that these companies have. While he is correct that, what a company makes legally is their business to spend, at the same time, it is not the responsibility of everyone else to subsidize their profligacy. If they want to continue having the same amount of profits, but cut no costs, they might have to raise their prices. But this is no different than a household wanting to keep their lifestyle even when it's no longer fiscally prudent. An individual company's profits are not the rest of society's job to maintain. And if they refuse to accept less profits, that is their decision. However, it will have no impact on the market forces which will determine whether they stay in business. The only time higher taxes REQUIRE a raise in prices is when they result in a lack of profits. This should be trivially seen as true. When they don't cut into the profits to the extent that they require a raise in prices, the raise in prices is no longer due to the taxes, but due to the business' decision to refuse to accept less. Such a scenario is less common than Pro attempts to claim, simply because as a general rule companies are already charging the most they think they can...they'd be foolish not to, since their goal is to maximize profits. Thus, raising taxes on these companies will not necessarily raise prices in all instances, and Pro's argument fails. Pro claims that his statement that all people who advocate higher taxes on corporations are necessarily advocating for higher prices is NOT a generalization, while my comment about corporate profits IS. I readily concede, in point of fact, that mine was a generalization. OF COURSE some corporations don't make profits. That should be obvious. It does nothing to my argument, considering the taxes we're talking about are proportionate to those profits. Pro tries to bring in \"Joe Sixpack\", but has failed to establish a connection of necessity between a raise in taxes and a raise in prices. The general arguments dealt with, I want to deal with some specifics. \"Why not just ask any business owner what would happen if their costs of doing business increased and they wanted to try to keep their profits and their employees salaries the same?\" This is Pro's real point, which seems to be that corporations have more of a right to profits than individuals do. He asserts this without warrant. If an outgoing cost goes up, then, to keep all the other numbers the same, income would have to increase. But why do they assert a need to keep their profits at the same level? Why does that take precedence over the individuals of the country, who are NOT allowed to keep their \"profits\"? Pro has given no answer to that. Pro asserts that the person setting prices should pay themselves whatever they want, and the rest of the citizens should subsidize that pay by allowing the company to not pay taxes. This should be absurd on its face. \"Now, if he wants to take a cut in the overall business's profits, sure he can do that but most businesses do not want to think that way.\" It's unfortunate that most businesses do not want to actually contribute to the society from which they derive their very existence. But that's not society's fault. Pro position entails advocating for no taxes whatsoever, and entails that businesses be treated better than individuals, who ARE taxed, and must take that into account when they take jobs. \"You are showing wealth envy now.\" No, and that's ad hominem. I'd ask that Pro refrain. \"Who are you to decide what anyone's pay \"should\" be?\" I demonstrated that the pay here is different than the pay elsewhere, where there is still industry. Therefore the companies in the US would not go out of business if they didn't pay their CEOs these wage packages, which is contrary to Pro's claims that every cost increase MUST result in a price increase. \"If they want to make what they were making before, they will.\" That's also not necessarily the case. They could also focus on making a fine product, and expand their customer base in order to \"make what they were making before\". But Pro has failed to give a justification for why they should be \"make what they were making before\" in the first place. \"You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?\" No. If more taxes go into the system, this means that either: I pay less taxes, or more things which taxes pay for are paid for, making things ostensibly better overall. \"When did I say any such thing?\" Company B is not paying taxes. This is good, to Pro, because it keeps Company B's prices low. However, the customers of Company A don't care what Company B charges, they don't use the product. Yet, since Company B isn't paying taxes, the taxpayers who DO pay taxes are forced to pay taxes that could otherwise be paid by Company B (or, if we accept Pro's case, their customers). Therefore, in order to keep prices low for Company B's customers, Company A's customers pay higher taxes. \"Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round.\" And also because they can. Supply and demand. \"As for their profits...\" None of this has any bearing on the resolution, nor is the number directly sourced; even Pro agrees he doesn't actually know. Pro then goes on to make some ad hominem attacks on various media outlets which have no bearing on the truth of his argument. Pro's source completely ignores that these oil companies are sometimes ones who are selling the crude oil that makes up 76 percent of the total cost. That fluctuates \"according to supply and demand\", making no note as to the cost there. It's incredibly misleading to simply ignore that. \"I guess you would like for the oil companies to apologize ...I hope you never start a business ... and have to absorb criticism for doing your job so well.\" Pro's case is that oil companies should continue to pay less taxes, despite profiting trillions of dollars. His argument for that is that they will necessarily raise prices. This has been refuted. His other is that they deserve to have all their money...an argument that he doesn't apply to the individual, in a case of obvious special pleading. Pro goes on to once again argue that a business can spend its money as it sees fit, a concept I've never taken issue with. I've merely pointed out how his necessity argument fails. He then finds fault with media outlets (in this case, my sources) despite never actually questioning the numbers or concepts I was sourcing; sourcing is not for making your arguments for you. I merely used their numbers to support my own argument. If Pro has some issue with the numbers, he should present it. Pro then complains about how the government spends money, which has no bearing on his argument.", "qid": 24, "docid": "48450ac6-2019-04-18T17:25:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.681623637676239}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. Content: Pro's entire case revolves around the premise that an increase in the minimum wage will severely hurt employers' profits, thus leading to all sorts of unpleasant consequences like businesses going bankrupt, stock values crashing, and unemployment rates rising. However, as I am going to argue, employers' profits will *not* significantly decrease -- if anything, they will *increase*. But of course, this seems absurd -- how can forcing companies to nearly double their labor costs possibly help them in any way? The answer to this lies in 3 critical mitigating factors which Pro has neglected to mention -- (1) increased consumption, (2) higher worker productivity, and (3) lower corporate tax rates.But before I get into those, let's estimate the aggregate expense to businesses from having to double their labor costs. 42% of the workforce earns below the proposed minimum wage [1], and the current size of the workforce is about 123 million people [2], so that's roughly 52 million workers who would be getting a pay raise. Forbes calculated that the average salary of a person earning $15 per hour would be $17500 [3], and based on that, we can infer that someone earning the current MW ($7.25) would have a salary of around $8750. For the sake of simplicity (and to make this an extremely generous estimate), let's assume that all 52 million benefactors are earning the current MW, so that all of them will get an annual pay raise of $8750. This adds up to a grand total cost of... $455 billion. Keep this number in mind as I delve into my case.C1) Increased ConsumptionThis is a fairly basic principle of economics -- when consumer incomes increase, aggregate demand increases as well, and the economy expands (i.e. businesses' profits grow). This is especially true because the consumers in question are poor: \"'The marginal propensity to consume is substantially larger for low-wealth than for high-wealth households.' Poor people are what economists call 'borrowing constrained.' They tend to have more needs than are being met, so when money arrives, they spend it.\" [4]. The point here is that the majority of money paid to employees is quickly funneled back into the economy through consumption of goods. According to a paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, \"an increase of $1.75 in the hourly federal minimum wage raises aggregate household spending by roughly $48 billion in the year following the minimum wage hike\" [5]. In this debate, we are discussing an increase of $7.75, so we can extrapolate that the resultant boost in overall consumption (i.e. revenues for businesses) would be more than $212 billion.C2) Higher ProductivityThat higher wages result in greater worker productivity is not only intuitive, but also a well-documented theory among economists, as demonstrated this literature review by the National Bureau of Economic Research [6]. In addition to the obvious increase in 'motivation' which comes from large pay raises, workers who have greater income security also experience less poverty-related stress, which further boosts their productivity [7]. Moreover, when they are paid more, workers are far less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to spend less on attracting new human capital, and they also receive the immense benefits of having more experienced, long-term employees [8]. In fact, one study published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that \"high-wage firms can sometimes offset more than half of their higher wage costs through improved productivity and lower hiring and turnover costs\" [9]. Apply this to the $455 billion labor cost increase -- businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues.C3) Corporate Tax Cuts73% of the United States' welfare expenditures are received by employed individuals with insufficient wages [10], and the total amount that the US spends on welfare is about $454 billion per year [11]. However, if the MW hike in question is implemented, then all employed people will be earning a \"living wage\", and will therefore no longer need assistance from welfare programs. This means that increasing the MW would reduce the amount of money the government needs by approximately $331 billion, thus freeing up space in the federal budget for a tax cut -- more specifically, a corporate tax cut. The total revenue from corporate taxes is currently $342 billion [12], so a MW hike would allow us to virtually *eliminate* the tax. The takeaway here is that businesses would be allowed to keep $331 billion more of their revenues than they otherwise would.============CONCLUSION============So according to my absurdly generous calculations, the total cost to businesses will be about $455 billion.On the other hand, it was calculated that businesses would undergo massive increases in revenue from...Increased consumption -- $212 billionHigher worker productivity -- $228 billionLower corporate tax rates -- $331 billionTOTAL -- $771 billionThus, we arrive at a quite conservative estimate of the net effect of the proposed MW hike on businesses' profits: + $316 billionThis large increase in profits has a positive impact on society at large because it enables businesses to create more jobs and pursue the production of innovative goods which improve the quality of life for everyone. With that established, let's not forget the most obvious positive impact of a MW hike -- a drastic increase in standard of living for 52 million people and their families. That is a huge benefit in and of its self; just as we take it for granted that increased unemployment is a \"bad\" thing, we should also take it for granted that increased standards of living is a \"good\" thing, and due to the sheer number of people it encompasses, it alone outweighs pretty much any impact my opponent can make.Raising the MW to $15 has nothing but positive effects. The resolution is resoundingly negated.[1] http://www.nelp.org...[2] http://www.statista.com...[3] http://www.forbes.com...[4] http://www.bloomberg.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com... (pdf file, pg. 3)[6] http://www.nber.org...[7] http://www.worldbank.org...[8] http://www.nber.org... (pg. 21)[9] http://www.jstor.org...[10] http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...[12] https://www.nationalpriorities.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "d13faac7-2019-04-18T14:24:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6815574169158936}, {"content": "Title: Jobs Act would benefit cities like NYC Content: Patrick McGeehan. \"Obama Jobs Plan Would Boost the City, Comptroller Says.\" New York Times City Room. September 9th, 2011: \"The president\u2019s jobs plan, which he announced on Thursday night, called for reducing the Social Security tax on income to 3.1 percent in 2012. The rate is currently set at 6.2 percent on the first $106,800 of an employee\u2019s pay. Because workers in New York are relatively highly paid, the effect of that cut would be greater in the city than in other parts of the country. It would save $775 for a worker earning $25,000 a year and $3,100 for one who makes $100,000. All told, the comptroller\u2019s office estimated, the gain to New Yorkers would amount to $4.8 billion, and the spending of a portion of that total would preserve or create about 25,000 jobs in the city.\" [read extended argument on article].", "qid": 24, "docid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00034-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6813098788261414}, {"content": "Title: the federal income tax should be abolished Content: My opponents argument simply doesn't make sense. He argues that income taxes discourage the earning of income. Would you really think to yourself There's no point to working because I'm only getting paid 40k annually, instead of 45k anually!No!Pro proposes a very high sales tax. This is completely asanine. For starters, the sales tax is the only form of regressive tax. Furthermore, high sales tax does discourage spending. Low spending=low GDP=shite economy. Also, taxes pay for roads and such.", "qid": 24, "docid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6807394027709961}, {"content": "Title: Presidential Debate: Walle_Ras v. Tejretics Content: Economic Policy (1) Stability > Deflation My opponent entirely drops the rebuttal which I presented showing that he was Pro-deflation while I intended to maintain stability at a 1-2% inflation rate. Thus, my opponent has *conceded* this, and their basic inflation-deflation economic policy is poor. (2) Flat Tax My opponent is for a flat income tax. Income taxes disrupt wealth production and penalize saving. [1] \u201cPerson A pays $20 of tax on his wages and consumes the remaining $80, which is 20 percent less than he consumed in the no-tax world. Person B also pays $20 of tax on her wages and lends the remaining $80 to the firm. On her $80 loan, she earns $80 of interest and is therefore repaid $160 by the firm. However, a $16 tax is imposed on the $80 of interest. Person B is left with $144, which is 28 percent less than the $200 she consumed in the no-tax world, compared to a 20 percent reduction for Person A.\u201d [1] My proposition is to shift to a Bradford X-tax, a form of the progressive consumption tax that \u201csplits consumption into two pieces, wages and business cash flow, and taxes them separately. Workers are taxed on wages at graduated rates, above an exemption amount, and businesses are taxed on cash flow at a flat rate, equal to the highest wage tax rate.\u201d [2] The X-tax is better than the \u2018fair-tax\u2019, i.e. a flat consumption tax, as a flat consumption tax is regressive, as already mentioned above. Pro drops this entire argument and still hails the flat tax. A flat income tax is poor compared to a Bradford X-tax, and most economists hail the X-tax as the best. [3] (3) Minimum Wage My opponent agrees with me on this issue, thus I need not address anything here. Fight for reducing or abolishing the minimum wage. (4) Fiscal Stimulus My opponent has entirely dropped my fiscal stimulus argument, in which I absolutely demonstrated why a fiscal stimulus will negatively impact the economy. A fiscal stimulus is *not* \u201canything that stimulates the economy\u201d. Rather, it is federal spending to \u2018stimulate\u2019 the economy. I will drop the fiscal stimulus, but my opponent holds on to it without *any* defense whatsoever. My opponent has not shown *why* he wants the fiscal stimulus, and I have shown the electors it is a bad idea. (5) Federal Reserve My opponent is against the existence of a Federal Reserve, according to his Big Issues. Since this is a Presidential Debate, personal opinions *do* matter, though my opponent may clarify if he is Pro the maintenance of the Fed. The Federal Reserve has ensured fixed stability in the US economy. The Fed has kept a low rate of inflation, at around 0.8% last year [4], and the US has not experienced deflation since the gold standard [5]. This is amazing stability that will be impossible without the Fed. The quantitative easing programs of the Fed have been successful in reducing unemployment by around 1.5% [6]. My removal of the fiscal stimulus, which my opponent shall retain, will further strengthen the Fed, and there will be no need to abolish it. Domestic Policy (1) Social If the church and the state are together, as my opponent is pro-Christian, the United States will no longer remain a secular nation. The secular policies of the United States must be embraced, and I declare that one is free to practise their own religion. My opponent claims that abortion is \u2018cruel\u2019 with *no* justification. However that may be, it is impractical to illegalize abortion, thus it shall remain legal as is the status quo. My opponent is implying a change in the status quo, thus they must properly defend it. (2) Border Fence My opponent has *dropped* my argument that the border fence is *ineffective*. \u201cSince 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.\u201d [7] These drone aircraft and surveillance systems in addition to additional technology capabilities are much more cost-efficient and more effective in blocking illegal immigration, thus spending money on building a border fence with the already low budget is impractical and useless [7]. (3) Environmental Protection 3A. Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming As seen, there has been a drastic increase (by about 180 ppm) of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in a period of 10,000 years. [8-9] \u201cIn pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.\u201d [10] As seen, a rise in CO2 levels is caused by humans. The above graph shows that CO2 emissions majorly influence rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. [10] The level of CO2 is correlated with a rise in temperature, as atmospheric presence of CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere and Earth via. the greenhouse effect. [11] In the above graph, there is shown a statistical correlation between rise in CO2 levels and rise in atmospheric temperature. The below graph shows a rapid decline in cooling in the lower stratosphere and rise in heating of the mid-to-upper troposphere. [12] As shown in the NASA graph in my previous argument, there is a documented rise in temperature. Thus, we can infer the following: (1) There is a documented rise in atmospheric and sea-level temperature. (2) There is a documented rise in human-caused carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which traps heat. (3) There is a major correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. (4) Global warming is primarily man-made and anthropogenic. The graph that my opponent presents is from a study by Friis-Christensen (et al) in 1991. Christensen\u2019s study actually made some major mathematical errors, and the supposed correlation between solar cycle length and rise in temperature has since been falsified. [13] The arithmetic errors are given below. [14] The arithmetic errors made by Christensen were corrected by P. Stauning in 2012, and have new data that falsifies the correlation. Below is Stauning\u2019s graph [13]. As seen, Pro\u2019s source is flawed and newer measurements prove that solar cycle lengths cannot explain the modern warming. 3B. Nuclear Power My opponent and I agree on this, so there is nothing to refute. Foreign Policy My opponent seems to agree with my principles of non-aggression, so there is nothing to defend or contend here either. Conclusion 1. I will present a Bradford-X type progressive consumption tax which is much more effective, equal and fair than my opponent\u2019s flat income tax. 2. My opponent wishes there to be deflation, whereas I will maintain a stable economy. Pro also wishes to abolish the Federal Reserve, without which there will be major instability, and major increases in unemployment. 3. I will abolish the ineffective fiscal stimulus, but my opponent wishes to retain the stimulus and engage in stimulus spending, thus increasing government spending, contrary to their claims that they will decrease government spending. I have demonstrated the flaws in the fiscal stimulus which my opponent has still not responded to. This also contrasts with my opponent\u2019s claim that he will maintain an Austrian economic policy. 4. I will maintain complete social equality and prevent discrimination. My opponent *claims* he is a libertarian, but contrasts this by maintaining that there should be no separation of Christianity and the state, thus placing him in an authoritarian right position. 5. My opponent wishes to spend money on an ineffective border fence, instead of the effective and cost-efficient means I will use to prevent illegal immigration. 6. Pro denies the existence of anthropogenic global warming using flawed and outdated studies, while I have presented conclusive proof that global warming is man-made. Vote Tejretics 2016. Sources 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "25225b64-2019-04-18T14:55:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6806373596191406}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: Dismissing something easily says more about the one dismissing than about what's being dismissed. It seems that you didn't even read the objection but instead had a prefabricated response ready. I'm here to learn about the arguments surrounding these important policy issues. From your response to the objection, it seems that you're here to do something else. And that's okay of course, but let's actually try to start the debate. First, there is the empirical aspect of it, which requires calculations and some guesswork about what corporations might or might not do given a change in the tax code. Second, it necessarily involves interrogating the meaning of a corporation, since we are referring them to discrete revenue and expenditure categories that are different from private citizens and non-profit organizations. You are wrong to say that I am arguing \"political drawbacks\" instead of economic benefits. We are debating political economy--that point at which they intersect, to put it into academic terminology. It is useful at times to distinguish economic calculations from policy, but to fail to see how they inform one another distorts the bases on which these kinds of decisions must be made. First, I will address the empirical aspect of the argument. Then I will respond specifically to each of your points. As I indicated in my objection, the question of raising or lowering the tax rate for corporations cannot really be approached without consideration of the fact that many of the richest corporations do not pay anywhere near the going rate. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average corporate tax rate is only 12.6%. http://money.cnn.com... A report from the Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 of the biggest 280 corporations had no federal tax liability whatsoever. http://www.nytimes.com... The argument that lower tax rates will keep business in the U.S. ignores these disparities. The assertion becomes more ridiculous if we ask just what the tax rate should be. Those thirty companies that completely dodged the tax system through offshore maneuvers have no incentive to bring business back into the U.S. no matter how low the rate is. If we still entertain illusions that the global market will somehow correct this, we can refer to this study: http://www.cfr.org... and this http://www.wsj.com... Nor are corporations to blame for the fact that they dodge taxes. Which indicates the significance of my second point. It is misguided to try to blame corporations for being greedy, and the recent attempts to publish CEO pay as a way of shaming these great disparities in wealth are rather pointless, because as I said above, all considerations for a corporation are subordinated to those of the bottom line. The issue, as you said, is not whether to abolish the corporate tax altogether. The rate reflects the societal costs of protecting the public from the inherent abuses of corporate activity. Now, that is a difficult calculation to make because many of those costs are integrated into a whole web of public and private institutions. In an obvious way, this means that the corporate tax rate needs to contribute paying for the SEC, FDA, EPA and all the hosts of other agencies out there whose job is to protect the public good from the undesirable results that occur when a corporation does precisely what it's supposed to do, that is make money at all other expenses. The argument that lowering the rate will incentivize business investment ignores the complexity of these costs. That is what I was getting at in the first part of my argument, which your rejoinder ignored. Corporations rely on able-bodied Americans to buy their goods and to supply them with labor. It is this complexity that maybe gave you the mistaken notion that I thought tax revenues were distributed randomly. My understanding of it is that there are three metrics on which the rate is decided: 1) equity, which evaluates how the tax rate is distributed across individuals taxes 2) efficiency, which tries to address potential distortions in the decision-making process due to tax burdens 3) competitiveness, which is, admittedly the most vague of the three--but it has to do with maintaining rates that are comparable to those of other nations with similar GDP. It is the third that seems to be your best shot for arguing the tax rate should be lowered. Yes, it is vague, but it is a problem only because we do not tax pure profits, as explained here (p. 16-17 specifically) http://www.fas.org... You said that while \"we pronounce ourselves to be the most capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation.\" Well, people pronounce a lot of things all the time--but if we mean by \"most capitalist nation\" that we are or should be engaged in some kind of free market laissez-faire system, completely free of public oversight, then you are mistaken. The so-called free market has already demonstrated that, left to its own devices, it is patently destructive and fatal to human interests. We have known that for more than a hundred years. In any case, that is a historical point which we can take up if you'd like. Nor do the present facts justify characterizing taxation on business as heavy, when compared with other industrialized nations. According to the findings of the CRS report mentioned above, the U.S. statutory rate is the highest, but the effective rate is the same as other OECD nations. In fact, the U.S. \"collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011). \" As for your remark that the public has no say about investment in the private sector, yes, of course. But you missed the point. The issue is not dictating investment--it's that we have good reason to question simplistic narratives about growth, narratives that come from the financial industry and corporations that consecrate growth and try to convince us that it is an undeniable good. Lastly, you said that \"[t]he private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college.\" That preposterous statement is not the sort that will become any less preposterous by looking at the numbers, no matter how you spin them. For one, it's way too sweeping. Also, there is a huge part of the private sector that requires no level of higher education--nearly all the workforce of restaurant and retail industry, including the folks that make your burger or ring you up at the Walmart, nor their managers, known as middle-management, and a whole host of other working people on whom the private sector relies for the delivery of its goods and services. But more importantly, it is a gross distortion to separate the actual functioning of the private sector from the interests of the public good. Yes, there are specific occasions when such a distinction is required--for instance in legal contexts--but if decisions are to be made about political economy, we must find a perspective that understands how they interact.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6796789765357971}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. Content: You claim that \"[federal] government revenue had [sic] been at 19.5% of GDP since the 50s.\" That is untrue. The post-WWII average of tax revenue is 17.7 percent of GDP \"\" projections of revenue for 2013 by the CBO place it at 16.9% only. In 2009, tax receipts amounted to 14.8 percent of GDP, the second lowest in recorded history. Kent Conrad was correct: tax revenues are at a 60-year low. The important point to not is that the reason that revenues are projected to climb \"\" to 18 percent of G.D.P. in the coming year \"\" is a function of the \"fiscal cliff\" tax increases and economic growth. Both of those claims undermine conservative ideology, though. Raising taxes should shrink revenue, they claim. Why then has the nonpartisan CBO estimated that it will continue to increase to 19.1 percent up to 2023? The answer is: we haven\"t met the downward-sloping portion of the Laffer curve. In fact, revenue would maximize at a top effective rate of 68.7%, significantly higher than even the top marginal rate now (39.6%), and certainly higher than the rates that the affluent actually pay. As I\"m sure you now, many of them pay significantly less than middle- and lower- income individuals because they either earn their income through capital gains, are able to receive special loopholes, etc. The best example is oil subsidies -- roughly $40 billion \"\" which Republicans continue to defend. As I stated earlier, Mitt Romney paid roughly 14% on millions in income. Paradoxically, the \"47 percent\" whom he criticized pay higher percentages of their incomes than does he, for they pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, user fees, state and local taxes, property taxes, etc. In the wake of welfare reform of the 90s, pushed their by a Gingrich-led Congress, their lives have been even worse. Add to that the record levels of income inequality \"\" the fact that CEOs now earn about 380 times the wage of an average worker, relative to 42 times in 1980. And their pay has increased since the crash, while median incomes have decreased \"\" in fact 93% of the gains of the economic recovery went to the top 1%. Which brings me to my next point: you mentioned corporate welfare. Why would you presume that I support corporate welfare? Do you oppose it? Excellent. You\"ll agree, then, to cut oil subsidies. You\"ll agree with Ronald Reagan, Art Laffer, and me that capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. You\"ll support eliminating farm subsidies to affluent corporate farmers \"\" which the Republicans voted to fund at the same time they slashed food stamps by $40 billion. Do we have an agreement? If your answer is yes, you\"ve just conceded the debate \"\" that\"s raising taxes. If you cannot support those measures, you cannot rightfully say that you\"re opposed to corporate welfare. If your argument is that we should take Mitt Romney\"s idea and \"broaden the base and lower the rate\" then I have a few questions for you: what specific loopholes would you cut? Will it be revenue neutral, independent of dynamic scoring? Would you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for millionaires \"\" which, by the way, the CBO claims is the only plausible way for the plan to be revenue neutral? Also, explain to me how that will create jobs. Are you claiming that some people are able to pay virtually nothing, while others pay significantly higher rates? If that\"s the case, wouldn\"t raising taxes remove from these companies their incentive? To me, that sounds like a case for targeted tax hikes \"\" that some people will continue to produce even with higher rates, while others may be more recalcitrant. That\"s the essence of my argument. But I agree with the economic research \"\" and with people like Paul Krugman, who look at the data and argue that the rate at which we would find ourselves in trouble is around 73-80%. Just as a slight increase in the minimum wage would not be cataclysmic \"\" and would not shed jobs \"\" slight tax increases to the tune that I\"m advocating will not, either. Your next factual inaccuracy was: \"If business had more money and less regulation, they could produce cheaper goods.\" This claim hinges on the notion that companies are suffering from a lack of productive capacity, and that rates are on the downward sloping portion of the Laffer curve. That\"s inaccurate, though: I pointed out that revenues as a percentage of G.D.P. are at historic lows, that C.E.O. pay and corporate profits are at all-time highs, that the stock market is doing great, and in my last post, that taxes for the affluent are at near all-time lows. Allow me now to prove to expand on that latter point, and prove it. First, I\"d like to credit the compilation of the following points to former U.S. Secretary of Labor, and Professor at UC Berkeley, Robert Reich. He argues \"\" as I have \"\" that tax rates are at historic lows \"\" that the rich are paying a lower rate than they have at any time in the past half-century. Before the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, the top tax rate was 70% (and 91% under Eisenhower). Yet, in spite of credits, deductions, exemptions, and so forth, wealthy people paid about 52-56% of their income in taxes. Because many affluent individuals derive their income from capital gains, they end up paying even less. The grandest point, though, is that the affluent can afford to pay more right now. You argue that tax cuts will hinder business profits, and thus lead to less employment, lower wages, higher prices, et al. These are assumptions \"\" which even a very rudimentary microeconomic model would dispel, for even they account for the fact that companies will absorb some of the tax. In a lot of cases, they\"ll absorb all of the tax \"\" e.g., meta studies demonstrates that raising the minimum wage would create jobs because it would create more demand. But there is a point, yes, where it would hinder job growth, just as there is a tax rate \"\" around 73% -- where companies would lose their incentive to invest and to hire. But we\"re nowhere near that point: the top 1% have amassed about 20% of total income. The 400 wealthiest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans combined, while the top 10 percent of households take in half of national income, instead of the historical average of a third. At the same time, the average income for the bottom 20 percent of households has fallen by approximately 3 percent since 1979, says the Census Bureau. This is in spite of nearly doubled productivity over the past 30 years -- wages have flatlined, and in most cases declined. But during the three decades following WWII, wealth inequality was far less severe, and the economy boomed as a result. Why? Because it remains true that the rich would be better off with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than a larger share of a stagnant economy. And without a way to spur demand, without consumers to purchase their goods and services (and thus to employ executives, for without demand, they\"d be out of business), they\"d be out of luck. I don\"t think we agree on this very simple point: that government can work. Yes, it wastes money; yes, it does things we don\"t like (wars, drones, etc). But how about defense services, public education, infrastructure, research, air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and police and fire forces? Not only are these things critical to our survival, but many directly employ people, which sets off a multiplier effect (the famous Keynesian multiplier \"\" which we can discuss more later) which leads to more demand, higher wages, more employment, etc. That is the essence of a vibrant economy \"\" not wealthy people saving most of their money, or even spending it on luxury goods (buying a Tesla, for instance, is not going to employ millions of people who are out of work). They have more money, and therefore for each additional dollar they earn, their marginal propensity to save is much higher than their marginal propensity to consume. This is untrue for the workers I have delineated earlier, who spend nearly all of their incomes because they have to in order to survive. Surveys from business leaders are unanimous that the problems they\"re facing are not overtaxation or overregulation \"\" but lack of sales. Finally, I would dispute your claims \"\" and would ask you to provide specificity \"\" that tax cuts lead to job expansion. I\"m almost out of space, so I can\"t go through each separately, but consider this: a Congressional Research Service study, which Republicans tried to conceal, holds that tax cuts are not correlated with growth in savings, investment, and productivity, but are with increased income inequality. That\"s true of the 80s \"\" where the bulk of the \"growth\" in the US came about amid 11 consecutive tax increases and an exploded Pentagon budget. Even Thatcher implemented a sales tax that was disastrous for working families. And following Kennedy\"s tax cuts, top marginal income tax rates were at 70%, and corporate taxes at 48%. Do you support that? Which brings me to my next point: I\"ve proven to you that tax cuts don\"t raise revenue, that you can not directly connect a tax cut to growth, and that income inequality is a threat. How do you justify them? How do you pay for them? Or do you support austerity measures, such as those in Europe, which are hindering any type of recovery? Your points about times that it has worked are quite vague and inconclusive, so I\"d ask that you more thoroughly justify your points. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.factcheck.org... http://money.cnn.com... http://www.epi.org... http://www.foreffectivegov.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6795292496681213}, {"content": "Title: The GOP Tax Cuts will, on average, not help the middle class. Content: Hi there. I think (and we should all hope) the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will benefit the middle and lower classes. It is true that the highest earners benefit the most from this, but that is because they originally paid a large portion of total income tax revenue, so naturally they would get a lot back. I don't think the the general population will benefit from the trickle-down economics, I was never fond of that argument; I think they'll benefit because the vast majority of them get tax cuts as well. Bottom line: trickle-down may not help, but tax cuts on the middle class will.", "qid": 24, "docid": "824ee5c0-2019-04-18T11:53:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6790563464164734}, {"content": "Title: increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA* Content: My CaseThe Laffer CurveMy opponent's first refutation is about government revenue. He says here:\"so, if we are going to get the same revenue with higher taxes, we might as well increase taxes. this would all mean we are probably on the left side of the curve.\"Here's the problem with that. You don't want to raise the taxes too high because then people will move some of their income and assets to tax shelters. This means that the economy will slow down and that's the negative effect of high taxes.My opponent also said that I did not bring in the best rate to tax and later he shows a graph that finds the best rate to be at 70%. Generally, this rate has been accepted by many, but now its considered too high by many including Dr. Laffer himself. A recent study has found that the best tax rate is far less than 70% and this is explained in the Prager University video I will provide. In fact, the rate should be 33% because if it is higher, the government gets less revenue. Let's move on to the history.History\"most of your points like this president or that president cut taxes and there was a boom afterwards, appears to be just empty words. you didnt cite anything usually, and the bottomline again is the tax rate v revenue comparison.\"My opponent claims that I did not cite anything here, but this is incorrect because I divided my history argument into four sections for different eras (Harding-Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton). At the end of each section it put footnotes and then the sources were in my sources section. My point here is that these tax reductions made more revenue, but it is also important to understand that we should not raise them too high or else we risk economic growth.\"on a last point about capital gains, and i address this as it's a specific argument besides taxes and revenue generally. yes there was a lot of capital gains after the cuts. but that only means people were taking their gains due to the opportunity. that means it was temporary. eventually revenue from gains went back to the normative rate increase. as proven by this graph.\"The dot-com bubble had burst in the early 2000s, so there was a recession. With this recession came less investments because no one wanted to risk their money. After that the revenue increased again. ConclusionI have proven that the proper rate should be 33% or less because that gives us maximum revenue. To raise it higher means less revenue and less economic growth. At the same time, my historial arguments have held.http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "7a272734-2019-04-18T17:24:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6790060997009277}, {"content": "Title: All taxes on inherited wealth should be abolished Content: Efforts to reduce tax", "qid": 24, "docid": "ff4caa4e-2019-04-19T12:45:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6781220436096191}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: What you state is easily dismissible. Instead of arguing the economic benefits, you argue political drawbacks. As of 2013, the United States has lead the world in Corporate Tax percentage, which is set at 39%. Our tax rate has not changed in a matter of 2 years, with regard to corporate tax. [1] On a ratio with our GDP, Corporate Taxes amount to 2% of our 18 trillion GDP, which amounts to $360 billion. While we pronounce ourselves to be the most Capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation on both our businesses and general income. Incorporation in Canada, which is famous for it's high taxes and government spending in relation to population, is easier and cheaper than incorporation in the United States. Our corporate tax is not only a burden but it is also a deterrent to future companies. I myself am working for a company made by American citizens but incorporated in Canada, due to their lower tax rate and fees. The main debate on Capitalism is that we get to keep our profits, if accumulated legally. The profits of companies are accumulated legally, and they deserve to keep those profits, regardless of moral implication. The main argument that many opponents of a lowered Corporate Tax create is that we cannot afford to lower it, which we most certainly can. Instead of professing about an increase in tax or a stability, we should decrease spending on par with a decrease in taxes. An overall incentive to incorporate in the United States will not only create an excess of jobs, but it will bring in an incredible amount of money. It is much more beneficial to tax 15% to 100 people, rather than taxing 39% to 50 people, as eventually, that number will decrease. Our current ideology is that instead of lowering taxes and fees, we will raise them as to create further burdens on the corporations that remain. Rand Paul, a ideologically Libertarian Republican presidential candidate stated that we have an excess of $2 trillion overseas, that we could bring into the United States if we lowered the Corporate Tax. \"My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector.\" The public has no say as to whom may or may not invest into the private sector. It is not up to the collective decision of a public entity to dictate how and who invests into which specific private market. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have public stocks, which enable all willing parties to hold stocks in that specific company. The private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college. You seem to believe that taxes are collected and then distributed randomly. Each tax pays of each part of the government or public platform. This debate does not center over the complete abolishment of Corporate Tax, but instead centers around lowering this specific tax. Due to safety in investing in the United States, paired with a significantly lower Corporate Tax, we could bring in a great amount of companies as well as private sector jobs, and eventually make even more money in taxes than before. Sources: [1]http://taxfoundation.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6780826449394226}, {"content": "Title: A free market economy is harmful to society Content: The first points I brought up were about minimum wage. My opponent begins by countering this by declaring that those hiring people would pay less in order to keep more money for themselves. This, however, is untrue. Many people now are more likely to do that due to the fact there's minimum wage laws in place. When there's a certain amount you're expected to pay to each employee that leaves less money to keep your business going. As a result, employers would be inclined to pay less to save more money to run their business more efficiently. Secondly, employers would be inclined to pay fair wages anyway. One advantage to a free market is that you can choose where you want to work. As a result, if you don't want the low wages you can go work at another business that offers higher wages. Businesses will continue to compete with each other to get employers by raising wages at rates that they're able to afford due to current market conditions. Minimum wage laws, on the other hand, hurt businesses in times when the economy is bad as they have less money to work with. Without such laws they can adjust accordingly. Thirdly, my opponent pointed out that the unemployment rate in Michigan is about 15%(without sourcing it so I'm not sure how accurate that information is). I will like to point out that these high unemployment rates exist due to the minimum wage laws due to factors I've mentioned before, employers can't always afford to hire as many people if they're required to pay them a certain amount. Certain countries such as Singapore(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and South Korea(. http://en.wikipedia.org...) have market based economies and some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Singapore has an unemployment rate of about 3%(. https://www.cia.gov...) while South Korea has an unemployment rate of just under 4%(. https://www.cia.gov...). These are both pretty excellent rates compared to the rates in many European countries which tend to have more socialized economies. Spain, for example, has an unemployment rate of about 18%(. https://www.cia.gov...). These are just some statistics to prove that a free market is more efficient for society. The next area I addressed was welfare/social security. My opponent claims that with less social security(which means less taxes) that less people would donate to charity. This is also untrue. It has been confirmed in the United States that among the most generous states are \"Red States\". . http://taxprof.typepad.com... This could be a result of more liberal minded people feeling less need to donate as they probably have a mentality that the state will help them more. Another important factor, as I mentioned in the first round, could be that with less taxes people have more money to donate. With huge portions of their pay cheques being deducted for tax payment people become more concerned about finances and where they spend their money, with charity probably being on the bottom as paying their own bills would be first. With lower tax rates this isn't as big of an issue. As for people born into poor families, they have opportunities too. While it's true that those born into wealthy families often have an easier time at making a living it's not impossible for the poor. Anybody could develop a special skill and make a living that way. For example, if somebody is really good at cooking a certain dish they could spend the few dollars they would need for supplies for that. They could then cook it up and sell it for a few dollars more in order to make a profit. Eventually these funds earned build up enabling the person to better their business. They could start by buying better cooking equipment to make the food even better. More people would buy it thus more funds would be earned. Eventually, there would be a point where said person could open a restaurant. This kind of incentive and opportunity for growth doesn't exist in a socialist society. A person would especially feel good about themselves knowing all their money was earned due to their hard work rather than just being handed to them for nothing. Lastly, abuse in the welfare system was discussed. While this may not be a huge problem it does still exist. one thing that was suggested was drug testing. However, such actions require taxpayer's money to be able to afford. That would just result in even higher taxes. Also, most sane people wouldn't want to be using their own hard-earned money to support lazy bums who refuse to work. The system in itself isn't entirely fair. Thirdly, even with things such as drug testing it would be impossible to catch everybody. There are still those who abuse the system who aren't drug addicts. I'll now be handing this over to my opponent. Thank you again for responding on time and good luck in the next round!", "qid": 24, "docid": "c3928ca-2019-04-18T19:02:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6778717041015625}, {"content": "Title: Flat Tax Content: You make three points in your argument: the effect of the flat tax on the poor, the effect on the rich, and the effect on the economy. I will approach them in that order. It seems obvious that a switch from our current system to a flat tax system would have a negative effect on the poor: their tax average would increase, and therefore they would have less money. In the short term, this is absolutely true. However, in the long term, the effect is quite the opposite. The increase in the poor's demand for money would lead many people away from low paying jobs, ensuring that companies compete more for their employees, raising their wages and benefits. So the mass change in needs of the poor would have a large positive effect on companies with high wages, due to the increased opportunity cost of staying at a convenient job with lower pay, and companies with low wages would lose money or raise wages to compete. In fact, one study showed that the implementation of a flat tax would increase aftertax income of people currently in the lowest tax bracket by an average of 7% because of this [1]. This leads into the argument against your claim that the taxes would benefit the rich. The vast majority of the rich are owners of large companies, with a large number of employees. Again, it seems blatantly clear that decreasing the taxes of the rich would increase their aftertax income. However, at some point this break will run out on them if they allow enough workers to leave due to better wages at a different company. So they must reduce their pay, or at least the pay of the high level employees at their company, in order to maintain headcount. So the reditribution of wealth due to the change in taxes will be nullified by the competition for labor it will create. Finally, you claim that the redistibution of wealth will dampen demand due to the inability of the poor to afford luxuries. However, as I said in my original statement, the incentivization of labor will increase labor participation, which wil necessarily increase the velocity of money, even here in Arizona. In conclusion, we see that when looking at the effects of the flat tax, despite predispositions, it will actually increase the income of the poor, decrease the income of the wealthy, and improve the economy. Source: http://www.ncpa.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "72004c60-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6776764392852783}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased Content: Rebuttal:Higher tax rates... contributed to Europe being less productive [2].Your first paragraph is a bare assertion.Your other two points are not relevant to the issue. Higher tax rates in general decrease growth, it is true. But this debate isn't about raising taxes in general. I, in fact, would lower the taxes for lower brackets. You need to provide evidence that higher taxation on the wealthy actually decreases growth itself.Second, we have the evidence that more progressive tax rates harm economic growth. An example of some of this evidence is in the sources [3]. True, usually it does harm economic growth somewhat. But two things. First, it matters how the country is spending the extra money gained from taxing the wealthy more. If that goes into military or ineffective welfare programs, there is not reverse compensation for the slight negative effect progressive taxation. Also, your source says the following in its conclusion:\"The implications for fiscal policy seem obvious but are not. The effect of income inequality on economic growth must also be studied in order to make a conclusive argument for or against progressive taxation. If the effect of income inequality on economic growth is greater than that of progressive taxation and progressive taxation does indeed reduce income inequality significantly, progressive taxation may be a sound fiscal policy\"There is more at stake than the simple negative effect progressive taxation has, and your source even recognizes this, and yet you ignore this as well. You never address the problem of inequality. I spoke about many positives brought about by progressive taxation, if the government spends/redistributes the money well.Finally, we have the evidence on how the behavior of rich people changes when taxes are changed. The evidence suggests that the behavioral responses are significant [4].This also is true, that the wealthy react negatively to higher taxes. But if we are to examine psychological factors, far more pressing is workers' alienation. Efficiency wage theory is one of the central tenets of modern economics, simply stating that if workers feel they are being treated unfairly, they lack motivation to do their job well and productivity drops [1]. The massive income of their superiors and the small degree to which it is ultimately taxed has a psychological effect on workers. The wealthy's negative response to more progressive taxation would certainly not outweigh the psychological effect that workers feeling like they are treated unfairly does. Greater taxation on the wealthy would alleviate much of this.Entrepreneurship is one of the central drivers of economic growth [5].... Not surprisingly, there is strong evidence that progressive taxation has a negative effect on entrepreneurship [6].Firstly, your sources are ludicrous. The first is a few paragraphs by an organization that plans to raise entrepreneurship, and I don't even understand what the other has to do with the issue. Perhaps you mis-linked? Regardless, I would ask voters to take into account this irrelevant sourcing. Since you provide no relevant sourcing, I don't feel I need to here either. You think the truly great American innovators have been motivated by monetary incentives? The only people who are motivated by monetary incentives are those in the financial sector, who DON'T benefit our society, but engage in predatory lending in other practices, such as those that led to the 2008 economic crisis.High tax rates discourage productive behavior such as investing, working, and taking risks and encourages unproductive behavior such as tax avoidance.No evidence for the first few claims, as I stated. Just because money gets taken away doesn't mean that people suddenly don't want to try to be wealthy. Wealthy people will still have more wealth than they can possibly handle, slight raises in the top brackets of income won't change their motivation to earn money.As far as tax avoidance, this can be solved by simplifying the tax codes. Progressive taxation and high taxes have little to do with this. If we simplify the ridiculously complex tax codes that we have now and eliminate loopholes, tax avoidance won't be an issue. A big reason why loopholes even exist is the work of the wealthy to ensure that they keep all of their wealth. And the logic you are using could be applied to law. Should we not have strict laws for fear of people breaking them?The CBO estimates that, in 2013, the top 1% paid... with some higher and some lower. With all due respect, I am not sure if you are serious any more with your sources. You made claims about taxes in 2013 with data that only goes to 2005, and your eight source points out that in 10 states the bottom 20% pay 6 times as much as the wealthy. There isn't anything else to say, either you are trolling or you are messing something up with your links. The super-wealthy pay far less than the poor.The practical problems with raising taxes on the rich have already been discussed, at length here. I also believe there is a moral element to this debate. Do we really want to live in a society where nearly half (or over half) of somebody's income is confiscated by the government?And I addressed in my opening argument how America is not this land of opportunity and enterprise. Until there is reasonable socioeconomic mobility for people with poor backgrounds, don't act like the wealthy are the victims of unjustness.Frankly, I find such \"moral\" appeals insulting, when so many impoverished families work 70 hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck, working far more and therefore deserving far more than people who were spoonfed opportunities from birth having come from wealthy families. THOSE are the people who are at the crux of the issue of economic morality, not people who have more wealth than they know what to do with.Counter-Rebuttal:Your Rebuttal was mostly a series of attacks that strawman my argument and don't put my statements in context. Also, attacks on my sources when yours were utterly nonsensical and totally unrelated.First, Pro has violated the rules by issuing a rebuttal and addressing my sources in his opening argument. Voters, please take this into account.I didn't address your source, I pointed it out because it was a relevant source for my argument. Calm down.Where are your sources... very much progressive. You cited no such rate, your link had nothing to do with your claim.This claim is absolutely ludicrous. This shows that you're not looking through the source correctly. I ask that you quote and cite the piece you're referring to directly.This is actually getting funny. Page 8 of 135 in your eighth source says the following: \"Ten states \u2014 Washington, Florida, South Dakota, Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Alabama \u2014 are particularly regressive. These \u201cTerrible Ten\u201d states ask their poorest residents \u2014 those in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale \u2014 to pay up to six times as much of their income in taxes as they ask the wealthy to pay.\"Where is your evidence for this second remark? Correlation does not equal causatio, but you haven't even provided that. Cite this. Otherwise, it's baseless. I explain the validity of the claim right after it, if you would care to read supporting remarks before you attack my claims.First of all, the rich pay a lot more in taxes than the poor. I've already pointed this out. Second, we are not discussing bailouts, so you've got off topic on this one. I don't support bailouts.Same as above. This has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.And I've pointed out your false sourcing.Fair enough on the bailouts. You're wrong that it was off-topic, but we can let it go if you don't agree with bailouts. I suppose you don't agree with the Keynesian approach? I could get into that, but that would be a whole other debate. I have enough other arguments so that I don't think this specific point matters too much.Absolutely, which is why even John Maynard Keynes would advocate counter-cyclical tax cuts. Raising taxes amid a recession, as even Barack Obama acknowledges, is antithetical to growth. It destroys jobs and removes incentives for investment.Keynes also supports economic stimuli, and so do the majority of modern economists, both Left and Right. How do we afford stimuli? Further taxation on the wealthy. As mentioned earlier, progressive taxation only hurts if the money obtained is not reasonably redistributed back into the economy.You keep mentioning regressive taxation but you've been proven wrong. Also you keep mentioning bailouts. Please at least try to stay on topic.And your sources have been proven ridiculous, while I did provide a source for regressive taxation, yours in fact.Correlation does not mean causation. Prove that inequality hurts spending and leads to depressions. Even Paul Krugman disiagrees with you. If we are appealing to authority, then look up Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist who wrote the brilliant Price of Inequality, and its plethora of negative effects.Your source for this in Wikipedia. Also, you're forgetting that in the 1950s, the US wasn't competing globally. Now it has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. At least my source is relevant. Quoting random PDF files is meaningless if they have nothing to do with the topic, as you are fond of doing.No evidence. In fact it would destroy jobs and increase the deficit. No evidence. In fact it wouldn't. Trickle down economics has been disproved so much I shouldn't even have to argue it.No, all you would do is destroy jobs by raising taxes. No, I wouldn't.Source:[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "ffb8146b-2019-04-18T16:31:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6775197386741638}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now. Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.", "qid": 24, "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6772218942642212}, {"content": "Title: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy Content: The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy so people will have more money, people will spend more, businesses will make more money and pay more tax dollars. A large percentage of businesses pay income tax at the individual tax rate not the corporate tax rate. If income taxes get cut then the businesses that pay the individual income tax rate will have more money and hire more employees. Corporate taxes should also get cut to 25 percent so that businesses will hire more employees. If businesses make more money and pay more tax dollars then the government revenue will increase. If businesses hire more employees then there will be more taxpayers which will also increase the government revenue. The wealthy should get a large tax cut because a lot of them own businesses. If they get a tax cut then they will spend more money, make more investments and hire more employees.", "qid": 24, "docid": "137919fb-2019-04-18T17:51:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6771918535232544}, {"content": "Title: Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy Content: The complexity of the current United States tax code and the current tax rates place an excessive tax burden on almost everyone from the individual taxpayers and small businesses to billionaires and large corporations. The excessive tax burden robs the consumer of purchasing power and businesses of capital that could be used to expand their operations. For the sake of narrowing the debate, I will focus my opening statement on how the current tax code affects individual taxpayers (families, students, etc.) and how replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax will empower them to play their roles in rebooting the American economy. The income tax data that I use will come from TaxRates.org (http://www.tax-rates.org...) and covers the 2014 tax year. In the 2014 tax rate schedule, I have identified three income groups for unmarried taxpayers and two groups for married taxpayers with a total household income. I will examine each in turn, beginning with unmarried taxpayers. The first group that I have identified are taxpayers who earned between $9,075 and $36,900 in 2014. These taxpayers are students who are trying to work and go to college at the same time, new college graduates who have taken entry level jobs to gain experience and pay off their student loans, and lower blue-collared laborers. The marginal federal income tax rate for this bracket is 15%. Therefore, a taxpayer in this category making $20,000 per year will need to pay $3000 in federal income taxes. After factoring the cost of living expenses, a person in this tax bracket is left with very little discretionary income, which will limit their upward mobility in the market. The second group that I identified were the taxpayers who fell between $36,900 and $89,350 in income. The people who fall into this category can be small businessmen, middle class professionals such as accountants, teachers, etc., and middle class blue collar laborers such as plumbers and electricians. The marginal federal income tax rate for this bracket is 25%. Consequently, a taxpayer who earns $65,000 per year will pay $16,250 in taxes. Finally, the third group that I identified were the taxpayers who fell between $89,350 and $186,350 in total income. These people include the lawyers, the doctors, and the tech experts who provide the services that make our lives function so smoothly. They will pay a marginal federal income tax rate of 28%. Someone who makes $100,000 per year will pay $28,000 in federal income taxes. In summary, the three examples I used will pay $3000, $16000, and $28000 respectively in federal income taxes. However, what if we replaced every federal tax with a simple 13% national sales tax and compared it solely against the results of the study on the income tax (ignores other taxes levied by the federal government). Assuming that the taxpayer spends every dime that they earn, the three examples I used would pay $2600, $8450, and $13000 in federal taxes for 2014. However, most individuals don't spend every dime they earn so the actual tax burdens would be on the lower end of these numbers. What effect would a national sales tax of 13% have on the economy? Consumerism drives the American economy. With more money to spend, the American consumer would be able to afford more. Many individuals would save their money to make purchases that they wouldn't have dreamed of under the current income tax structure. The subsequent rush to buy would spark an economic revolution in the American economy. Prices would drop as people demanded a larger quantity of goods and services. Businesses would expand to meet the greater consumer demand and would create more jobs. Consequently, everyone's standard of living would be improved. Afternote: This is my first debate on here. I look forward to hearing the arguments that my opponent will present. I greet him/her in advance and wish them good luck.", "qid": 24, "docid": "35c1b265-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00009-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6767700910568237}, {"content": "Title: Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation Content: I apologize to the Con for making him look like an idiot, I quoted him for saying \"The vast majority of new jobs in America are created by small companies.\"So in the next round I used that same quote to reinforce my own arguments by saying,\"All the jobs that have been created have come from small companies \"You then said that was \"fase\" which I think is poor grammar for \"false\"If I am indeed \"fase\" then you would also be \"fase\" because we used the same argument..... if its true that businesses create most of the jobs jobs (which it is) then you accusing me of being \"fase\" makes you look like your contradicting yourself since I'm using the same facts as you and your calling them false.... By the way I never actually called you a liar I was asking a rhetorical question if you make up your own facts or didnt remember that your calling my facts false even though you used the same ones....Small businesses create most of the jobs http://archive.sba.gov...http://www.baltimoresun.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...50% of Americans dont pay income taxes because they are poorhttp://articles.businessinsider.com...http://jonathanturley.org...http://finance.yahoo.com...http://dmarron.com...\"My dad doesn't own a company...... his office is a small business\" So your dad does own a business.... Seeing as how hes a doctor (not an economist) promising to his son he'll do the right thing (when really he just wants more money), I dont really see how we could take his word for why a flat tax is justifiable....By the way a dingus is an insult and I find it hilarious you actually tried to look it up instead of looking up facts to reinforce your own arguments. the 999 plan is a bad idea because it would cut the income the government makes in taxes in half and that would destroy the economy because we wouldnt be able to fund social security, medicare, medicaid, small business loans, student loans, etc. the 999 plan would drive our economy into the ground because it we would lose half our income as a nation. A flat tax shifts the tax burden onto the poor, it is not shared by everyone.lets consider the salaries of 2 men, one makes 10,000 a year the other makes 10,000,000 a year$10,000 x 20% = $2000. $10,000 - $2000 = $8,000 left for all expenses$10,000,000 x 20% = $2,000,000. $10,000,000 - $2,000,000 = $8,000,000 left for all expensesWho do you think has the larger tax burden, the poor person left with less than $10K or the rich person who still has $8 MILLION left?In a progressive system though lets consider the same two people$10,000 x 0% = $10,000 $10,000 = $10,000 left for expenses$10,000,000 x 40% = $4,000,000 $10 Mil - $4 Mil = $6,000,000 left for expensesSo if you look at the totals, the rich person is very well off in both systems, but the poor person is crushed by the flat tax because he already has a terribly low income to begin with and now in a flat tax system now has EVEN LESSRich people dont spend money on their businesses,http://crooksandliars.com...http://www.bloomberg.com...http://www.dailyfinance.com...http://blogs.wsj.com...A flat tax would not create jobs,http://conceptualmath.org...http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...http://www.concordmonitor.com...Heres the best source of all,\".. nothing garentees jobs\" - My opponent......\"Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt.\"Now for those of you who speak normal English, the Con is arguing that the flat tax will bring in less money and that is a GOOD thing because it will help \"lmit\" federal spending and that will somehow help the \"sctock market\" because there is less \"doubt\" which i guessing was supposed to say \"debt\"Thank you for admitting that a flat tax would bring in less money, i believe that reinforces my point about how a flat tax is worse. Your idea that this would limit federal spending is a complete hoax because social security and medicare are ENTITLEMENT programs that have to be paid, take those programs and combine them with other necessary expenses, such as education, transportation, infrastructure, defense, etc. a flat tax would force the government to borrow more to pay for the same programs we already have..... A flat tax would do great harm to the country and you cant just assume that the government could cut expenses to fix this. Look at what happened over this year alone over the debt ceiling, both parties got locked in a battle that lasted for months that ended up with unimpressive results and a downgrade to our credit rating.... How could you possibly believe that a flat tax would all of a sudden just magically cause the government to ridiculously reduce spending?In Conclusion:A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the rich to the lower and middle class,A flat tax places an unfair tax burden on the poor compared to a progressive tax system,A flat tax does not create jobs,A flat tax brings in considerably less money then a progressive tax system does,The rich do not spend money on their businesses so a flat tax that benefits the rich will not help businesses in any way,A progressive tax brings in far more money then a 9% flat tax system ever could,A progressive tax can better fund the programs that the government has created than a 9% flat tax ever could, A progressive tax taxes those who can give money and not those who have nothing to give,A progressive tax taxes the rich who can give more money that is currently being hoarded or not being spent.", "qid": 24, "docid": "cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6765643954277039}, {"content": "Title: Democrats vs. Republicans Content: Higher taxes discourage hard work.", "qid": 24, "docid": "70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00031-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6761746406555176}, {"content": "Title: The Bush Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans Content: Alright. First of all, tax cuts have been shown to stimulate job growth in the nation, including the Bush Tax Cuts. After their full passage in 2003, the economy went from a recession to an expansion, with a net total of 4.53 million jobs being created between May 2003 and December 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives. Even this does not reveal the full impact of the tax cuts, as it includes the disastrous recession losses in 2008 that were caused by the implosion of the mortgage bubble. With this track record of growth, it would be foolish to assume that repealing even parts of the tax cuts would not have a negative impact on the American economy. Secondly, the tax cuts had the interesting effect of increasing government revenue, including on the national level. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the United States federal government collected $1.8 trillion in taxes in 2003, before the full impact of the tax cuts on the economy, until revenue peaked at $2.6 trillion in 2007 before the recession struck the United States. Next, eliminating the tax cuts for the highest income earners would not solve our debt crisis. As reported by wsj.com, eliminating the cuts for those earning more than $1 million a year would only add about $40-$50 billion dollars in revenue, about 3% of the annual US deficit. More often than not, it would also hurt the economy, as was implied by President Obama himself when he said \"You don't raise taxes in a recession.\" Doing so merely takes the money out of the private sector, where it can be used productively, and moves it to the government. Finally, tax rates are already too high. The top tax bracket is 35% according to taxes.com. This means that 35 cents is taken for every dollar someone earns, and is given to an irresponsible government that has failed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. Raising taxes merely punishes the achievers in the United States and gives to an undeserving government.", "qid": 24, "docid": "a5f5b5ee-2019-04-18T18:04:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6760219931602478}, {"content": "Title: Income is not necessarily proportional to 'hard work' Content: It is frequently argued by right-wing thinkers that \"if you work hard, you will earn more\", and while this is true in the sense that working longer hours will result in a larger pay-cheque, it seems to imply a level playing field for everyone to begin with. Quite simply, this is not the case. Incomes and employment are affected by a whole range of factors such as education, contacts, social stigmas not to mention simple geographical location, while everyone knows it is easier to establish a successful business if one has investment and financial stability to begin with. A negative income tax which rewards 'hard workers' will more often than not reward people who earn higher incomes based on a range of factors which are often out of their control. Similarly, it will penalize people who might work 'hard', but work in industries, regions or businesses with relatively low incomes. The existing benfit system, while imperfect, at least supoprts people on low incomes, regardless of extraneous factors.", "qid": 24, "docid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00021-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6759217977523804}, {"content": "Title: The FairTax system of taxation should be adopted in the USA Content: I will lead with sources: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder Somebody's Got to Say It by Neal Boortz fairtax. org www. laffercenter. com To begin, I will criticize the Flat Tax. Nominally, yes, the flat tax LOOKS like it will generate more revenue. However, when we look at the conditions for the Laffer Curve, raising tax rates slows the economy and destroys incentives to work. In the same way, lowering taxes below their optimal level will generate less revenue. Therefore, the only people who will be taxed at the optimal tax rate are those somewhere in the middle. The poor will be taxed above their optimal rate and the wealthy below it. Thus, in practice when economic growth changes are accounted for, the flat tax would generate the least of all the three tax systems: FairTax, Progressive Income Tax, and Flat Tax. The reason the progressive tax was instituted in the first place was because the flat tax that we had before it was simply not generating enough revenue. Next, I would like to state that my points that the economy will grow, foreign business will move to the US, everyone will be taxed, savings will increase, interest rates will decrease, and employment will increase have gone entirely unopposed up until this point. The only criticism that my opponent has brought up is the shift in the tax burden (which I have disproved, despite whatever reasoning Con has for it) and potential tax evasion. I have not addressed the potential tax evasion under the flat tax, but I will now. Nothing will change from today. The wealthy will continue to hide their money in the Caymans where it is tax free, and their will still be fraud on the forms. Under FairTax, these forms of fraud would be impossible. I am going to conclude this debate now because I know that it is getting long for my readers, so I will say this. There is no faster way to bring about positive change in our economy than to overhaul our current tax system and replace it with the simple FairTax.", "qid": 24, "docid": "88482706-2019-04-18T14:50:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6757676601409912}, {"content": "Title: Taxes on the Rich should be Increased Content: I put my opponent's first argument into Google Translate, and here's what I came up with: ehh boi, et me start off by shakin me wopper n' sayin' i ain't yur teepicul drek irushmun. now we irush ain't got nuttin\" genst rich and nuttin' for, but aint' these the ladeehs who need supportien? en iruland me bois love a good brawl and thee reech fol always pey for oor beer n' milk. yu simpley dont understaund me countree and yu try tu slap ur ideas in ma face like i slap me giant whoppper in ya wifes feace. That's not much of an argument, nor is there anything that I can rebut necessarily. I'm not \"slapping my ideas\" in anyone's face. We're simply debating the topic, as the purpose of this site is. Anyway, here are my arguments:1. There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts are good for the economy. The Congressional Research Service looked into this and analyzed tax rates since 1945 (1). Here was their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. They concluded, after looking at 65 years of rates, that tax cuts do not increase productivity, savings, or investment, but do increase income inequality, which by and of itself poses a substantial threat to the economy. 2. The Laffer Curve is plausible, but there is no evidence that we are at the peak of the Laffer curve and in danger of shrinking revenue or growth. The Economy Policy Institue had this to say about how high the rate could go (2):Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013. This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate.Furthermore, they commented in the same stae on the impact of tax rates since WWII, and came to the same conclusion as the Congressional Research Service:Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth\u2014private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity\u2014nor on overall economic growth rates.3. Corporations are getting huge breaks (3). Citizens for Tax Justice conducted a study and found, among other things, that one third of corporations they studied paid a tax rate lower than 10 percent; that, out of the 288 companies they studied, 55 enjoyed enjoyed several years of no taxes -- 203 no tax years in total -- and 111 companies, including GE, Boeing, and Exxon Mobile, paid negative tax rates; and the average corporate income tax is 19.4% only. Furthermore, there is no evidence that corporate tax rates generate growth. According to the EPI, again, not only is the corporate income tax not high by historic standards, but there is no evidence that cutting it would generate growth (4).4. We have a federal deficit we need to address, and an economy to stimulate, and simply need the money. We can get more money by raising taxes, and we know the ramifications of doing so range from negligible to zilch. So let's do it. 1. http://www.foreffectivegov.org...2. http://www.epi.org...3. http://www.ctj.org...;4. http://www.epi.org...;", "qid": 24, "docid": "d7aa69a5-2019-04-18T16:31:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6757411956787109}, {"content": "Title: We should redistribute wealth from the top 1% to the lower-middle class Content: Counter-Case I: Ambition Pro has dropped half my argument. I brought up that people were less likely to become ambitious if the Government would simply tax it all away (Pro treats 10% as though it's a small amount on top of a substantial percentage already) when they would get paid nicely to just exist in lower classes. My argument about how most of the money couldn't even be taxed was dropped entirely.Counter-Case II: Counter Pro shows that GDP and Unemployment has an adverse relation, ignoring how complicated that relationship is. Pro doesn't realize that adding a variable such as being paid to be poor would discourage high-paying employment, and therefore Unemployment would not increase. Pro mistakes the point of my earlier argument. The bubble economy will be the result of inflation. When the average person suddenly goes from 20k to 50k the value of each dollar plummets. Like printing money.==Unitomic==", "qid": 24, "docid": "260780d5-2019-04-18T15:27:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6748466491699219}, {"content": "Title: Redistribution of Wealth Content: Focusing first on your claim that the redistribution of wealth (or, more generally, resources) would somehow inherently destroy all incentive to work on the part of those from whom resources were taken, this is just patently untrue. It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e.g., about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives, CEOs still make out like bandits, the populace as a whole is no less likely to prosper (than under comparably low corporate tax rates), and nobody just abandons a highly profitable business model or product/service concept and moves to Tahiti to escape fiscal oppression. This logic applies to individuals as much as it does corporations; realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with \"only\" a paltry, say, $78,000,000. That's just pure nonsense, hogwash, bunkum on its face, and we need only common human experience and a child's understanding of economic realities to see that. It's of course an entirely empirical question what the exact \"tipping point\" would be, i.e., the rate of taxation or seizure of capital (or however you care to define it) at which incentive actually would begin to appreciably suffer, but what is beyond rational debate is that a considerable percentage of the income and assets currently earned/held by the nation's wealthiest citizens could indeed be redistributed to some particular or general demographic (e.g., the country's neediest citizens [defined in some precise way] whether employed or not, those gainfully employed but earning less than $35,000/yr., those earning less than a certain amount who also have at least two dependents [spouse and one child], those recently laid off after 20 or 25 or 30 years, whatever; the specifics hardly matter at the outset of this debate) without their incentive to do exactly what they're doing now, and have done to generate such incredible wealth in the first place, being even marginally tangibly affected. Your move.", "qid": 24, "docid": "9ef58eb0-2019-04-18T15:47:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.674802303314209}, {"content": "Title: The US should reform its Corporate Tax Content: If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies. Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.", "qid": 24, "docid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6746803522109985}, {"content": "Title: Progressive taxation acts as a discouragement to overinflated wages. There is a decreasing marginal ... Content: It is not the role of government to use tax policy to determine an acceptable wage. Wages are a reward for work done which are largely a private matter between the employer and employee. Therefore, government has no legitimate interest in using a prohibitively high marginal tax rate to discourage high incomes.", "qid": 24, "docid": "3a4e4366-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00013-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6745502948760986}, {"content": "Title: Bernie Sanders Would Hurt America If Elected Content: I will be breaking down the Con\u2019s arguments in order and debunking them. There is not much room for rambling here because of the character limit, so I apologize if the flow of my arguments is somewhat abrupt. To begin, corporate taxes in Nordic countries are actually substantially lower than rates in the USA. (http://tinyurl.com...) This is interesting because under Eisenhower when taxes were around 90%, the only people who were actually paying these marginal rates were those making over $3,425,766 when adjusted for inflation. Since these were marginal rates, they only paid it on any earnings above that threshold. http://tinyurl.com... (http://tinyurl.com...) The recent supposed rise in income inequality has not caused any decline in upward mobility. Incomes and standards of living have increased, and mobility is as strong as ever. How much the top earns has no effect on the bottom\u2019s ability to move up. Income inequality calculations are flawed, as households of different numbers are compared and do not factor in non-cash government transfer payments or taxes. A closer look at inequality reveals that it is not as prominent as suggested. Another factor left out is age; of course those in their fifties and sixties will earn more than college students and retirees. Consumption is a better measure of a household\u2019s well-being than income. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that true income inequality actually hasn\u2019t gotten worse since the 1990s. (http://tinyurl.com...) Emanuel Saez, the same economist whose studies on income earners are notoriously cited by leftists, also conducted another study on wealth inequality revealing that the top earners\u2019 share of wealth at the beginning of the 21st century is lower than it was in the early 1900s; this study however is neglected by the left. (http://tinyurl.com...) A study by the Brookings Institute tested what would happen to the gap between the poor and wealthy if the income tax on the highest earners was raised from the current 39.6% to 50%. The results showed that it would have little to no effect on inequality, and that the U.S. along with Israel, would have the worst inequality in the developed world. (http://tinyurl.com...)The Mises Institute researched the the GDP per capita (PPP) relative to economic growth and I quote, \u201cthe graphs show, on average, the freest countries are not only richer, but also grow faster in the long run.\u201d \u201cAs can be seen, on average, the freest economies have a better distribution of income according to this indicator. The argument that freer and more productive economies suffer greater income inequality is a myth built on the mistake of watching a few countries and not the entire sample.\u201d (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con\u2019s argument about GDP is irrelevant, because GDP, which is a measure of one year\u2019s production, is an inherently incorrect measure of real economic growth. Government spending and all sorts of unnecessary transactions are accounted, however this is not the only miscalculation. Imports are netted against exports, \u201cA fixture of GDP is the mercantilist mentality of treating exports positively and imports negatively. Why are exports additive to GDP while imports are deductive? If the goal of GDP is to measure the goods and services provided to people within a geographic region, imports \u2014 not exports \u2014 are the benefit. Exports are but payment for imports.\u201d The GDP distorts the performance of an economy while failing to estimate a society\u2019s standard of living. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...) The U.S. already has one of the most progressive tax codes among OECD countries, thus if they were going to work, we should expect that they would have done so already. There are also considerable negative economic consequences to a highly progressive tax code. Statistically, excessive marginal tax rates discourage work. The inevitable result of a progressive tax is reduced real economic growth. Progressive taxation is actually the most harmful to the poorer classes - the same people whom it is aimed to benefit. (http://tinyurl.com...) Empirically, higher taxes on the rich will do little to none on lowering inequality. The (Keynesian) Washington Center for Equitable Growth even points out what a top tax rate would do to 50% on the Gini Coefficient. Apparently, increasing the top rate to 50 percent would only reduce the Gini from 0.574 to 0.571.Some arguments against increasing progressivity are as follows: more revenue volatility rather than closing federal deficits, (which means larger future deficits), higher tax rates in the 1990s contributed to the 2001 recession and returning to them will damage our already weakened economy, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated economic growth, and raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses. (http://tinyurl.com...) The Con makes several arguments accusing capitalism of disproportionate wealth ownership, however, true capitalism has not been a constant in America for a long time; much of this demonization can be largely attributed to crony-capitalism (distinct difference) and the rise of corporatism, the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. (http://tinyurl.com...) Again, capitalism is blamed for inequality by the Con, although the only way to close the income inequality gap is through non-linear ideas and strategies driven through capitalism, as proven by a Harvard study conducted in 2015. (http://tinyurl.com...) Sanders has endorsed single-payer healthcare systems. He basically wants to adopt the Canadian and European model for health-care. Here are ten quick facts about the American health-care system: 1. Americans have a better survival rate for common cancers than Europeans do. 2. The same holds true in Americans versus Canadians. 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than people in other developed countries. 4. Americans have better access to cancer screening than Canadians do. 5. Lower-income Americans have better health compared to Canadians. 6. Americans spend less time waiting for a doctor than patients in the UK or Canada. 7. The people in single-payer states are more likely to say that their health-care system is not satisfactory and need to reform. 8. Americans are more satisfied with their care than Canadians are. 9. Americans have better access to new medical technology than patients in Canada or the UK. 10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of health-care innovations. American health-care has nothing to do with the free market. We do not have a fully free market with health-care. As of today, U31; of all U.S. health-care spending goes to waste. $765 billion dollars, all through the corporatist nature of our health-care system and a single-payer system, would actually only assist the collapse.The only reason Ford had to buy rubber from the Congo in order to supply his automobile assembly lines, was because the British had a monopoly on it in the 1920s. The simple fact is that this is not the fault of capitalism, rather the lack of it; under true free market capitalism, monopolies cannot form or be sustainable. The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. The Cato Institute argues against the negative and untrue claims attributed to the economic policies executed under the Reagan administration. \u201cReal economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.\u201d A full analysis of the economic impacts of his policies revealed even more. (http://tinyurl.com...) (http://tinyurl.com...)LBJ\u2019s \u201cWar on Poverty\u201d can be called a \u201cfailure\u201d for two reasons: one, the incomes and living standards of less affluent Americans were rising rapidly well before the War on Poverty began, and two, the original goal of it was not to prop up living standards artificially through an ever-expanding welfare state - which is exactly what it has done. Johnson\u2019s proclaimed goal was not one of handouts, but of self-sufficiency. The Heritage Foundation conducted a full study on this and concluded that official poverty declined and self-sufficiency improved for the same general reason that these improvements occurred before 1965: a steady rise of wages and education levels. (http://tinyurl.com...) Theft is when someone takes something that doesn\u2019t belong to them. You own yourself. Because you own your body, your labor, and what you acquire by trade, taxation is theft. Governments are institutions used by the super rich to concentrate wealth and power. Since they are not earning money by offering goods or services for us to choose from freely, theft is their primary mechanism. Taxation is just a word that makes us more likely to go along with massive, widespread, organized theft. It is not right for one person to steal. It is not right for two people to steal. It is still not right for 51% of a voting population to vote for a representative who will hire a tax collector to steal for them. A great government lie is that theft can be moral when performed by enough people and called taxation. Even if some money stolen is used for legitimate purposes, it doesn\u2019t change the simple fact that taxation is theft. I challenge the Con to answer the five questions on the link without invalidating the very notion of government itself. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "qid": 24, "docid": "b2523118-2019-04-18T13:45:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6743950843811035}, {"content": "Title: 100th Debate: Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich Content: What I want to explain is that round 1 is specifically for presenting your arguments. Round 2, the refutation is period, is to attack and disprove my argument as I will do to yours. The third is a defense of your own case, any final refutations you would wish to make, and a conclusion as to why you won the debate (usually just a paragraph or a few detailed sentences). Semantics are used by some debaters to distort words in a way to win and make the debate not what it was supposed to be, but I do not think I will have that problem with you since you don't know what it is, so just ignore that word. Anyway, let's begin. My CaseI. Laffer CurveOne of the most important things to understanding why taxes should not be raised on the rich is the Laffer curve, created and promoted by economist Arthur B. Laffer. The Laffer curve is quite simple to understand. If you have no taxes, then no money comes in to the government. Likewise, 100% tax rates don't make sense either since no one would work if they are not getting any benefit out of their work. This means that higher taxes makes people work less since there is no incentive to work more. In other words, as the tax rate gets lower from 100%, more people come back to work since they can get something out of it. Ideally, a low rate is wanted so people can work as much as they wish while giving the government more money as a result of a higher incentive to work through less taxes. Here's a nice graph: It is a fact that taxes hurt the economy since money is taken away that can be used in the private sector to expand. When people have less money, they will spend or save less, depending on what they intended to do with that money that is now given to the government. Even Christina Romer, who served as an economic adviser to President Obama, knows this. She and her husband worked on a study that was published in 2010: \"The Romers\u2019 baseline estimate suggests that a tax increase of 1% of GDP (about $160 billion in today\u2019s economy) reduces real GDP by 3% over the next 10 quarters. In addition, the Romers used a variety of statistical tests to take into account other factors that could influence economic growth at the time of the tax changes, including government spending, monetary policy, the relative price of oil, and even whether the President was a Democrat or Republican (it doesn\u2019t matter much). A summary of the statistical work estimates that a tax increase of 1% of GDP would lead to a fall in output of 2.2% to 3.6% over the next 10 quarters. \" [1] The Laffer curve is very important to understanding the economy and I do have more studies to back it up. Ideally, lower tax rates spring economic growth and with that expansion of capital more money is given to the government. II. HistoryHave the policies that I am promoting, supply-side economic policies, worked in practice? The answer is yes. There were three specific times in which policies were largely supply-side and they worked perfectly. a. Harding/Coolidge Tax CutsAn economic depression hit the United States in 1920 as a result of a wartime to peacetime transition following World War I, increased agressiveness among labor unions, and a high top income tax rate of 73 percent under the Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Republicans won the 1920 election by a landslide with candidate Warren G. Harding. What did Harding do? He enacted largely supply-side policies. The top income tax rate was reduced to 58 percent by 1923. After his death that year, his sucessor Calvin Coolidge signed more tax reductions that brought the top rate down to 25 percent. As we can see from the unemployment rate using a graph I made, we know why the Harding/Coolidge era became known as the Roaring Twenties: What about the always important real growth in gross domestic product (GDP)? During Wilson's presidency, which created the income tax, from 1913 to 1921, real GDP growth was just 1.43 percent, but during the Harding/Coolidge era it was 4.80 percent. Clearly, we understand why the Roaring Twenties was the Roaring Twenties. [2]And the wealth did trickle down, as can be noted from the ownership of new goods during the period: b. JFK's Tax CutAfter temporary economic growth from World War II, the economy went back into a slow mode even with the world adjusting back to normal. To prove this, go to the real GDP numbers which find that growth during Truman's presidency was 1.87 percent and during Eisenhower's it was 2.72 percent. Both did not perform well and did not reach over 3 percent. Keep in mind, because of the war, the top income tax rate was raised to 91 percent. It was kept this way under Truman and Ike, but JFK wanted to cut taxes and after his death got his wish of a reduction to 70 percent. Real GDP growth during the JFK/LBJ years was 5.01 percent. [2]Here's the unemployment rate: c. Reagan's Tax CutsRonald Reagan is probably the most famous example of a supply-side recovery because it is the most textbook and at the same time the only after the term \"supply-side economics\" was invented. Additionally, it is the most recent. JFK's rate remained at 70 percent until Reagan, but presidents after Kennedy decided to raise capital gains, which lowered economic activity especially during stagflation. Reagan decided to launch his own supply-side cuts that brought the top rate down to 50 percent and then to 28 percent. We once again found a quick recovery from the peak unemployment rate in 1982: Once again, here's the real GDP numbers: 2.75 percent from 1977 to 1981 (Jimmy Carter) to 3.61 percent from 1981 to 1989 (Ronald Reagan). [2]Wealth did trickle down. The number people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s. The fact is that lower taxes creates more growth in government revenue and at the same time increases economic growth. III. Capital GainsI am wrapping this up with capial gains. Here's my argument, basically. Economist and historian Amity Shlaes wrote this about a study on getting rid of the capital gains tax:\"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year. \" [4]The capital gains tax hinders the expansion of business and entrepreneurship which is necessary for every free market capitalist economy to expand, but taxes has hindered them. George Gilder writes about the history of the tax that:\"Government tax policies have done their best to deter innovation and promote mergers, creating a capital blight in which smaller companies that were attempting to expand suffered most throughout the 1970s. \" [5]Sources1. Kadlec, Charles. \"Christina Romer Knows Tax Hikes Will Kill the Recovery. \"Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.2. . http://www.measuringworth.com...3. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.4. Shlaes, Amity. \"Want to Create Jobs? First Cut Capital-Gains Taxes. \" Bloomberg. com. Bloomberg, 26 Oct. 2011. Web.5. Gilder, George. Wealth and Poverty: A New Edition for the Twenty-First Century. Washington D. C. : Regnery, 2012. Print.", "qid": 24, "docid": "1304693-2019-04-18T15:04:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.674247682094574}, {"content": "Title: The Bush Tax cuts for the top 2% should be allowed to expire. Content: This is the debate we know we will be having in 2012. As Pro I will argue that we should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2% income earners (those making $250,000 yr or more) back to the rates they were under Clinton. My opponent will argue that we should make the current tax rates permanent or even a more drastic solution in that direction if he/she sees fit. My basic argument is as follows: 1. As our national debt continues to soar we will inevitably have to make sacrifices. Spending will have to be cut in some areas which will only hurt the lower classes. We need to share this burden as a nation. 2. The Republican and conservative talking point of \"taxing the job creators\" is a mischaracterization of reality. Individuals do not create jobs, businesses create jobs. A business will hire employees if it is believed that doing so will help the businesses bottom line (profit). The taxes in question are applied the individual after that profit is made and thus has no relation to the number of employees the business employs. 3. As our capitalistic society continues to mature the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. This is harmful to us as a nation and needs to be balanced for the good of the country. 4. I understand the argument that this would hurt a fragile economy but that is irrelevant considering that the question we face is not a matter of if we will have to take a hit but how.", "qid": 24, "docid": "6af5a708-2019-04-18T18:47:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6740390062332153}, {"content": "Title: The Bush Tax Cuts have had a negative impact on the US Economy Content: President Bush enacted his final round of tax cuts in 2003, with the most notable effect of lowering the top marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 36%. While Conservatives defend Bush's actions as a no-brainer solution of rewarding the American people by giving them back more of their hard earned money, the overall impact of the tax cuts on the American economy has been negative. The Bush Tax cuts have played a role in: 1) Inflation 2) Depreciation 3) Increased interest rates 4) Failing to give middle and lower class America an economic boost 5) Overall negative net revenues 6) National debt I am not arguing against the presence of any positive ramifications or benefits from passing the Bush tax cuts. IN ORDER TO WIN THE DEBATE: MY OPPONENT MUST PRESENT A CON CASE DEFENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND ANALYZING WHY THE POSITIVE OUTWEIGHS THE NEGATIVE. The Pro must analyze and prove that the Negative outweighs the Positive. Thank you, and I await my opponent.", "qid": 24, "docid": "6d59dd56-2019-04-18T19:57:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6735007762908936}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage Is a Sound Economic Policy Content: Thank you to Ron-Paul for this intriguing debate. I\u2019ll jump right in: Con\u2019s first claim is that I am assuming that businesses will pocket the difference between marginal productivity and wages. Yet, he offers no evidence that the the opposite would be the case. In fact, his argument states \u201cFor if they were to reduce prices according to the drop in costs of production, they, in their capacity as entrepreneurs and sellers of the products, would derive no advantage from cutting wages.\u201d If, as he says, there is little gain for the business if prices were to be reduced based on the drop in cost of production, it is unlikely that a business would choose to make such a choice. It would likely choose instead to pocket at least the majority of the difference. Next is presented another mostly irrelevant argument in which Con argues that if wages are set above the marginal productivity, then employment will decrease, however, this assumes a MW that is set above the marginal productivity of most workers. My opponent\u2019s attempt to discredit my argument concern the Industrial Revolution does not achieve its purpose as his source concedes that wages were low during this period. \u201cThe factory owners did not have the power to compel anybody to take a factory job. They could only hire people who were ready to work for the wages offered to them. Low as these wage rates were, they were nonetheless much more than these paupers could earn in any other field open to them.\u201d [1] This supports my argument. I never claimed that factory owners forced people to work, nor did I claim that conditions were so good before the IR (another point addressed by Con\u2019s source). My points were that the IR provides an example of a time when people were payed below their marginal productivity, and also that when only low paying jobs are available, people will end up being forced by the situation to take a low paying job. A MW means that the lowest paying jobs will at least have some decent pay associated with them. I have demonstrated and Con has not proven that wages will necessarily remain close to marginal productivity. Conceding the Post Hoc of his R3 evidence, in R4 Con presented several new charts to support his MW-unemployment correlation claims. His first two graphs make the previously addressed assumption that a MW would be set above marginal productivity. His third graph is not to be found on his cited source #5. I suspect that he meant to cite it as source #6 as that source reveals a picture of the graph, but provides no information on what the true source of the graph is. This means that neither I, nor the readers, have a good way of verifying the information. The graph states that it is using the real MW, but does not state for what time the MW is adjusted. Next Con writes that there is \u201ca mountain of empirical evidence that the minimum wage increases unemployment particularly among teenagers\u201d and cites two studies. Although some economists have done work that would lead to such a conclusion, others disagree. A study done at the University of California concluded just the opposite [2]. Con attempts to refute my initial R2 argument with a ridiculous amount of unneeded sources such as a dictionary definition of the word positive and are based on the same unproven assumptions as the rest of his argument. I have already addressed his arguments that the MW causes unemployment and that wages will not fall without the MW. Finally, Con states that a MW of $2 would be unnecessary, however I have already explained in the previous round that without a MW wages could gradually fall and unemployed people in desperate situations would essentially be forced into working for ridiculously low wages. An interesting point concerning this is that Newsweek conducted an experiment the results of which concluded that some Americans said they would settle to work for 25 cents an hour [3]. I have shown that the MW is economically sound and necessary for a healthy society. Vote Pro!! Sources: [1]- http://www.fee.org... [2]- http://www.irle.berkeley.edu... [3]- http://www.thedailybeast.com...", "qid": 24, "docid": "9c4ebe55-2019-04-18T18:01:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6731677055358887}, {"content": "Title: Governments of resource-rich nations should impose high taxes on mining and extraction Content: The effect a high tax will have on businesses.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5b858825-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.672539472579956}, {"content": "Title: Progressive Taxation (Pro) vs Flat Taxation (Con) Content: Now let's examine my opponents scenario-Say Joe earns 1,000,000$ a month and Peter earns 10,000$ a month, but this time lets account for John who earns 1,000$ a month. Joe represents the 1%, Peter the middle class and John the poorer class. So, a liberal politician comes along and decides that John needs welfare to pay for his needs, so he sets up this progressive tax system:Joe- 50%Peter-35%John- 0%Joe, an entrepreneur, sees that his business's earning after tax have just reduced by 400,000$, so he decides to move out of the US. This has a number of effects:1. There are less jobs in the US, thus reducing Peters wages to 5,000$, and John most likely loses his job, as a result this liberal politician decides that taxation is the solution, and increases Peters tax rate to 60%2. With Joe out of the picture, the liberal politician decides to raise taxes on the middle class to account for the difference. As a result:1. Peters wages are now reduced to 2,000$ since jobs are reduced, creating an employers marked since workers now have to compete for what jobs are left. 2. Joe will now hide his money in Bermuda, and will decide to begin employing foreign workers in China or Mexico, reducing the amount of wealth produced in the US, creating a trade deficit, removing money from circulation, increasing unemployment and decreasing wages. 3. Joe will now put thousands of dollars into congress to create all of these \"tax loopholes.\"Which results in:1. Peters wages are now reduced to 1,000$ after tax as a result of higher taxes and lower wages. 2. Joe will now pay 0% taxes, while Peter and John have become both of them part of the poorer class, rather than Peter being middle class and John being lower class. 3. John's chances of becoming middle class are now just about 0 because jobs have left the country, and now the government has to fulfil more obligations, and does this by, you guessed it, taxing what is left of the middle class into oblivion until none of them are middle class anymore. 4. The entire nation becomes impoverished, and now Uncle Sam has to loan the difference from Ben Bernake. This inflates the money supply, and reduces both Peter and Johns wages via eating away at their purchasing power. These all have further consequences as a result, but for now it can be said that Peters wages are now 1,000$, whereas without the progressive tax they would have been 9,000$, and not only that, but Johns wages would have risen to that point eventually also. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, this is actually how this idea has turned out in our country experimentally, I don't even want to think about what would happen if we pushed this even further.", "qid": 24, "docid": "4aa1f178-2019-04-18T12:47:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6724971532821655}, {"content": "Title: Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth Content: The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office. These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector \u2013 real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i] [i] The White House, \u201cFact Sheet: Job Creation Continues \u2013 More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003\u201d, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html", "qid": 24, "docid": "8b2eaf6e-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00016-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6723482608795166}, {"content": "Title: The rich have paid enough already Content: I would first like to start off by thanking my opponent for his argument. It was truly of value to hear your \"opinion\". But these are the facts. If as you say you're classifying the rich 10% they still have to be making more than 155,000. When you say that the top 10% pays 75% of all income tax you are actually referring to a stat documenting what percentage of the tax bracket pays their income tax. The official statistic I on this by BankRate is that those making 188,000 or higher are only paying 35 % percent of all American taxes. Next I will address your point that we shouldn't be taking away money that could be used to boost the economy. I agree that money shouldn't be taken away from entrepreneurs... and it's not. On average entrepreneurs make 87,500 well below the top 10%. So these small business creators, are not being hurt by tax increases on the rich. Finally, I would like to talk of the question you asked me last time. \"How much do you think that they should be taxed and how are we going to motivate future businessmen to start in the US with such an anti business climate?\" Well I'll tell you. We are going to motivate a thriving economic America through a strong middle class which is supported by tax breaks that can be gotten if we can INCREASE spending on the rich. Thank you for reading my argument. I conclude my piece.", "qid": 24, "docid": "ec591ef0-2019-04-18T17:45:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6717394590377808}, {"content": "Title: Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy Content: I would like to mention my opponent has dropped his argument that there should be a 13% national tax rate, it has been forgotten for several rounds (Cameron Round One). This is especially amazing since the 13% tax rate was one of the core essentials of his primary argument. In counter to Pro R5, he claims that I 'neglect' why these loopholes exist. This is getting ridiculous, it is obvious why the loopholes exist and I am not trying to say they shouldn't have loopholes. The point of my argument was to acknowledge that an elimination of a corporate tax would have no effects on prices due to most corporations already evading taxes through loopholes. Instead of trying to attack me there, Pro should of stated that all the ma n pa businesses would benefit from the elimination of the corporate tax. And yes, shareholders must pay taxes for if they play the game right, they can reap in hundreds of times more of what they payed in taxes, this has nothing to do with the corporate tax, what Pro is inferring is a completely different tax. In Pros second argument R5, he uses the law of demand to justify how a rise of consumerism would commence. Again most major corporations already pay no taxes, there will be no fall in prices. Not only that, but prices aren't just determined if a corporation is being taxed lower, other factors such as, demand and supply take hold. And lets say we do implement a NST a decrease in taxes for the consumer would be nice for them, but this would cancel out with a increase of taxes elsewhere like products and services. Instigators 3rd argument is irrelevant, so I shall not take this into consideration. Responding to Cameron A4 R5, he concludes that he was not informed that I was talking about the wealth inequality that would sneak in with implementation of the NST. This is funny. Not only did I talk about how I was referring to wealth inequality in Rezamee R3, but I also state how income inequality is correct as well. Let me explain how these both can be witnessed in the plight of the NST. If you have a home worth 350k you can be considered a wealthy individual for owning that home, wealth inequality is when one class gets better and better life quality while another class is either stagnant or decreasing in quality of life. With a national sales tax the rich would create more CAPITOL, capitol is considered by the federal government to be a type of income, rendering my statement of income inequality true. By allowing the wealthy to create more capitol you can see real estate prices rise as well as auto-motives, which would hurt the middle and poor classes. How would these prices rise? Corporate in mentioned markets would see a rise of wealthy individuals, in race to make more cash, we could see many corporations biding for profit in raising prices in said markets (housing n cars). I highly doubt the source you got for Tennessee having a surplus is legitimate, either that or, you manipulated the source/search for your benefit. Due to Tennessee being known to take more money from the federal government than them giving back in TAXES. In summary, the National Sales Tax will only bring unbalance. . unbalance in our market, imbalance in our classes, and imbalance in our government. Not only this, but if implemented, we could see a rise of a aristocratic government which could prove fatal to democracy as we know it.", "qid": 24, "docid": "35c1b265-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6716398000717163}, {"content": "Title: 2010 US bank tax Content: 2010 US bank tax will kill jobs created/fostered by banks", "qid": 24, "docid": "36fa654a-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6712353229522705}, {"content": "Title: fdr's new deal Content: the new deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930's prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. for example the national industral recovery act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people. blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the act.", "qid": 24, "docid": "9c51f1b0-2019-04-18T18:53:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6710025072097778}, {"content": "Title: Corporate Tax Should be Lowered Content: My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.", "qid": 24, "docid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6709414124488831}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt a negative income tax. Content: Our team has demonstrated throughout the debate that a negative income tax would be less effective than any alternatives such as a welfare system. A negative income tax decreases incentive to work. The study discussed in round two found productivity loss and wage replacement as a result of the system being using used in the experiment. This is also supported by the fact that the tax supplies money instead of providing for individual needs. A normal welfare system uses programs such as food stamps to make sure recipients have only what they need, which prevents productivity loss. It is necessary for the welfare system to be more complex than a negative income tax. In order to make sure welfare is used only for what recipients need, it is necessary to have a relatively complex system. A negative income tax is simple, but it isn't an effective system because it gives money to those who don't need it, which decreases incentive to work. ConclusionOur opponent's argument rests on the assumption that a negative income tax would encourage workers to be productive, but the opposite is true. It has been proven to lead to productivity loss and wage replacement, so it is necessary to have a complex welfare system that provides for what people really need. Thanks to our opponents for a good debate, and thanks to Bsh1 for hosting the tournament.", "qid": 24, "docid": "6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6708587408065796}, {"content": "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.", "qid": 24, "docid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6705787181854248}, {"content": "Title: Obama's tax plan is idiotic. Content: I want to especially single out Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax from, which by the way, he hasnt said by how much....go figure. Right now the corporate tax rate in the United States is 35%, the second largest in the world (Japan is #1). Obama wants to raise this corporate tax rate. Do you know why we have unemployment? ITS BECAUSE COMPANIES GO TO MEXICO, CANADA, EUROPE, AND ASIA TO DO BUSINESS. Why would a corporation stay in the United States and get taxed to death when they can go to, for instance, Ireland whose corporate tax rate is 11%. Of course we're going to have more unemployment when corporations keep leaving the United States. But why wouldnt they? It makes so much sense. Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax is only going to create an even bigger problem. This isnt even about politics anymore. This is about common sense. How can you libs not see this? I forgot, you're a bunch if ideologues.", "qid": 24, "docid": "bf178f17-2019-04-18T19:41:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.670555055141449}, {"content": "Title: 'Adoption of the Populist Party's ideals would/is beneficial for the United States of America.\" Content: Corprate and State Taxesa. My opponent goes off and states how corprate taxes are a bad thing, but this is flawed based on the conclusion is that big corperations were not taxed back then and the corperations only pay 13% of their profits in taxes. Which when you are making millions of dollars isn't much. http://www.forbes.com... opponent goes to argue that this is a bad idea, but she fails to recognize the fact that we use this tax money for tons of things like Medicare, the military, vetrans benefits, agriculture, education, energy, science, transportation, and paying off our great national debt. http://nationalpriorities.org...;These thing are essential for the US economy and the nation as a whole, because what would we do without roads, a military to protect our freedom, food to feed the world, and energy to drive us. We fund education through these tax dollars and it shows that these things are key. Just type in any amount in the last link I provided for you and you can see that the taxes get spread out and our nation needs these things. You see with a corperate tax we can improve our nation as a whole and when we put money into the average American's pocket they can spend money on goods creating a supply and demand, thus creating jobs, so we can see we come a full circle with Corprate Taxes.B. In the late 1800s, the United States had a large number of growing divide between rich and poor. In Andrew Carneigie's Gospal of Wealth, he states that the rich shouldn't keep all of the profit and they should spread around the wealth for all Americans. Bryan showed that the rich can pick up were the poor left off. My opponent claims that we are the most taxed nation in the world, but this statement is flawed! http://www.aei.org... can see here the tax rates for the rich have been growing and thus showing that the rich is paying more. As debated in point a) I showed how these taxes are spread around thus showing you that the rich paying more taxes is overall good for the economy and the average joe. State control of IndustriesA. Railroads My opponent her looks at efficientcy, but what my opponent here is failing to see is that how 'evil' the private industry was and is. The railroads committed Stock Watering, http://www.aei.org... was a pratice where the owner would destroy their company's stock and once it hit a low price, would buy it up and then raise it's value in order to make a profit! This hurt investors and caused people to lose millions of dollars. Railroads also compeeted in rate wars in where a Trust would lower prices to try to undercut another buisness, thus driving worker wages down, and once the other company looses to the trust then the Trust would sky rocket their prices. This would leed to the Pullmen Car Company Strike. http://www.lib.niu.edu... see her Railroads that were uncontroled were terrible on the average joe. B. Communication My opponent is sadly wrong about the US postal service. According to a Brittish Study the US postal service is actually number one in the world. http://money.cnn.com... survay found that the US's to be the best in the world in efficientcy! Another key thing my opponent is not looking at is that if the US potal service hits all areas of the US compared to the private industry which would not include the rual areas which are indeed where most of the Populist live and reside.Direct LegislationMy opponent has dropped this last contention and I would to extend all points here. This Contention is too important to skip over, because it includes things like homerule, popular vote, and now I'll explain one things that I seemed to have left out of last round.a. Term Limits and a RefferndumThey requested that the people surving the government has term limits, because if you serve an extensive amount of time in DC you stop being a citizen of the state your from and start being a citizen of DC and start caring more about what the people in DC want compared to your state. The referndum went with this because people would talk about this, but wouldn't get this done so they state that they would send a patition around and if it had enough signatures then it would get voted upon in the next election and get made into a law if it passed.", "qid": 24, "docid": "28ebab7a-2019-04-18T17:01:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6705109477043152}, {"content": "Title: The \"FAIR\"TAX Content: I was not arguing that there is no fiscal responsibility in society today. That responsibility, however, to invest or spend is CONDITIONAL to whatever incentives / disincentives surround someone. A tax on any behavior is the same as a price increase on it. This price change can have strong effects in people's decisions (depending on how necessary the taxed behavior is). Let's note exactly how a switch from the current structure to the fair tax system would affect people in the short run. I'll note which ones I would think are positive or negative :-) 1. People would receive larger paychecks immediately (rather than applying for tax refunds at in April. (positive) 2. People would then be taxed in higher amounts for purchasing goods. (negative) 3. Yields on all investments would immediately increase (positive) 4. Corporate profits would increase making stock yields FURTHER increase (positive) 5. Efficiency in the tax code immediately improves, universally decreasing costs for people (positive) Now, that's a lot of positives in the short term. However, most economists agree that over the long term, society adjusts to any change, so let me now acknowledge that changes that would come inevitably. 1. Stock prices increase to lower yields on investment (negative) 2. Corporate profits decrease because of the competitive responses to profit (negative) 3. Price of goods decreases because of new competition, possibly beneath the prices prior to the shift (positive) 4. Investment interest decreases because more people invest (negative) Why does this happen? New investors are created because the costs of investment decrease and ALL consumers in the US have received dramatically higher paychecks FASTER. This creates more competition in the investment industry, which eventually makes investing less profitable. In some sense, I must acknowledge that those responses undermine my point, however I assert that this is a GOOD thing for our economy. If the rich receive dramatically lower interest on the investments that they WERE going to make, than the cost of investing has actually INCREASED for them. Meanwhile, the cost of investing for the poor is still lower than it was PRIOR to the change in the tax structure. Moving on, the rich, seeing that their financial investments are not reaping the profits they once hoped for, will be forced to either invest in businesses or capital if they wanted to REMAIN rich. The rich will have to become bigger spending consumers in order to stay successful. So, in the end, we are left with the rich spending MORE in the marketplace, and the poor spending less. Even if the poor only spent a small proportion less in the marketplace than they had previously, they still reap the benefits of either lower or equal prices to before while saving more. And the rich who, today, are taxed less when they invest, will eventually be induced to spend in order to earn the same amount today. I apologize for the complexity of this argument, but the true brilliance of the FAIR tax is how the structure will shake up (for the better) the entire structure of our economy today. Today, someone has to FIGHT for their taxed income at the end of each year, and they finally receive it over a year after they earned it. If they had the money earlier, they could have invested it sooner, and that could actually have earned money to improve the lives of the poor or others who live paycheck to paycheck. Worse, if you don't earn a lot of money already, the money often appears not worth doing research to fight for. The cost of getting your own money back actually exceeds the amount you could have earned. The fair tax eliminates that issue COMPLETELY, giving the poor an increase in their income that they would not, otherwise, have had. No matter how much you simplified the CURRENT system, you still are left with a system that hinders investment by taking your money first and paying you back later.", "qid": 24, "docid": "7ebf99a0-2019-04-18T19:54:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6704477071762085}, {"content": "Title: Flat Tax is Good for the Economy Content: The IRS has actually given another and more recent statement on the flat tax than what my opponent has provided you. The IRS has provided what they call the Army-Shelby Flat Tax Rate at that of 17%. Once again I remind you that this debate is about the flat tax system not a certain percentage. I could argue Hermain Cain's 9-9-9 tax system and as long as I get my points across I would win this debate on the grounds that I defended that the flat tax is benefitial to the economy. I don't have to argue a percentage. (. http://apps.irs.gov...) There is also an extemption of $35,000 which many families would fall under and would thus be TAX EXEMPT. Showing that they would not have to pay taxes. Please visit the link I provided you to see the chart. So we can see that my opponent's \"everyone doesn't win\" theory is false and null. My opponent tried to do math here and came up with a minesul number, but we can see that the 20,000 that he provided falls under the IRS's tax extemption so we do not see the impact that my opponent is warning of. If we observe the above chart we can see that it compares Flat, Progressive, and Regressive Tax. We can see that the flat tax would be the best here as it permits the same tax percentage for all. This is key when we decide to tax income instead of products as we would never be 100% sure that consumer confidence would be up and under a fair tax plan in zero consumer confidence the federal government would be making no money compared to if the average joe has a job then the government would be making money reguardless if the consumer spends their paycheck or not. (. http://one-simple-idea.com...) As a point that I've brought up earlier and my opponent has dropped was that of the simplication of the tax system under the flat tax. (. http://www.heritage.org...) Instead of having to go through the current number of 893 tax pages the new tax system treats those equally and doesn't punish those of us who contribute to the nation's wealth and ends discrimination under taxation this is something that has been harped on by the US Supreme Court. Above we can see that under the flat tax system they all pay the same exact tax rate vs. that of a Progressive tax rate. Under this system we can see that you would be getting more revenue than under the progressive tax system which is rediculous. (. http://one-simple-idea.com...) Here we can see that under the flat tax system you can get more revenue and you wouldn't be harming the average joe as much as they wouldn't be paying as much in sales tax that would come under the currnet tax system and not only that, but we have to realize that the harm that would be done under the status quo, which he DROPPED! So I'll extend those points across the board. My opponent is also incorrect on the EITC as it shows at the bottom of the page just on how much said tax system works and saves this program. We can also see in a study done by Harvard is that the income gap isn't because of revenue, but because of that of education. They found in their study that by decreasing the gap by lowering the wealth of that it decreases economic growth and thus harming the economy of richer nations. (. http://blogs.wsj.com...) So we can see that by sticking with the current economic system that we are harming our own economy conterary to belief. If enacted we can see that the flat tax would give us.1. Faster economic growth.2. Increasing economic growth and productivity via increasing incentives. Like in Russia.3. Instant wealth as all income net would increase. 4. Simplicity and fiarness. (. http://www.heritage.org...)My opponent argues that the rich will use this as an abuse, but you have to realise that under this system that more people will donate more money to charity of which we can see that the theories of Milton Friedman are coming true. In his book, Capitalism and Freedom, he showed that this tax system and charity would provide such an antidote to poor that they would replace things like Social Security and Welfare. With these things looking to give our federal government net deficets in the future with the Baby Boomers retiring we can see that it would be a great relieaf system for our government to take this burden off of their hands and they would be able to put money into more needed areas. For the EXPAT argument we can see Russia is very nationalist so it's obvious that they would be treating their expats like that and this harsh punishment helps their own economy as well. In conclusion, we can see in this debate that the flat tax is better than the status quo and I have won this debate for several reasons. We can see that my opponent did not defend the status quo and he only insisted on attacking the 28% flat, but yet to realize that there are other flat tax methods out there like Hermain Cain's 9-9-9 plan. We can see that this plan has worked abroad and that this plan will work at home and reform our own economy providing much needed relieaf and stimulas to grow our economy exponentially.", "qid": 24, "docid": "610acc43-2019-04-18T14:48:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6703802347183228}, {"content": "Title: Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment. Content: I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for instigating this debate! My opponent has provided a single flawed (as I will show) argument to support the contention. Moreover he has not bothered to back his argument with any data what so ever. The contention is that the corporation has a certain amount of money left over after transaction of all business. They can either choose to book profit or reinvest. A higher tax rate will give them the incentive to reinvest. However a higher tax rate will mean there is less money available after the business is conducted! My opponent has assumed that this money will remain same whether the tax rate is increased or decreased. Less available money will mean that in general both profit as well as reinvestment will decrease! The reasons for the less money include. 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy. If we compare effective tax rates [1][2] and GDP growth rate [3] for various countries, we see that in general countries with lower tax rates have performed surprisingly well. For example - Singapore is having a 11.5% tax is having a GDP growth of 14.5 % which is 3rd highest in the world! On other hand most of the highly taxed economies (US, Canada, Russia, France, Germany ) with 30% + taxes are stuck at 2 to 3% growth rate. However let me warn that GDP growth depends on many factors so exceptions are possible. However as we go through the data, the general trend is quite obvious. I look forward to the next round! [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://www.cdhowe.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 24, "docid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6703701019287109}, {"content": "Title: AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire. Content: Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: \"1. Tax Cuts to Help America\u2019s Small Businesses Hire and Grow. Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President\u2019s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President\u2019s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases). Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment. Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.\"", "qid": 24, "docid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00032-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6702633500099182}, {"content": "Title: Progressive Tax is better than a Flat Tax for taxation Content: Calling me a liar isuncalled for and I demand an immediate apology, and I think that name calling is needed in a debate. Sorry imabench it is comon edikite. Also please quote msaying all jos come from big companys, because I said small companys make the jobs and proved that a flat tax would help them. \"Those 50% are the ones who are almost dirt poor, they are the ones living on borderline poverty, if not already deep within poverty. They are not your snooty neighbors next door or your dickish bosses who are not paying income taxes, it is those who truly have nothing to give back because they make so little in the first place.\"Link? Scource? Please prove your point before making assumptions. 1, its not MY system dingus, 2 if your dad is taxed at a lower rate he could very easily put his new profit into a bank account instead of using it to expand his company, there's no guarantee what he, or any of the other rich people, will do with all their new money. My dad doesnt own a company, he's a doctor. So his office is a small buissness. He faors a flat tax because he says: \"A flt tax would lower tases, and I want to hire more people, and even if I have mor emoney and have enough workers, I will inveest in stocks ich will also stimulate the economy\" So right there 2 ways that help his profit and stimulate the economy, and what is a dinus. I can't refite a work that looks like a probalble insult I want to urge the Con that we are debating progressive tax vs flat tax, not the U.S. progressive tax vs Herman Cain's retarded 999 planWell your plan has the numbers because you are using the current plan, so I need that on my side to hae a similar argument quality as yours, so that being said, the 999 plan is bad how? I think simplicity is the key, your plan has 80,000 me pages right? That sounds simple, not. A flat tax shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, the rich now have far more wealth then before because their INCOME just got a hell of a lot larger. Not the profit of the businesses they own, just their INCOME that they take from corporate profits...... Personal Income/Salary does not equal the profit made from corporations that they ownWrong the burden is on evryone, and still you need to prove thata progressive tax is better, and you still havent proven how yours is benificial for making jobs, so before reticuling me you still need to prove the ecoomic benifits. And my points still stand, more jobs = everyone richer. Lessining the amount of poor. but many other filthy rich people hoard their money and do nothing with it even though their companies continue to thrive and use its own profits to increase productivityWrong! rich people want to get richer so they will eand, if you want to prove this give me a reliable scource, then we can cubut. A flat tax does not guarantee job creation at ALL. Flat taxes dont apply to corporations it applies just to people, the corporate tax code is what is used on businesses but that is not what is being debated here.... nothing garentees jobs, but I have providd more proof then you on this topic, so please give me a credile scource on this topic. A progressive tax is better for the economy then a flat tax because it brings in far more money then a flat tax ever could. If you had a low flat tax at say 9% then this country for example would be making far, far, far, far less money then it does now and that would destroy our economy. If you had a flat tax that brought in as much money as the US progressive tax for example then the rich would pay far less but the middle and lower classes would simply be crushed by the tax burden they face.....Well duh a flat tax brings in less money, but that is good. That will hlp lmit federal spending, wehich is acctually good for the sctock market because then there is less doubt. A flat tax does not create jobs,Still need scources that are written by educated politicians or economists, like mine. Forbe ran for predident in 2000. ANd the other scources are experts in the feild, and the reascources for those sites are credibal also. A flat tax would shift the tax burden from the fabulously rich to the desperatly poor, Nope ot shares the burde, and since my flat tax makes more jobs then there will be less poor. A flat tax would bring in far, far, far less money then a progressive tax would......Great that means less spending onuseless things, and they will only spend on vital tings sx: roads, bridges, armed force, etc. There are still even more benifits to a flat tax. It is mor esimpleor fines hidden behind 80,000 pages of legislation, a flat tax is easy to comprehend, so the only way to break it's laws is to not pay the small tax. One tax system that\u2019s easier to comply with would be a flat tax system that features one low rate and many fewer deductions and credits. Why doesn\u2019t Congress adopt such a system? Probably because that would mean abandoning the idea of using the tax code to advance social agendas, and politicians like the idea of trying to change people\u2019s behaviors. (1)Compared to traditional tax systems, a flat tax is extremely simple. Households get only one exemption -a generous allowance based on family size - and then pay a low rate on any income above that amount. (2)How would a flat tax work for businesses? All businesses, from the largest multinational to a corner pub, would play by the same rules. Companies would add up their receipts (how much revenue came in) and then subtract their costs (salaries, cost of raw materials, and expenses for new tools and machinery). (2)There are two principal arguments for a flat tax- growth and fairness. Many economists are attracted to the idea because current tax systems, with high rates and discriminatory taxation of saving and investment, reduce growth, destroy jobs and lower income. A flat tax would not eliminate the damaging impact of taxes altogether, but by dramatically lowering rates and ending the tax bias against saving and investment, it would boost an economy's performance. (2)If enacted, a flat tax would yield major benefits, including: Faster economic growth. A flat tax would spur increased work, saving and investment. By increasing incentives to engage in productive economic behavior, it would also boost the economy's long-term growth rate. Instant wealth creation. All income-producing assets would rise in value since the flat tax would increase the after-tax stream of income that they generate. Simplicity. Complexity is a hidden tax that requires record-keeping, form preparation, lawyers, accountants and other resources to comply with the current system. Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. (2)http://www.youtube.com...http://blog.heritage.org... (1)http://www.heritage.org... (2)", "qid": 24, "docid": "cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6700778603553772}]}
{"query": "Do standardized tests improve education?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing, if anything, has not improved student achievement. In 2002, the US slipped from the 18th spot in the world for math scores, to the 31st slot in 2009. This drop was due to standardized tests and the stress they put on the students (1). The failing attempt to improve the test scores have gotten worse as the tests get harder, which also only test a small portion of the curriculum in schools. Math and reading courses have been told to teach different information in order to cover the tests questions, resulting in a lack of regular curricular (2). (1) http://standardizedtests.procon.org... (2) http://www.education.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00008-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8211985230445862}, {"content": "Title: Resolved on balance Content: Resolved: on balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8151217699050903}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Alright, wrap up. Standardized testing fails at assessing every one's knowledge to full extend due to the lack of open answer questions, which has been proven to be the ideal way to asses knowledge.Standardized testing favors and rewards proficient students (scholarships when you get a perfect SAT score) and discriminates and punishes students under proficiency (getting put into special ed programs, not getting into colleges that they wish to attend).Standardized testing is riducously expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), and that money could go towards much better programs that actually improve the education provided in schools. So my question to you is, if it is proven not to truly asses a students knowledge, if it barres lower scoring students from succeeding in life, and if it cost an absolute absurd amount of money every year, money that could be better spend on other projects, why do we still have standardized tests?(Good luck on your debate, good idea of doing this on here before you have the real debate, that way you can really see your opponents viewpoint and main arguments, and you can fine tune your own argument. I will see you around!)", "qid": 26, "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7991291880607605}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.", "qid": 26, "docid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7946857213973999}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: Closing Argument: In my closing argument I will list some reasons for why standardized testing is an efficient way to reflect the academic value of students. 1. Gardner states \"achievement data from tests provide teachers with valuable information to improve classroom and student learning\". This is yet another quote that supports my claim that the tests to help to improve academics in class rooms. 2. Standardized testing is the best way to know how a student is doing. If schools were to go onto one on one testing it will incredibly time consuming. Also, my opponent said something about a child having problems at home. Believe it or not, a teacher can know if something is wrong from the results of an examination. 4. Standardized tests are also helpful in providing students with the pressure of taking education seriously. Many students want to go to college and they know that in order to get into a respectable college they have to score decent grades in the SAT. This \"pressure\" will cause them to take education seriously and will be beneficial in the long run. Now, I want to leave my opponent and all voters with this quote, \"While there are many purposes that can be served by assessment, they are all secondary to the improvement of student learning.\" Thanks to my opponent for this great debate and I wish all voters will vote Pro. Thank you.", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.793543815612793}, {"content": "Title: end national testing Content: National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning", "qid": 26, "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7926807999610901}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize Content: I accept my opponents definition of a standardized test in the sense that, in theory, standardized tests try to achieve the guidelines presented in the definition. I reserve the right to challenge the definition in later rounds. I will start by stating my contentions then refuting any brought up by my opponent. What is the point of school? To learn the last time I checked! Learning is defined as: acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information. [1] Schools seek to achieve this through the classroom; however, possible. I believe standardized testing impedes on a schools ability to to just that: help students learn. If we look at state's education systems today we will see that almost every states already require standardized tests for high students graduate. In fact 2/3 of students our already required to take them to pass. [9] This is an effect of No Child Left Behind requiring them to receive certain funding. [8] Looking at these we can see many of the failures that standardized testing plagues our education system with. [A] It's not fair to judge the ability of someone's entire academic career on whether or not they answer A, B, C or D on a test at one time. There is so much more to learning then that! What if you're a bad test taker? What if you got sick during the test? What if I have to go to the bathroom during the test? What if I'm just plain nervous? To know if you could pass or fail high school on the basis of 1 test it very intimidating to most students. To truly gauge a what a person has learned you must look at what they have achieved over the period of their academic career, not just 1 test. [B] Standardized testing funnels money from other subjects. If we look to No Child Left behind as an example, we can see that since it's passage 22 percent of elementary school leaders surveyed reported a decline in their art and music instruction. [2] If I want to be a preform in the arts when I grow up I won't have the skills I need because it was cut from my school to increase math education. This is not to say math is not important, but standardized testing that requires it to pass high school puts an overemphasis on it at the cost of other subjects. \"Arts and cultural industries generate $1 .2 billion in revenues, $413 million in wages, and 19,500 jobs, totaling 6% of all employment in the County\" [4] [C] High school exit exams have proven not to be any more beneficial then those not taking them in job readiness. Here are some highlights for a study done: \"Young high school graduates who obtained their diplomas in exit exam states fared no better in the labor market than their peers who obtained their diplomas in other states. These findings held in states with minimum competency exit exams and in states with higher competency exit exams. They also held for students from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. \" [3] If exit exams have no bearing a a student ability to succeed in a job, then why are we wasting time and money on them? [D] We are wasting time and money on exit exams. Not only our we wasting teaching time on taking a standardized test, but money as well. Consider the things that go preparing for a test and costs : Making the test (already costs thousands for many states), preparing for it (teachers must take time to be briefed on it, students also have to study (see point E for more info on that)), administering the test, (usually takes up to a day), grading it (think about having to grade MILLIONS OF TESTS, we do have electronic machines, but almost always someone has to go over it for mistakes. It also takes away time that could be used for teaching. )) [E] Teachers and students teach and study to the test. This creates a tunnel vision mentality where only the info that's going to be on the test is important. When you teach to the test you leave behind critical thinking skills. Just asking someone to answer A, B, C, or D does require one to look at a piece of information critically, instead their thinking only need graze the surface. [F] There's a strong luck component. If I only have to answer A, B, C, or D and I fail by one question, but the guys next to me passes by one question because he \"guessed right\" is that really fair? How does that demonstrate learning? Why should even some of a high schoolers grades to tied to something with such a high luck component? [G] If we wish to catch to other nations in the international ranking then we need to ditch standardized tests. Many other nations such as Ireland and Iceland do not use standardized testing as a means of grading students, instead electing to use performance based criteria to grade students. The ironic part of the whole situation is that they still score higher then us on international exams. Combine this with the fact we spend $9,666 a pupil [5] which is less then Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand, but still got outperformed on international standardized test. [6] [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6] . http://tinyurl.com... [8] . http://tinyurl.com... [9] . http://tinyurl.com... Standardized testing does nothing but hinder learning. The resolution is negated. 1. Purposes of a diploma I fail to see how this relates the resolution whatsoever. 2. Standardized tests certify level of accomplishment A standardized test merely means you are accomplished in selecting A, B, C, or D as the answer. As you'll see in my contention [C] this idea is supported. If standardized tests verify accomplishment shouldn't we see a difference in job readiness? \"The standards for the tests should be provided by the states and the tests built, administered, and graded by an independent organization, much in the way that SAT and similar tests are performed. \" If each state has a different test, is it really standardized? \"By keeping the tests basic, students who do not do well under the pressure of test conditions can still pass. However, student who cannot muster basic skills under test conditions cannot be expected to call up those skills under job pressures as well, so they ought not receive diplomas. \" So by making an easy test everyone can pass it! Wait, doesn't that diminish the accomplishment of passing the test? This contention would seem to contradict your earlier statement: \"The valid public purpose is to certify a level of competence to prospective employers and to schools beyond high school having admission standards. \" 3. Standardized tests establish school performance Once again this school performance only assess what the test is administered on. State's tests are almost exclusivity focused on math, reading, and science. A school has a hard time offering other subjects is they receive funding solely based on the performance of these subjects. \"Employers today consider high school diplomas only as proof that 18-year-olds attended school, according to a study released February 9 by the American Diploma Project, a consortium of three education-reform groups. . .. The project's two-year review of education in five states found that more than half of high school graduates need remedial classes in college, and most who attend college never obtain a four-year degree. Employers rated high school graduates as \"fair\" or \"poor\" on basic abilities. \" Hmmm\u2026 considering that already \u2154 of students are required already to take standardized test, this would seem to prove that standardized tests are not working. My space is limited so I had to cut my contentions and response short. More to come in round 2. I request that my opponent please number his contentions so save space when responding to them. I look forward to the rest of this debate!", "qid": 26, "docid": "168a23bf-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7891095876693726}, {"content": "Title: Test Content: This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7883955240249634}, {"content": "Title: on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Content: Hello! my name is Thomas brooks and I stand in affirmation of the resolved, On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K\"12 education in the United States. We have three contentions to bring to you today. 1\" standardized testing compares schools, 2\" Standardised testing improves k\"12 education, 3\" On balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Point one) Without standardized testing, their would be no way to compare schools, and assure that they were meeting their constitutional standards. The fourteenth constitutional amendment requires fair and equal treatment to all, under protection of the law. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of education in 1954, Officially legislated that the 14th amendment applied to all education laws. Therefore, It is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. If there is no way to compare schools, there is no way for individuals to know whether a student is receiving a substandard education, vandalising our constitutional right. Without standardized testing there would be no form of comparison and equality would not be obtainable. This leads us into our second point. Standardized testing has made tangible the quality of education a school provides, and created accountability in not just teachers and schools, but in districts and states . This has benefited educational mandates in funding in two irreplaceable ways. 1) The implementation of NCLB has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide standard and adequate teaching facilities. Study conducted by David G. Sciarra, shows direct correlation to how the instatement of No Child Left Behind created accountability to state and government to provide a standard of school safety conditions. The study focuses on, but is not limited to a number of lawsuits in states New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California where severely underfunded schools that lacked resources, and dew to the passing of the NCLB had the legal grounds to obtaining equil funding and such from the state improving the education of their students. 2) The second way standardized tests have improved education is in actually reforming state legislature dictating funding. Since the 1970\"s, when statewide standardized tests became more common, there was an increase of court cases discussing that different funding was required to support different schools. These arguments are called \"adequacy\" suits. The arguments are based in the belief that a school that supports a larger population of students, or educates students that live in poorer demographics need more state funding, and can not rely on property tax. Plaintiffs fundamentally rely upon low scores on standardized tests, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children. Standardized tests have created greater equality in school funding. Our Third contention is that on balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Test anxiety is real, and it is true that both high and low stakes standardized tests can create stress in K\"12 students. However, post primary education is also depended on high stakes assessments, similar to those of standardized tests. Students who participate in standardized tests will be more prepared to face future educational, occupational, and professional goals. Such tests include those pertaining to college admission and success, occupational licensing for trades such as law and medicine. Standardised tests are the only way to insure that individuals have the capability to obtain and equal education, key in creating safe campuses, and fundamental in legislature allocating school funding. Furthermore, Standardized tests prepare students for the stress in taking high stakes tests later in their life. On balance, standardized tests are imperative to improving k\"12 education, and benefit it in many ways.", "qid": 26, "docid": "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.786887526512146}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind Act Content: Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00061-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7841770052909851}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing sets useful baseline achievement standards. Content: It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their educational development. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across American society, so that we can help guide our national educational system onto a globally competitive path.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00065-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7837011218070984}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: First of all if you mean inconsistent in terms of a huge difference in results you are entirely wrong. Again, it will make no sense in the world for you to have major differentials between tests of the same subject. 1. Bruce Whitehead, author of \"Using standardized test results as an instructional guide\", states in his academic journal \"One school was able to use standardized test scores to improve its curriculum as well as its educational policies.\" Extremely beneficial for schools and teachers are these tests. They provide a understanding of where a student stands. To my opponent, Tests are constantly worked upon to achieve perfection. Students themselves learn their weaknesses from examinations and use exams as a way to improve their academic standards. 2. My opponent does not seem to understand where im going with the educated guess respone. What I am saying is that students who do guess on tests do not do it for every single question and pass. Behind every guess is some strategy and something from a lesson must seem familiar to the student to choose his or her answer. Having to go to summer school as my opponent says, is not a curse. If you have to go to summer school is because you do not fully understand the material and your friend who made his guess and got it right most likely had some understanding of the question. Your friend had to have some background knowgledge of the material for him to even get close to passing the examination. 3. Teachers throughout the course of the year give students information as to what would be on standardized examinations and what to look out for. To those students who still feel pressure at the time of the test, I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. I am happy you agree that it's silly. 4. Scores could with no doubt be used to improve teaching in the class rooms. The overall results of the class determine where they stand in general. Individually, students can be placed in classes with students who are also having a defiency in some aspect of the curriculum. Standardized testing proves to be efficient, not perfect of course, but a way to help students improve their academic value. Thanks to my opponent for this interesting debate. Vote for PRO!!! Good Luck 4.", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7822186946868896}, {"content": "Title: end national testing Content: National testing will improve educational equality", "qid": 26, "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7778289914131165}, {"content": "Title: rural life should be converted into urban areas Content: better education", "qid": 26, "docid": "84e782d5-2019-04-18T18:43:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7765323519706726}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind Act Content: Standardized testing sets useful baseline achievement standards.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00062-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7745038270950317}, {"content": "Title: abolish standardized tests for University Admission Content: Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance", "qid": 26, "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7743065357208252}, {"content": "Title: abolish standardized tests for University Admission Content: Standardized tests result in teachers \u201cteaching the test\u201d", "qid": 26, "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.773970901966095}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or \"standard\" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of \"standard score\" which can help interpret how far a child\"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. \"They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'\" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular \"cut-line\" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to \"assessment is powerful for improving teaching\" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher\"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7727866768836975}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: First, addressing my opponents observation of my plagiarism. I have given credit to Lisa Adams as stated: Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 I would also like to point out that the link my opponent has posted is not valid. May I also ask for the source for your definition of Standardized Testing? Contention 1: Notice how my opponent said that the only way for a child to retain information is through a standardized test. However, that is not always true. Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. Contention 2: Yes, standardized tests can compare students, but is that necessarily good? Like you stated in your last contention, standardized tests can BOOST your confidence, but when you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. Also, as I pointed out in my case, standardized testing can discriminate against students who have just moved here from foreign countries, or their families are too poor to help provide a stable learning system. This can create achievement gaps between them and middle and upper class students who are given plenty of tools and guides to help their education. Contention 3: As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. I would also like to say that my opponent's \"professionals\" are just teachers and parents. And although they are somewhat connected to standardized tests(their students take the tests), they don't have the right to be called \"professionals\". Adding to that, notice how the resolution says \"beneficial\". This means that my opponent should focus on how it is \"beneficial\", not teachers having a bias towards standardized testing. Contention 4: I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! Can you imagine what else we can do with this money, instead of using it on tests that students forget about in a month afterwards anyways? We can help support the fight against ISIS, we can advance our research on Ebola. We could do all sorts of things with the billion dollars we spend EACH year on standardized testing. Contention 5: Just because a test is \"fair\", does not mean it is \"beneficial\". A fair test could compose of random questions that anyone could answer, but that doesn't make it \"beneficial\". This argument is not relevant to this debate Contention 6: My opponent is using statistics to dehumanize students who have suicide. as they say, \"On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity.\" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS!) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not have any source or quote on this contention, making it a bias and frankly unfair contention. If my opponent were to have this contention standing at the end of the debate, I would like to kindly ask the judges to see that this contention has no warrant and should be ignored.", "qid": 26, "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7727797627449036}, {"content": "Title: standardized testing Content: Seeing that I am Pro, the burden to prove the value of standardized testing is on me. I'll begin with a resolution, defintions, and then arguments.Resolved: Standardized testing is a valuable tool in evaluating a student's proficiency in a specific subject.Defintions:Standardized testing: testing that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a \u201cstandard\u201d or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students.Valuable: of considerable use, service, or importance.Tool: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose.Proficiency: the degree of how well-advanced or competent a person is in any subject.Subject: a branch of knowledge as a course of study.Con argues that STs ought to be eliminated from schools outright. I will argue that a) STs are the best type of test that schools and teachers can use for assesment, andb) Non-STs are unfair and unreliable,and thereby they ought to stay in use.1) Standardized tests are more fair than non-standardized tests.A standardized test is the same for everyone. This means that the \"playing field,\" so to speak, is leveled. Students aren't given advantages by getting a easier test, or vice versa. This is widly different from non-standardized tests, where students are given different tests, some are easier, others are much harder. This means that the grades will not be reflective of the actual level of proficency, because the level of difficulty varies. \"If Teacher A\u2019s students achieve 1.5 years of growth in a single school year, then we need to know what she is doing and share it with others. If Teacher B\u2019s students down the hall only grow 0.75 years, then he probably needs extra coaching and support. The same with a school or a district; those achieving growth should be celebrated, while those not achieving growth should be supported. Either way, we can only determine objective growth data if tests are standardized (1).\"2) Standardized tests are useful tools for teachers.In order for a teacher to teach at his or her best capacity, assesing how well learned his or her students are is critical. \"Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn\u2019t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don\u2019t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching \u2013 and that data comes from assessments (1).\" As shown before, these assesments must be fair and accurate, otherwise they cannot be relied upon by teachers. Standardized tests can be relied upon, as you can compare scores to others to see how well your students are doing. On the other hand, a non-standardized test cannot be used for this purpose. With this in mind, I'll respond to my opponent's points.A) Taking a test is hard.The purpose of a test is not to be \"easy\" or \"simple,\" its purpose is to challenge the student to see how much he or she knows. What kind of a fair assesment would it be if we knew everyone would get every answer right because all the questions were so easy that they wouldn't even need to study for it?Also, this point does not apply to only standardized tests. It applies to any type of test. Con is not topical in showing the problems with standardized tests, he is showing a \"problem\" with tests in general (that they are difficult).B) There should be exceptions for students that feel pressured by having a timed test.Everyone feels pressure when they are timed. I feel pressure when I'm timed, but in order to assure standards, one must accept that we ought to be given the same amount of time to complete the test to make it fair. See above for an explanation on this topic.C) Standardized tests play a role in funding for schools.Yes, yes they do. I'd assume that you are referencing federal funding. In this case, I respond that federal funding only accounts for about 9% of school funds (2). If you are meaning different funding types, please specify.D) There are other ways that you would be able to decide (what classes you want to take).Standardized tests don't influence your class choices. They assess how much you know in a certain subject that you are already taking. I'm unaware of what makes you think that this decides your class scedule. Where did you get this information?That concludes all of Con's unsupported arguments. I'd ask that Con answer two things:a) Are standardized tests the best possible assesment tool for teachers?b) Are standardized tests more fair than subjective ones?I await Con.Sources:(1) http://tnscore.org...(2) http://www.aft.org...", "qid": 26, "docid": "215c5d68-2019-04-18T13:01:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7709649801254272}, {"content": "Title: State Standardized Tests Content: I shall rebut Con's criticisms of standardized tests. In so doing, I will provide reasons why standardized test are effectual via my rebuttals. Criticism 1: The tests are not necessary.Rebuttal 1: The tests are necessary. Test results provide a means by which to empirically compare students. Consider a quantitative comparison:\u201cStudent A understands 86% of the material; last year, he understood 80%. Student B understands 90% of the material; last year he understood only 65%. Student A has increased his comprehension by 6 percentage points; Student B has increased his understanding by 25 percentage points.\u201d This analysis can guide teachers to help students who are most in need of help. This is better that a qualitative comparison: \u201cStudents A and B have improved.\u201d Without a test, there's no way to know which students needs more help. Furthermore, empirical comparisons are useful in the rewarding of academic scholarships and college admission.Criticism 2: Standardized tests do not demonstrate (i.e. prove) anything. Rebuttal 2: Standardized tests demonstrate whether the test taker understands the material covered. In order to do well on an exam, the test taker must possess a sufficient level of understanding in order to pass the test. Otherwise, he will be unable to pass. Guessing is not sufficient. For example, say a student needs to answer at least 70% of the questions correctly on a test in order to pass. Say also that the particular test contains 50 questions, each of which is four-answer multiple choice. Finally, assume that the test contains no \u201cstupid\u201d answers that are obviously false. The probability of answering at least 70% correctly by chance is1 - sum [(50 choose n) * 0.25^n * 0.75^(50-n) from n=0 to n=34] = 0.00000000295194%In other words, it is impossible to do well by chance. The only way to do well is to deliberately select the correct answer. This can be done only if the test taker knows the correct answer. Thus, standardized tests demonstrate that the test taker possesses a sufficient level of understanding. Criticism 3: Creativity and imagination are more important than test-taking.Rebuttal 3: While creativity and imagination are important, it is equally important that students demonstrate an adequate understanding of academic subjects, even if no creativity and imagination are involved. Science and mathematics, for example, are not based upon creativity and imagination. Rather, these fields are based upon a rigorous, procedural application of reason and observation. The only way to check whether a student understands these vital subjects is to ask a relevant question and check to see whether the answer is correct.Creativity is still important. Often, the solution to a mathematical of scientific problem requires creative application of mastered material.Criticism 4: Tests have produced zombies.Rebuttal 4: This is demonstrably false. Some of the most productive, creative members of society are ones who have done well on standardized tests. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, average SAT score between 2090-2340, has produced 24 winners of the Nobel Prize, 44 Rhodes Scholars, 55 Marshall Scholars, and Ben Bernanke. Over 33% of astronauts are alumni of MIT. If MIT were a country, because of its entrepreneurs, the university would rank as the 11th largest in the world by GDP, ahead of Canada, Australia, and South Korea.And that's just one high score school. Schools such as Yale and Harvard and Princeton and Cambridge and Oxford have produced countless scientists, politicians, and artists. These schools all require high performance on standardized tests, yet have not produced zombies. ---Miscellaneous point: A mention of a 19th century Harvard professor.Response: Irrelevant. First, there's no source. Second, so what if some guy said something? If he was right, he was right.--- References:1. Binomial distribution2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.imf.org...=", "qid": 26, "docid": "9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7705907225608826}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: I believe that Standardized Testing is not beneficial for students K-12 in America. Standardized testing is not beneficial to students. All it does is take away from class time and cause unnecessary stress. Standardized testing does not affect student's grades grades. All it does is provide the state with how much students at different schools are learning. I think that this is an ineffective way of calculating a school's efficiency. The state should look at students' overall grades instead of forcing them to take a long test where their focus is usually lost within the first half hour. Students don't especially care about how well they do on the test, because it won't affect their overall grade. Therefore, a solution would be to (as I said before) use the students' overall grades to calculate data, or make the standardized tests part of their overall grade. Also, it usually takes around a week to take the tests. This time could be spent learning.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7698030471801758}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests ensures students learn essential information. Content: There is some information in the world that is essential to know as a means of communicating effectively and analytically with other individuals in society, whether as a citizen or in the marketplace. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be cut-and-dry and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is socially and educationally valuable. Yet, it is also true, that this essential information does not constitute all the information that a community may believe their children should know.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00070-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7697165012359619}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind Act Content: Standardized tests ensures students learn essential information.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00057-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7690834999084473}, {"content": "Title: Home Schooling Should Be Banned Content: Improves Education", "qid": 26, "docid": "ea60501e-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00016-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7684828042984009}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S Content: == Clarification ==The resolution states, \"On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.\"Let me clarify each of the terms. \"On balance\" means taking everything into consideration. In such a debate, all harms and benefits are weighed against each other to decide who wins. \"Standardized testing\" is a form of testing implemented at K-12 education in the United States, where the tests at the K-12 level are the same for all public schools. \"Beneficial\" means posing a net benefit.The burdens are shared. There's no burden of proof in this debate, only a burden of persuasion, due to the usage of \"on balance\" and \"beneficial,\" both of which make it a debate of opinions rather than a fact-claim.== Rebuttal ==Pro's case is contradictory. The position of Pro is intended to argue for the resolution. Instead, Pro argues that standardized testing is bad. He's arguing from the wrong side. Pro is arguing that different students require different forms of education, and standardized testing actually fails in doing that. Pro's own source notes that standardized testing is ineffective in doing so. Vote Con right there. Pro's argument is contradictory to itself, and fails to affirm the resolution. Regardless, I'll presume I'm taking the position of Pro and address my opponent's harms:Pro's first harm is that children learn in different ways. But Pro's source, and argument, only address primary school children, which is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution specifically regards K-12 education, and primary grade students don't link to the resolution. Furthermore, I agree that primary school children learn in different ways - but by K-12, they've all learned and prepared for this. The same set of educational portion would exist anyway, regardless of whether standardized testing exists. As such, the first harm doesn't apply.Pro says standardized testing has been linked to an \"overemphasis\" on vocational education. I have two responses: (1) overemphasis is subjective, and there's no objective reason to believe \"critical thinking in mathematics\" is more important than vocational education, and so forth and (2) I don't need to defend the status quo; as long as I can show some form of standardized testing is or would pose a net benefit, I affirm (therefore, you vote Con). This argument is also a bare assertion due to lack of sources. C1) Benefits to studentsPro concedes that testing -- in some form -- is beneficial. Testing allows parents and students to assess themselves. Such an assessment results in increase in total education for the student, and allows parents to stress on further improvement. Herbert J. Walberg (2011) says, \u201cStudents benefit directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress. Computers streamline this process by providing immediate feedback about correct and incorrect responses far more quickly and with much greater patience than teachers and tutors can provide.\u201d [1]On balance, standardized testing is a helpful form of testing to the student. John Bishop of Cornell University found that standardized testing poses huge educational value to the student. He found that countries requiring students to take nationally standardized tests showed higher test scores on international tests than those who took school-based tests. In another study, he found that US students who anticipated having to pass a standardized test learned more science and math, and were more likely to complete homework and talk with their parents about school work. [2, 3] C2) Teachers see benefit in standardized testsIt's largely agreed that standardized testing benefits teachers as well. According to Laura S. Hamilton and Brian Stecher, \u201c[S]tandardized tests can do many things: tell policymakers and families how well students are doing overall; play a role in state and district accountability systems; contribute to teacher evaluations; and inform decision-making about student course placement. Some tests are used in other ways that include teachers adapting day-to-day instruction to meet individual student needs based on each student's test results.\u201d [4] Teachers generally see standardized tests and associated accountability systems as beneficial. Teachers, therefore, do understand and perceive benefits. For all the above reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.hoover.org...[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[3] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.usnews.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.768405556678772}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: Hello - and thank for for joining my debate. I will be arguing in support of standardized testing.This is the layout of the debate: 1st round: acceptance // opening statement // opening argument2nd round: counterarguments3rd round: conclusions // final counterargumentsI am looking forward to a pleasent discussion.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1ST ROUND - OPENING ARGUMENT: I will now procede to list reasons why standardized testing is a good - benefitial way of testing:1. Jobs: Even if banned from school systems - to work for certain job forces you need to pass a standardized test to be hired. These include jobs such as: physicians, lawyers, real-estate brokers, and pilots. It would be benifitial in this way to keep standardied testing in our school systems because it will help prepare the youth ahead of time for this test which they might need to take in the future.2. Academic Standards: Standardized tests are also used to see where a student is at academically. The tests help to see if each student meets the common core standards to pass the grade - and understand the cirriculum which they need to know for the future. This is the only way to find out if the youth is truly learning the tools they need to succeed or not.3. Reliability: You might say that people can individually grade the tests what students take and see where they are at there - theit teacher for example. But teachers will sometimes be bias with their grading if they like or do not like a kid. So the only fair way would be for someone to grade the test who does not know the student - or grade them mechanically.4. Authority Approval: A study found that teachers are mostly in support of standardized testing \"by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,\" saying they \"improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.\" - ProCon.org5. Cheap: Standardized testing is a cheap and affordable way of testing pupils. Standardized tests cost less than 0.1% of K-12 education spending, totaling $5.81 per student per year: \"Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education. - ProCon.org6. Student Approval: Students also show a tremendous amount of support for standardized testing. A study found that 79% of students believe test questions are fair on standardized testing. And 71% of students think the amount of tests they need to take is just about right. So with the student's approval and teacher's approval - why change anything at all?7. Parents Approval: 75% of parents are in agreement that standardized testing is a solid and accurate way to see where a student lied academically. While 61% of parents say that the amount of testing their kids go through is a good and fair amount. So if the vast majority of teachers, students, and now parents agree with the testing - why rid of it?8. \"Teaching to the test\" may be benefitial: This is a quote from the US board of education on teaching to the test and how it may be positive: \"if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more.\" This quote shows how the US board of education is pointing out that it may be a good thing for teachers to focus on certain - core concepts that pupils need to know.9. Success already made: Lets take China as an example. China is one of the most tested countries in the world - mostly in the standardized format. China is also the 1# country who knows and embraces reading, math, and science.10. Teacher Examination: Standardized testing measures how much of the cirriculum students have learned and have understanded. If a certain class does not do well on the test as a whole - it may be possible that the teacher is not doing their job and the school can look for a replacement. This is a good way to see which teachers are doing the best they can to help their students learn - and which teachers just go for the easy paycheck.Citations: ProCon.org- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thank you all for your time - and I am looking forward to some passionate debate! ~ Sara", "qid": 26, "docid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7683289051055908}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is a good thing Content: Hello - and thank for for joining my debate. I will be arguing in support of standardized testing.This is the layout of the debate: 1st round: acceptance // opening statement // opening argument2nd round: counterarguments3rd round: conclusions // final counterargumentsI am looking forward to a pleasent discussion.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1ST ROUND - OPENING ARGUMENT: I will now procede to list reasons why standardized testing is a good - benefitial way of testing:1. Jobs: Even if banned from school systems - to work for certain job forces you need to pass a standardized test to be hired. These include jobs such as: physicians, lawyers, real-estate brokers, and pilots. It would be benifitial in this way to keep standardied testing in our school systems because it will help prepare the youth ahead of time for this test which they might need to take in the future.2. Academic Standards: Standardized tests are also used to see where a student is at academically. The tests help to see if each student meets the common core standards to pass the grade - and understand the cirriculum which they need to know for the future. This is the only way to find out if the youth is truly learning the tools they need to succeed or not.3. Reliability: You might say that people can individually grade the tests what students take and see where they are at there - theit teacher for example. But teachers will sometimes be bias with their grading if they like or do not like a kid. So the only fair way would be for someone to grade the test who does not know the student - or grade them mechanically.4. Authority Approval: A study found that teachers are mostly in support of standardized testing \"by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,\" saying they \"improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.\" - ProCon.org5. Cheap: Standardized testing is a cheap and affordable way of testing pupils. Standardized tests cost less than 0.1% of K-12 education spending, totaling $5.81 per student per year: \"Even if payments were 10 times as large, they would still not be equal to 1 percent of what American jurisdictions spend on education. - ProCon.org6. Student Approval: Students also show a tremendous amount of support for standardized testing. A study found that 79% of students believe test questions are fair on standardized testing. And 71% of students think the amount of tests they need to take is just about right. So with the student's approval and teacher's approval - why change anything at all?7. Parents Approval: 75% of parents are in agreement that standardized testing is a solid and accurate way to see where a student lied academically. While 61% of parents say that the amount of testing their kids go through is a good and fair amount. So if the vast majority of teachers, students, and now parents agree with the testing - why rid of it?8. \"Teaching to the test\" may be benefitial: This is a quote from the US board of education on teaching to the test and how it may be positive: \"if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more.\" This quote shows how the US board of education is pointing out that it may be a good thing for teachers to focus on certain - core concepts that pupils need to know.9. Success already made: Lets take China as an example. China is one of the most tested countries in the world - mostly in the standardized format. China is also the 1# country who knows and embraces reading, math, and science.10. Teacher Examination: Standardized testing measures how much of the cirriculum students have learned and have understanded. If a certain class does not do well on the test as a whole - it may be possible that the teacher is not doing their job and the school can look for a replacement. This is a good way to see which teachers are doing the best they can to help their students learn - and which teachers just go for the easy paycheck.Citations: ProCon.org- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thank you all for your time - and I am looking forward to some passionate debate! ~ Sara", "qid": 26, "docid": "828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7683289051055908}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: Pro: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the skills a student possesses. Very nice topic to debate upon. As the pro of Standardized testing, I believe the tests do accurately demonstrate how much a student has learned throughout a certain time period. I will point out my counter arguments in numerical order so that it can be clear towards the voter. 1. Consistency- If a student is knowledgeable of the material being administered in the test, then there is absolutely no reason to have a major difference in scores the first, second, or even third time the test is taken. 2. The \"Luck\" Factor- There is with no doubt that a student can guess an answer out of four choices when the test administered is a multiple choice test. But let us not forget that out of those four choices there are two wrong answers that the professional test makers create and the other two are very similar to one another. Hence, a student will have to know the material on the test so that he or she can make an educated guess. In regards to free response, a student will have to know the material being tested in order to have high results which makes a Standardized Test completely accurate in determining the academic value of a student. 3. Test Atmosphere: Pressure is just a feeling a student has that arouses from the thought of failing. If a student is well prepared then he or she doesn't feel as much pressure as a student who did not study for an exam. The Set's is without a doubt a test that measures the academic abilities of a student. Many students feel pressure because of the expectations of colleges. Many of these students who feel pressure often do well in tests. The feeling of pressure is easily dealt with if a student is confident and has studied the material that is going to be administered. 4. Standardized Tests are very beneficial towards providing teachers with a student's current level of achievement, testing the students academic value. Stan Jones, states in his article \"The Neutralization of Benefits in Standardized Testing\", that \"They can be used for assessment, the weighing of an individual student's abilities to provide better teaching\". If a teacher knows how a student is doing, he or she can help to improve their skills and the standardized tests are accurate in determining a students academic standing. Source Used: http://eserver.org... Best of Luck! Please Vote for the Pro Side of Testing!!!", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00006-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7667125463485718}, {"content": "Title: student ought not be required to take standerdized exit exams to graduate Content: Now without further adieu. .. REBUTTAL: 1) Students should have to prove what they have learned throughout the year. There are several problems with this argument. a) Just because someone passes a test does not prove that they have actually learned anything. They could have cheated on the test; gotten lucky with multiple choice answers; guessed; or memorized the material but not have actually LEARNED the material. b) There are various forms of intelligence and methods of learning. Most standardized tests don't measure improvement, or the overall education one has received. c) Certain students perform better on standardized tests than others. Just because someone might not do well on a standardized test doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't learned the material. d) As you mentioned, teachers may only teach to pass the test. A real life example is attending an SAT course. I took one, and can say for certain that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about when taking the exam. I simply knew how to deduce the right answer on that one particular test - not learn the proper function of what I was being tested on - making your point against this a moot one. 2) People are often tested in the real world. a) My opponent has not proven that people are often tested on standardized tests in the real world. Now, if he wishes to argue that people are tested in general, that is too broad of an argument because I can say that students are tested in general as well. For instance, Con writes, \"Not all tests are written on paper, and I believe those are the hardest tests. \" This has nothing to do with the contention which discusses standardized tests specifically. b) Con asserts that these standardized tests will benefit the student in the long run. He hasn't provided any arguments or evidence that proves this is the case. ARGUMENTS: 1) First off, my opponent did nothing to back up his values or criterion. He has cited: Independent Rights --> The rights guaranteed to all people by their government or society. Reason --> It guarantees that all people are given the freedom they need in order to be themselves. Teleology --> The end's affect determines whether the means are moral. How has he incorporated these into any of his arguments? I fail to see how universal rights has anything to do with students being forced to take standardized tests. Moreover, my opponent hasn't proven why people need to take these tests to be free. And finally, as I pointed out in my rebuttal, I don't see how \"the ends justify the means\" in Con's argument considering that Con hasn't shown how these tests actually benefit the student (which was his main argument). 2) Test performance. a) As I said in my rebuttal, not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. Some people panic, get sick, choke, etc. These tests are very intimidating to students who sometimes obsess over the results. Therefore one's performance on the rest is really not a very accurate indicator of how each individual performs. b) A lot of students suffer from things like dyslexia or other learning disabilities which inhibit them from performing up to par on the exam. As such, these individuals may never have a fair chance at passing the exam. On the other hand, if they're given an advantage (such as longer time to complete the test), this might not be fair to the other students who are not given more time despite their own personal (sometimes undiagnosed) need. Either way, there's hardly a way to make these exams universally fair for everyone, which goes against your very own value and criterion. 3) Learning Inhibition. a) Preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. There are various types of intelligence, including mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, logical intelligence, creative intelligence, etc. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole. b) Because people are intelligent in different ways, this test is discriminatory (which again goes against your value) because it discredits those who have intelligence beyond what is examined on the exam. 4) Alternatives. a) Considering your presented values of freedom and equal rights, I posit that if one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. 5) Usefulness/Uselessness a) Some people need to graduate HS to accomplish goals such as entering the military or other specific fields of training. I posit that some of the knowledge required on the exams will have nothing to do with some individual's direction in life, but because they need to graduate HS in order to tend to their other options, the negation of this resolution stands in their way of success. This again seems to go against Con's value. b) Studies show that those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society [1]. c) While standardized tests may be useful in finding out what one knows and does not know (in terms of what they should or are expected to know), this should have nothing to do with whether or not they GRADUATE. Instead, they can be tools or guides used to determine which areas a pupil may need more help or focus in. The graduation aspect is also supported by the reality that different schools in different towns and states require different things to pass. Not all standardized tests are the same, and as such a student from a different school may also have an unfair advantage. This again does not seem to uphold Con's value. 6) Costs a) Creating the tests, preparing for the tests, giving the tests and grading the tests all cost money. Because Con has not proven that these tests are necessary OR beneficial (or even reliable or relevant), then this cost is unnecessary and therefore his criterion of the ends justifying the means does not apply. Source: [1] . http://hsee.umn.edu...", "qid": 26, "docid": "ca5fcef-2019-04-18T19:17:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7616754770278931}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. \"Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job\" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, \"Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools\" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.", "qid": 26, "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7611994743347168}, {"content": "Title: Resolved on balance Content: I accept. I expect that I am allowed to present definitions because of the absence of an outline to the argument. The BoP is on con. [1]Beneficial: receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit [2]Balance: a state of equilibrium or equipoise [3]Standardized tests: any form of test that requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that is scored in a \"standard\" or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students. Contention 1: Testing is provably beneficial to all students. Contention 2: Standardized tests are normal tests. Contention 3: Tests help teachers recognize where students need help with learning. C1: A test is a a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something[4]. By taking a test, a student is able to see how well they know a subject. These tests can help the student assess what they need to study. This is beneficial to the student in the case where they may not know what all they do not understand, which is where a standardized test can help them. C2: A standardized test is not just the tests that you take once a year that are sent in to assess your overall knowledge, they are also, by definition, the tests you take ever so often in all of your classes. A standardized test is just a fancy way of describing a test that everyone in a class takes, whether it be 'multiple choice' or 'true or false'. C3: By taking a test, not only does the student help themselves find out what they need to learn and study, it also allows the teacher to be aware of what their students are learning, and what they are having a hard time with. Whether the teacher decides to help out individuals or their class as a whole, this can be equally efficient in addressing these types of issues. Conclusion: I have upheld my value of the beneficialness of standardized tests, that standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States, and I urge the affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://edglossary.org... [4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7611662745475769}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: By accepting this match, you agree to follow the process below: Round 1: Present Debate Cases Round 2: Recognize and attach opponent's arguments Round 3: Defend your case Round 4: Voters(Why you win) My partner and I negate today\"s resolution and stand resolved, On balance, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education in the United States. Obs 1: Even though the SAT and ACT are considered \"Standardized Tests\", not all students take them, so the Con will ignore any arguments made about them. Obs 2: If the Con can prove that there are more harms than benefits, it should be enough for the Con to win. Contention 1: Standardized Testing results in incomplete education A: Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 Quote \"Much of the research on state testing programs addresses their effects on what is taught. A common finding is that teachers report giving greater attention to tested content areas. For example, of the Virginia survey by Myran & Workman(1999), more than 80% indicated that the state Standards of Learning (SOL) test had impacted their instruction, particularly with regard to the content focus of daily lessons. \" B: Low-income and minority students are hurt the most by the emphasis on standardized test scores. \"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). \" FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. <. http://fairtest.org...;. Quote\"Students from low-income and minority-group backgrounds, English language learners, and students with disabilities, are more likely to be denied diplomas, retained in grade, placed in a lower track, or unnecessarily put in education programs. This ensures they will fall further and further behind their peers. Many drop out, some ending up in the \"school-to-prison pipeline. \" On the other hand, children from white, middle and upper income backgrounds are more likely to be placed in \"gifted and talented\" or college preparatory programs where they are challenged to read, explore, investigate, think and progress rapidly. \"-Champ Briefs Pg. 147 MPK: Standardized testing can harm the well-rounded education curriculum teachers have been teaching. Standardized testing also hurts low-income and minority-group backgrounds and discriminates against them, creating even greater achievement gaps. Contention 2: Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. A: One size fits all just doesn\"t work W. James Popham, Emeritus Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. March 1999 | Volume 56 | Number 6 Using Standards and Assessments Pages 8-15. . http://www.ascd.org...'t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx Quote\"At a very general level, the goals that educators pursue in different settings are reasonably similar. For instance, you can be sure that all schools will give attention to language arts, mathematics, and so on. But that's at a general level. At the level where it really makes a difference to instruction, in the classroom, there are significant differences in the educational objectives being sought. And that presents a problem to those who must sell standardized achievement tests. \" B. Tests do not cover what is actually taught. James Popham continues. Quote\"To illustrate the seriousness of the mismatch that can occur between what's taught locally and what's tested through standardized achievement tests, educators ought to know about an important study at Michigan State University reported in 1983 by Freeman. They concluded that between 50 and 80 percent of what was measured on the tests was not suitably addressed in the textbooks. The proportion of topics presented on a standardized test that received more than cursory treatment in each textbook was never higher than 50 percent. \" MPK: Standardized testing does not cover much of what is taught by teachers, and are too limited. Therefore, such tests cannot accurately measure actual learning by students Contention 3: Standardized testing hurts teachers A:Teachers lose control of the curriculum. Segall, Avner. [Professor at Michigan State University]. \"Teachers\" Perceptions of the Impact of State-Mandated Standardized Testing: The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) as a Case Study of Consequences. \" Theory & Research in Social Education. 2003. Web. Accessed November 4, 2015. Quote \"Exploring the relationship between teachers and standardized testing, and using the Michigan Evaluation Assessment Program (MEAP) and the discourses surrounding it as a case study of consequences, this study both combines findings from previous studies on teachers and testing and adds to them. Like McNeil\"s (2000) study, it points out how standardized testing is not simply an evaluator of a curriculum but its creator. \" B: Teachers lose control of both content and scope \"How Standardized Tests Shape--and Limit--Student Learning. \" National Council of Teachers of English. James R. Squire Office of Policy Research. 2014. Web. Accessed 8 November 2015. . http://www.ncte.org...- nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized. pdf Quote\"Standardized tests narrow the entire curriculum in many schools, often squeezing out subjects such as music, art, foreign languages, and, especially in elementary grades, social studies, because they are not included in tests. For ELA teachers, these tests also lead to subject-specific narrowing. ELA teachers are required to focus their instruction on the literacy skills measured on standardized tests. Since reading is more prominent than writing in most tests, teachers spend more time on reading rather than writing, usually focusing on comprehension, not higher-order critical reading skills. \" MPK: Standardized testing forces teachers to teach to a test instead of being allowed to facilitate learning in their preferred ways. This leads to teachers feeling inadequate and struggling to teach a curriculum they didn\"t create. Conclusion: As my partner and I have proven, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education. Standardized testing hurts minorities and low income students, and it does not cover what is taught, which causes teaching to the test.", "qid": 26, "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.760347843170166}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests are the best way for colleges to decide on potential students. Content: Resolution Negated: That standardized tests are the best way for universities to discern potential students. Examination of the Resolution: One concern I have with the resolution is whether it is meant to imply it is the best way to determine which students to accept or which applications to consider. This does not make much of a difference either way, but it is worthy of consideration. I chose to remove the stipulation \"such as the ACT and SAT\" because there are many other tests (AP, CLEP, SAT II) and if my opponent wishes to bring those up I would be willing to address them. Introduction: To start off, I do not believe that standardized tests are necessarily a bad way of rating students, only that they are not the best. Though I believe there I benefits, I will leave those too my opponent. I will focus my the first part of my argument on the flaws of standardized tests and the second part on the merits of other selection factors. C1: These tests show no favoritism and are the same for every tester on the same day. If by this my opponent means to imply that tests is objective, than it is a fair point of view. However, score trends indicate that not everyone scores equally well on standardized tests across demographics (1). Females, Hispanics, and African Americans all score lower on average on the SAT then white males. However, this discrepancy is not reflected in college grades. Female college freshman actually have higher GPA's than their male peers, on average. Considering the fact that the test is meant to test aptitude for college-level study, this is a significant problem. C2: These tests are very practical and cheap. The tests may be cheap to administer, but they are not cheap for students. The SAT test costs $45, and it is more if the student is from a country besides the US, registers late, or wants a detailed score report (1). A student's GPA costs them nothing to acquire and regards of its administrative costs, it must be computed for class rank and graduation purposes anyway. I now offer a few objections to standardized tests: C3: They provide an advantage to those with more money. There are two main reasons why the wealthy benefit from standardized tests. One is that they can afford to pay for books and other study aids that poor students cannot afford. Personally, I improved my SAT score by around 200 points by studying out of a book. Granted, it wasn't that expensive and I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but for those who are struggling to pay the bills it simply isn't an option. For those that have a great deal of money to spend, special study courses for different tests are available and they certainly seem to work. The second reason why it is beneficial to those with more money is that they can afford to take the test more times. Universities only consider a student's best scores (rightfully so) which results in many taking the tests many times. It is easy for those with more money to afford to take the test more times. C4: Standardized tests encourage poor work Standardized tests have timed segments that are far too short for effective work. The math sections of the ACT and SAT are more focused on answering many simply questions quickly than answering harder questions correctly. On the SAT, students are given 25 minutes for 20 math questions in the 2nd section. Needless to say, not many of these questions are extremely hard and students don't have time to check their work thoroughly for accuracy. The essay section is another area where this problem is most evident (2). An MIT professor found that longer essays were consistently awarded higher scores, regardless of content. He claimed it was possible to predict the grade of the essay based solely on length. The time to write the essay is only 25 minutes. The idea of writing a serious essay at a university in 25 minutes is preposterous, the essay simply encourages the students to write as much as possible in a short time. Now, here are some other factors that university admissions officials ought to consider to be as important or more important than standardized tests: C5: Admissions Essays Admissions essays give a fuller understanding of the students' intellectual capabilities by showing what their work is like when they are able to put a great deal of time and effort into it. They also give a more personal understanding of a student that allows admissions officials to gain a fuller understanding of who the student is and how well they might fit in and contribute to the community. Some universities that focus on mathematics and science, including the prestigious California Institute of Technology, put a higher focus on test scores then essays because they believe it to be a better way of gauging competence in these fields. To some extent they may be right, but college essays are becoming more open ended and provide more opportunities for students to write about their aptitude in more technical fields. To many Liberal Arts colleges, this is not even a concern. C6: Grade Point Average One of the main criticism of GPA is that it does not always reward intelligence. However, a good work ethic is just as important as intellect in a challenging college environment and they should be considered equally at the very least. Also, maintaining a high GPA requires regular high test scores in class and not one high quality performance on a single day. It can therefore be considered a better measure of long term success. Colleges look at GPA in comparison to other students at the same school, so if a teacher was unfair and awarded no A's, a student would not be penalized for a B+. Conclusion: Though standardized tests are a useful way to determine what students are good candidates for a university, they suffer from many flaws. There are other aspects of a students application that ought to be considered at least equal to standardized tests, if not more important. Sources: (1) http://www.fairtest.org... (2) http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "8ed1a49-2019-04-18T19:10:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7602885961532593}, {"content": "Title: National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information Content: Standardized tests ensures students learn the most important information. There is some information in the world that is essential to know so that, as adults, schoolchildren can excel in their jobs. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be difficult, and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is extremely valuable. A recent study of American high school seniors found that just 13 per cent could answer basic questions of American history correctly; national testing ensures that the next generation will be encouraged to learn about such history, in a fair and balanced manner, up and down the country1. 1 Banchero, S. (2011, June 15). Students stumble again on the basics of history. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal: improve this", "qid": 26, "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00025-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7601370215415955}, {"content": "Title: standardized testing should be eliminated Content: Positive Aspects of Standardized Testing 1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it. The outcome is more efficient instructional time and a simplified way of timeline management. 2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally. This can also indicate how your local area is doing compared against the national landscape. You need standardized testing to see where the problems are. Without the level knowledge that it gives, certain problems won't be recognized and dealt with. 3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. 4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years. When students take the same type of test yearly, which is adjusted for grade level, it is easy to see if a student is improving, degrading, or not changing. This assesses the teacher and the child. 5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. 6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question. According to the new York times. Standardized testing simply makes education more stable, level, cheap, adaptable, and allows for better assessment.", "qid": 26, "docid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7597305178642273}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing Content: I have two main arguments for Standardized Testing: 1. K-12 schooling only exists to prepare you for your life after you graduate, whether that be college, military, joining the workforce, etc. Standardized tests only really matter if you plan to go to college. If you intend to go to college but are against tests, you are sorely misguided as to what goes on in a college setting. Standardized tests prepare students for what is going to happen in college, as well as in most jobs where you will have to complete tasks under a deadline. It is true that school should be a place that values learning and creativity over preparation for the real world, but that is not what we are debating here and therefore is non-topical. If school actually was a place where students were encouraged to learn whatever they desired, then yes, standardized testing would not fit that model. But that is not the reality, and standardized tests fit in with the current schooling system. 2. Standardized testing provides a benchmark to measure students off of. There are numerous nationwide tests within the United States alone, as well as tests that are taken internationally. These tests give us valuable information on the next generation's competence in fields such as reading, writing, and math. While it is true that there are many ways to measure intelligence and that there are plenty of people who are intelligent but do not test well, the majority must be considered over the outliers to give us more accurate data. On top of all that, the fact of the matter is that many other ways of \"measuring\" intelligence are extremely subjective. To give a hypothetical example, if someone is a talented artist and does incredible progressive art in a style no one has ever seen before, they may still be shunned by those who do not enjoy it. Standardized tests only use certain subjects for a reason; those subjects are not subjective and can be easily measured. There is a right and a wrong answer. Art and Music are certainly things that you can be accomplished in, but they will never be things that can be used to measure a student's intelligence. In regards to the stress argument my opponent presents, welcome to the real world. Students who \"give up because they know they are going to fail\" will not survive in a high intensity work scenario anyways. Students that do good on homework and schoolwork but bomb test after test are in the overwhelming minority. 99% of the time, if you study for a standardized test and actually want to pass it, you will. The issues presented are only present in small amounts, and standardized testing benefits the students in the long run, as well as our society as a whole by providing relevant information of the intelligence of our youth.", "qid": 26, "docid": "db293567-2019-04-18T12:00:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7581935524940491}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. Content: Thank you for the response. My opponent said that pressure actually helps children to learn and become more prepared for future work places, this may be true but is irrelevant. The resulution says: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. So the fact that pressure produced by these tests can help prepare one for a future career is irrelevant becuase it does not prove that these tests appropriately represent a student's academic ability. My opponent also said that he agreed that debate was an academic pursuit and was not on the test. I agree that english,history, and writting skills can compliment one's debating. However, that does not mean that these things are equivellant to it. Once again I thank my opponent for allowing me to test this resolution. I don't know if I already said this but I will be debating this in a few months, so all feedback is appreciated! I strongly urge a CON ballot.", "qid": 26, "docid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7572396397590637}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Alright, let's go.I am assuming when you talk of \"our schools\" you mean US schools, correct?Therefore I will be basing my argumentation on the US school system.Sadly, Standardized testing is one of the cornerstones of present day US schooling. Administered generally by the state, such as the Regents examinations in NY, they are a overall assessment of a subject such as chemistry. Most states have these, or comparable, examinations, which nearly always have a direct impact on the students grade. This already creates a problem due to these reasons. The test is a one time assessment, and doesn't consider a plethora of factors that could negatively impact the score such as anxiety. Also, due for it being a one time assessment, individual growth is not considered. A teacher may have helped a student grow tremendously over the year, but the student still fails to score proficient. Adequate yearly progress (http://teaching.about.com...) which is part of the No child Left Behind project, focuses soly on that one grade. This creates a further problem, since if schools perform badly on standardized tests, the No child Left Behind project can oversee that particular school, and leave little control in the schools hands. Due to the test having a major impact on the students grade, teachers are pressured to teach to the test, under a strict curriculum that doesn't allow room for creativity on the teachers and the students part. Since the Standardized tests determine much of a students school life, several other problems arise. Minority's are at a disadvantage, since they often have inadequate educations. When they score low on standardized tests, they are placed into Special Ed programs, which they rarely can grow out of. So the standardized tests cause minority's to have less chances to progress in school, or even get admitted to certain schools (http://www.naacpldf.org...) Furthermore, Standardized tests are not an accurate examination of a students skill level. A recent study showed that colleges barred students from attending their college if they had a SAT score of under 700, stating that these students would not be able to complete college work. But on the contrary, of these students 86% actually exxeled at their college freshmens year work. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said \u201cState assessments in mathematics and English often fail to capture the full spectrum of what students know and can do. Students, parents, and educators know there is much more to a sound education than picking the right answer on a multiple-choice question.\u201d But by the virtue of standardized tests, they are often Multiple choice So when even the Secretary of Education admits state assements are not working, clearly something is wrong, and standardized tests have to be lessened, ore even completely removed.", "qid": 26, "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7569223642349243}, {"content": "Title: School Testing Content: Standardized testing costs 1.7 billion per year, this would save taxpayers a lot of money ending the madness. These tests are unreliable when measuring a student's performance. In 2011, a study found that testing does not improve student achievement. The United States has dropped in Math, Reading, and Science. The testing only measures a small portion of education. Teachers are in classes teaching a test as opposed to teaching from a book. This is only hurting education, the teachers and students should not be held accountable for poor test grades. Not all students test the same, some students test poorly, but at the same time know more than they are showing on the test. These tests do not bring a positive learning environment for the student or for the teacher, both of which are stressed. The student is stressed fearing they may not pass and can not move up to the next grade. The teacher may lose their job if some of the students do not pass this test. Testing is good to see what level students are at and what the school or teacher need to work on, but it should not be a deciding factor on anything. http://www.nap.edu... http://www.science20.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "288c2167-2019-04-18T13:45:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7561229467391968}, {"content": "Title: standardized testing should be eliminated Content: I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims, and then I will move on and create my own arguments supporting the elimination of standardized testing. ======== REBUTTALS ======== \"1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it.\" All schools have curricula that is already predetermined by the nature of the course which they are teaching. Standardized testing is not needed to give these teachers a direction. If anything, standardized testing negatively impacts education in this way, since it results in what as known as \"teaching to the test\" where teachers do not care about truly educating the students, rather, they want to see positive results when it comes to test day. For a dramatic example of teaching to the test, we have to look no further than a teacher in Texas whose school, in some classrooms, stopped teaching social studies and the sciences completely since these were not on the state test [1]. Is this the education that these children deserve? \"2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally.\" Standardized tests are extremely inaccurate at gauging the capabilities of students, and thus cannot be used in this way. This is because it is impossible to create a test that is fair to all students, and thus it creates an inaccurate representation of both those that benefit and are hurt by this inherent bias. These standardized tests also cannot account for other factors critical to learning such as motivation that are key to success. \"3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups.\" Much standardized testing, unfortunately, leads to cheating due to a pressure to obtain high standardized test scores by the students or teachers [2]. Also, to attempt to alleviate this cheating, many standardized tests have created multiple forms so that it becomes much more difficult for teachers to cheat and nigh on impossible for students. However, these again have the inaccuracies that inherently result from differences in the tests. \"4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years.\" The performance of students on any given day should obviously not be used to establish whether or not they have made progress throughout the entire year. \"5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material.\" While it may motivate students to memorize answers that will likely show up on the test, if anything, it discourages students from learning a wider range of material as sourced above, since the rest of their knowledge will not determine their results on the standardized tests. \"6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question.\" Is this an assumption that standardized tests only consist of multiple-choice questions? Many, like the SAT and PSSA do not, but under the assumption that they do, this only further encourages students to memorize concepts without learning the material. This is why many very important tests like AP Exams include free-response portions, because they are one of the most effective ways in analyzing the true knowledge of a student, as far as tests are concerned, which vastly outweighs the cost issues (which have not been shown by my opponent to be vast). =========== CONSTRUCTIVE =========== I propose that standardized tests be abolished in favor of what is known as the portfolio method. This method essentially consists of creating a file for each student and placing assignments and works of students frequently in this file. There are many benefits of this system [3]. 1) It is cheap. The amount of money that it costs to purchase some filing cabinets and folders for portfolios is minimal, and it can even be put online to further save money. 2) It is much more accurate. Instead of measuring student performance on a single day, and expecting this to account for the student's progress throughout the entire year, performance is measured constantly, which reduces stress and is inherently more accurate. 3) It encourages teaching a wider curriculum. With results based on a variety of tests and assignments given throughout the course, teachers focus on teaching the material on a chapter-by-chapter basis, instead of spending the entire course looking ahead to the standardized tests. This ensures that everything that needs to be taught for a complete understanding of the subject is taught. Since the portfolio method is much more beneficial than standardized testing, I therefore affirm that standardized testing should be eliminated. Sources: [1] http://www.www2.districtadministration.com... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this will be an enjoyable debate.", "qid": 26, "docid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.756045937538147}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, \"If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?\" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :)", "qid": 26, "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7550814151763916}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins Content: STANDARDIZED TESTING IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. WITHOUT IT, KIDS WOULD BECOME DUMB, AND DUMB PEOPLE ARE LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE THINGS THAT HARM THE EARTH AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO PRACTICE THESE THINGS, LIKE LITTERING. WITHOUT STANDARDIZED TESTING, DUMBNESS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIVERSE. THUS DESTROYING STANDARDIZED TESTING DESTROYS THE UNIVERSE!!!THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME!!! BACK TO CON! >:P", "qid": 26, "docid": "be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7528449892997742}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: On the mark: is standardized testing good for education? Hoffman 99, Today's Parents Something has changed. For years we were content to sail along, secure in the belief that Canada had one of the world's best education systems. We looked around at our literate, economically successful democracy and thought, \"We must be doing a good job of educating.\" But, at some point, that belief began to crumble. Maybe it was a reaction to more holistic education approaches introduced in the 1960s, and a growing perception that our schools turn out graduates who lack basic skills. Maybe it's because the most educated adult population in history has higher expectations of schools. Perhaps it's our shrinking global society. We know much more than we used to about what Japanese, German and American children learn in school. Do they learn times tables a grade earlier than our kids? Will that make them better software designers and widget-makers as adults?Whatever the reason, we increasingly look to Standardized tests to see if our schools measure up -- seven of ten Canadian provinces, as well as the Yukon Territory, now have some form of regular testing , usually beginning in grade three or four. Greg Gribbon of Bradford, Ontario welcomes this trend. He wants testing to confirm what his six- and eight-year-old daughters are learning and to tell him whether the school is doing its job. For Gribbon, report cards and classroom marks aren't enough. \"I've heard too many stories from parents who were told that their child was doing fine, only to find out in grade three and grade four that he couldn't read.\"So, what's a good test? \"It must have both validity and reliability,\" says David Ireland, a retired manager of research and evaluation for the former Carleton Board of Education in eastern Ontario. Validity means the test measures what you want it to measure -- for example, basic math skills. Reliability means that the same child would get the same result from one week to the next, no matter who was doing the marking.Get Congress out of standardized testing Tribune 11 Standardized testing is good for assessing the progress of a child's education and determining where to go next. That is, if the test is a diagnosis-type test. However, standardized testing -- the types done to comply with NCLB -- is seriously flawed. These tests aim to determine how a classroom, a school or a district stands in educating children. They are flawed partially because they encourage schools to teach to the test and partially because they fail to consider the contribution parents make or, more pointedly, fail to make. Teaching to the test only builds memorization skills, rather than understanding context, opinions and social aspects.Data gathered from the survey reveal important information about the impact of testing. Klein Zevenbergen Brown 06 Klein, School of Education Zevenbergen, Department of Psychology Brown,Student Personnel Administrator This paper explores how teachers manage standardized testing in schools. A survey was distributed among 20 elementary, middle, and high school teachers in a semi-rural community of Western New York. The data gathered from the survey responses reveal important information about the impact of testing on teaching. Standardized testing affects many of the teachers' focus on instruction. In many cases, teachers prepare their students year-round. Teachers provide test-related, preparative instruction, which governs most of their curricula. A few teachers admit that testing allows them to develop more focused teaching experiences for their students. Insights gleaned from this research study reveal the need to address the many challenges teachers encounter related to standardized testing.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7519768476486206}, {"content": "Title: on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education Content: Welcome to debate. org, an open debating community for all. Framework: According to google, \"is\" in the context of the resolution means \"third person singular present of be\". This impies present tense only, Therefore, as the Con, all I have to do is to prove that the status quo is not beneficial. I do not have to argue about POTENTIAL benefits of standardized testing; just the actual real world effect. If I show a detrimental effect, I ought to win the round. I do not have to advocate for NO testing, I can argue for reform. Contention 1: Exclusion A. Standardized testing excludes students with disablilities . http://web.a.ebscohost.com... Eric Badtscher-Senior Technical Writer writes that Standardized testing fails to account that not all children learn in the same manner. Also, Standardized tests exclude students who are bad at test taking from receiving higher education B. Classism and For-Profit Testing Standardized testing creates a profit motive behind testing instead of a learning motive, According to Broussard, Data Professor at NYU \"14. . http://www.theatlantic.com... He writes that \"standardized tests are not based on general knowledge. .. they are based on specific knowledge contained in specific sets of books: the textbooks created by the test makers. \" Therefore, because private companies create these tests, they contain the specific information solely in the textbook, forcing schools to rely on textbooks created by the company itself. However, since poor schools cannot afford some of these books or at least not in sufficient quantity, poor students and schools do worse under testing regimes. . http://www.omegalearning.com... According to By David Miller Sadker, PhD, data confirms that poor students, especially minorities, fail standardized tests far more often. \"Even moderate income differences could result in major test score differences. In Ohio, almost half of the students from families with incomes below $20,000 failed the state exams, while almost 80 percent of students from families earning more than $30,000 passed those same exams. \" This is unfair to poorer schools because they cannot afford these books and the students don\"t know what to expect for the test and therefore don\"t perform as well. Because these students cannot pass, this directly increases the dropout rate. C: Cheating The high stakes of these tests incentivizes large amounts of students and even administration to cheat on exams. This nullifies my opponents argument that the data is good. The data is flawed because it is tampered with and inaccurate . . http://www.scpr.org... The National Center for Fair & Open Testing found cases of cheating on standardized tests in 37 states across the country. Cheating occurred in 197 districts in the past year alone. Contention 2: Dropout rate. The goal of education is to increase the life skills of students in order to prepare them for the real world. However, standardized testing is detrimental to that by increasing dropout rates. According to Advancement Project \"10 . http://fairtest.org... \"From 1996 until 2002 (when NCLB became law), 68 of the 100 largest urban districts had rising graduation rates. Twenty-four of them achieved double-digit increases in their graduation rates, while only four had double-digit drops during that period. From 2002 until 2006, however, 73 of the 100 largest districts experienced declining graduation rates. Seventeen experienced at least a double-digit drop in their graduation rates. \" . http://www.educationworld.com... Now my opponent may claim this is only a correlation, but 28 states require students to pass a standardized test in order to pass high school. If they cannot pass than they are forced to drop out. . https://b.3cdn.net... The Advancement project also talks about how testing increases incentivization to kick out failing students. If students consistently do badly on exams than teachers have an incentive to kick them out in order to raise the average score. The Impact of dropouts is very large. . http://www.slj.com... School Library Journal reports that dropouts are 8 times more likely to be arrested. . http://lifescapesolutions.com... . http://www.statisticbrain.com... According to multiple sources dropouts commit 75% of crime. This impact is the largest in the round, as if education makes people criminals than it fails to do its job Conclusion Vote Con based off my impacts. Spelling should go Con as Pro misspelled beneficial. Thanks for the very short round", "qid": 26, "docid": "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7515013217926025}, {"content": "Title: Re-entrenches disadvantage Content: As the data obtained about tests is over ten years old and tests have been reformatted and improved, the statistics may not be wholly accurate. The resolution does not give specific standards for the test. We could choose to improve the quality of the tests by including styles suited to a broader spectrum of people (multiple choice or short answer sections as well as essay or analysis sections). It is not having standardized tests alone that is discriminating against minorities, but it is the way the tests are created. Minorities are given the same public school opportunities as majorities, so they should be tested like everyone else. We should focus our efforts on assisting them to reach the necessary level rather than eliminate all testing. In 1999, Montgomery County, Maryland, discovered the way to eliminate effects of biased testing. \". . .closing the gaps in test performance is the best way to quell the argument over the place and purpose of standardized testing\" [[Meserve, Jeanne. \"Standardized Tests under Fire.\" CNN. June 15, 1999. 24 Sept., 2009. http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/15/standardized.tests/%5D%5D", "qid": 26, "docid": "848388f4-2019-04-19T12:45:37Z-00011-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7507914900779724}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America. Framework: Cost benefit analysis. This means the side with the most amount of benefits (aff) or harms (neg) of standardized testing should win this debate. Observation: The neg has the burden to provide alternative assessments that provide credible evidence. Rules: No negative comments!", "qid": 26, "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7507808208465576}, {"content": "Title: National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning Content: Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path. improve this", "qid": 26, "docid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00018-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7499113082885742}, {"content": "Title: High school students in the US ought to be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate Content: While I think it is unfortunate that some teachers ony \"teach\" for the test, that doesn't mean the test is faulty.......it means the teacher is. Standardized tests are great because if you take human scoring out of the question the results are easy to assess and document. However, if a test has essay questions or something other than multiple choice or true/false answering you have to have humans score the results. If computer scoring is used the results are very clear. These tests are also economical to make, give and score. Another advantage is that while scoring of the individual may not be completely perfect ,it does give a good indicator of the school or class average. This helps school administrators know better what is working and what isn't within their curriculum framework. You say in your argument that \"students from across the United States are all taught different subject matters and skills.\" My point is that there should be BASICS that are enforced and proficiency in them realized before graduation. The idea of standardized testing is to remove subjective factors from assessment. As a result, standardized tests provide several advantages to admissions committees and others who need to evaluate and compare the people who take these tests. You say that standardized tests are not important in the college admission process. I beg to differ. The SATs and ACTs are not optional for universities. There is a range that they expect. Excellent grades and poor scores will not secure admission. I am not stating that great standardized test scores and poor grades will.The standardization of these tests ensures that test-takers are being measured objectively on the same material. The grading is standardized, so test scores are the same no matter who or what is scoring them. This removes any bias that might stem from the scorer. On the other hand, tests that use subjective grading might yield scores that vary widely depending on who is scoring them. Standardized tests supposedly predict how well students will perform in the schools to which they're applying. For instance, the MCAT is designed to test the skills necessary to perform well in medical school. While a good MCAT score doesn't necessarily guarantee a successful medical school experience, studies have shown that standardized tests predict success more accurately than more subjective assessments, such as interviews. In fact, interviews have been shown to have only as much accuracy as chance in predicting a student's success at a particular school. Another advantage of standardized testing is that the results can be generalized and repeated, which shows a degree of validity and reliability. An additional benefit stems from aggregation, which provides a more accurate assessment of a particular group's skills and knowledge. One individual test-taker's score may not indicate how well the test measures the body of knowledge it's designed for. However, enough people take these tests so that their aggregate scores can provide useful information, because the percentage of assessment error decreases as the sample size increases. While many people criticize standardized tests as creating a bias along a number of factors, the tests nonetheless provide a more standardized tool in comparing test-takers than many other elements that admissions committees consider when evaluating applicants.", "qid": 26, "docid": "da13af75-2019-04-18T19:16:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7496106624603271}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA Content: Well, to conclude my argument being my opponent forfeited the last round: ===CONCLUSION:=== 1) The standardized testing system does not cater for students of extremely high or low intellect. 2) The emphasis on Maths, English and Science is problematic, as it narrow3s the course away from subjects like Art and Woodwork, which are hard to standardize. 3) Failing schools often require funds to come to a sustainable level. If they are deprived of these funds, they fail and the cost of building new schools is far greater than upgrading the existing one. This drain in funds can indeed reduce welfare. 4) Standardized testing is racially biased towards Caucasians. [Source:http://www.raceandhistory.com......] I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, and judges and members for reading. Thank you.", "qid": 26, "docid": "c2119005-2019-04-18T19:28:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7493448257446289}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Standardized tests are not an effective method to determine a student's academic success. Standardized tests simplify the learning process to multiple choice answers and discourage students to think outside of the box. Students, especially those of a young age deal with a great amount of stress from test taking because they become nervous and overwhelmed with not only the testing process but the studying beforehand. Instead of enjoying school they are losing sight of the most important part of education: learning. Students are indeed learning which answers are \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" by multiple choice. Yet, isn't it most important that students are learning to understand why these answers are correct or incorrect? Don't we want our children to question and understand the information they are being taught as well as the world around them? Is that not the purpose of education in the first place? Consider the troubles these students are encountering when dealing with standardized tests and how this affects the learning process.", "qid": 26, "docid": "b760075c-2019-04-18T17:06:45Z-00003-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7492656707763672}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: Essentially, your article covers both the pro and the con. Standardized test promote teaching a test rather than teaching critical thinking. On one hand you have a student who can pass a test but fails to apply their knowledge to a real world scenario. On the other hand you have a student who can take the various facets of a problem and create a solution that adheres to the nuances and minutia of that problem. Furthermore, Thomas Armstrong analyzes short comings of the standardized testing system: Because so much emphasis is placed on standardized test results these days, teachers are spending more and more time \"teaching to the test.\" If there is something that is interesting, compelling, useful, or otherwise favorable to the development of a student\"s understanding of the world, but it is not going to be on the standardized test, then there really isn\"t any incentive to cover this material. Instead, most of classroom time consists of either taking the tests or preparing for the tests, and this shuts out the possibility of learning anything new or important. For example, because the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) only tests reading, math, and science that means that art, social studies, physical education, history, and other subjects are given far less attention than used to be the case. Standardized tests occur in an artificial learning environment: they\"re timed, you can\"t talk to a fellow student, you can\"t ask questions, you can\"t use references or learning devices, you can\"t get up and move around. How often does the real world look like this? Prisons come to mind. And yet, even the most hard-headed conservative will say that education must prepare students for \"the real world.\" Clearly standardized testing doesn\"t do this. Standardized tests create stress. Some kids do well with a certain level of stress. Other students fold. So, again, there isn\"t a level playing field. Brain research suggests that too much stress is psychologically and physically harmful. And when stress becomes overwhelming, the brain shifts into a \"fight or flight\" response, where it is impossible to engage in the higher-order thinking processes that are necessary to respond correctly to the standardized test questions. Standardized tests reduce the richness of human experience and human learning to a number or set of numbers. This is dehumanizing. A student may have a deep knowledge of a particular subject, but receive no acknowledgement for it because his or her test score may have been low. If the student were able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion, or create a hands-on project, he/she could show that knowledge. But not in a standardized testing room. Tough luck.\" (http://institute4learning.com...) At the end of the day it comes down to what you value. If we continue to put undue interest into the importance of standardized tests, we may generate a general testing template but we lose creativity and ingenuity in the long run.However, if we allow the classroom to foster creativity and critical thinking, we will in turn create a generation of people who are able to tackle the complex problems that face our world today. As it stands now, the status quo of standardized testing is detrimental to US education and should thus be reformed.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7486295104026794}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: As a person, who has lived through the standardized testing era first hand, I would like to refute the following points heavenly panda has made in support of standardized testing. 1. \" Having standardized tests, would not only make students have to do well but also teachers.\" Define, \"Doing well\" I mean, having standardized tests, does increase the pressure for students and teachers to do well, however the question is, what does it pressure them to do well on? The answer to this question is standardized tests. Growing up in the standardized test era, Most of my teachers spent the majority of their time teaching their students how to do well on standardized tests. We were taught ways to eliminate answers on the multiple choice questions, in addition to this, teachers also dumbed down their curriculum, so they would have more time teaching students how to pass the standardized tests. Students also were trained to believe that every question only has one correct answer. Any student who dared to suggest otherwise, was shot down and told that whatever the test says is the correct answer. Even when the occasional error was found on the standardized tests, Students had no method of recourse when this happened and were not allowed to challenge the validness of the test's answer. This would not be the case in the working world( Ex. The existence of the Human Resources Department.) For anyone who is reading this argument, it is now clear how problematic standardized tests are. In the working world, students will not have answer choices of A. B. C. D. or E. with only one of these answers being correct. Students will need to come up with their own answers, and understand that no answer is necessarily correct above all else. Each possible answer a person comes up with has its benefits, in addition to having its downsides. For students to succeed they will need to be able to create their own answers, and be able to weigh out the pro's and cons of each to determine which one is the best..Creating finding, and picking a correct answer is only of secondary importance as many answers could be correct, however, what employers want the most for their employees is to come up with the best possible solution to problems, not just a correct one. Lets move on to point to your second point. 2. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better. Yep, they would do better.... on standardized tests! *See rebuttal to point one. OAK P.S. We already have standardized testing in elementary, middle school and high school. I know this because I lived through it and my younger sister is living through it now. Even with the existence of standardized testing teachers still could not fail their students. The ones who tried to were yelled at and belittled if they felt a student should be held back. Plus, quite a few schools already are public with regard to the schools test scores. Its the fact that these school's mark's are public, that teachers are yelled at for trying to fail students who aren't ready to enter the next grade level. It looks bad for the school and teachers if a student fails, even if the student failed because he/she refused to pay attention and ditched every other class. Schools and teachers are scared to fail students because the school could lose its funding, and teachers could lose there job if they do. Years ago, it was the fault of the student if they failed a class, now the teacher is blamed for failing a student who made no effort to learn the material.", "qid": 26, "docid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7480405569076538}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind Act Content: Standardized tests may have cultural biases.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00008-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7463382482528687}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests Content: Yes, if you create formal standards for the education system, the tests are probably necessary. I support the abolishment of all formal standards. They are designed to ensure that all students meet a certain criteria before they move on(see: No Child Left Behind). However, this also prevents superior students from moving forward with their education because they are stuck waiting for stupid kids. Standards are a terrible system for education.", "qid": 26, "docid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7456090450286865}, {"content": "Title: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: In his round, I will be pointing out some information and then stating my own contentions. Since my opponent did not provide any definitions, I will now do so. Standardized testing- A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. Even though the first round is about stating points, I feel that it is crucial for me to point out PLAGIARISM. My opponent has given a quote by Lisa Adams. That quote was in Part A of Contention 1. And I would like to point out that my opponent did not site a source. You can compare his quote with the one www. boledebate. com/uploads/2/. .. /3-pf-standardized-testing-starter. docx. There is no difference. But now, to return to the discussion. Contention #1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. . http://www.theatlantic.com..., \"Henry L. Roediger III, a cognitive psychologist at Washington University, studies how the brain stores, and later retrieves, memories. He compared the test results of students who used common study methods\u2014such as re-reading material, highlighting, reviewing and writing notes, outlining material and attending study groups\u2014with the results from students who were repeatedly tested on the same material. When he compared the results, Roediger found, \u201cTaking a test on material can have a greater positive effect on future retention of that material than spending an equivalent amount of time restudying the material. \u201d Remarkably, this remains true \u201ceven when performance on the test is far from perfect and no feedback is given on missed information. \u201d\" If the only way to make a child retain information is taking a standardized test, then why not? Schools are created to help children learn. And if the way to achieve a strong education system is by testing knowledge and encouraging hard work, the tests must stay. psychologists such as the one I have brought up above admit that while students may not enjoy standardized testing in particular, they at the end reach their goal- to be able to remember information they learn in school and to be able to apply it. Contention #2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... \" Public school students in the state of Texas are all required to take the same state standardized tests. This means that a student in Amarillo can be compared to a student in Dallas. Being able to accurately compare data is invaluable and is a major reason that the Common Core State Standards have been adopted. These will allow for a more accurate comparison between states. \"With standardized testing, people can compare the intellectual differences between one another. In order, to know what level we are at, people must assess us based on a comparison to other people our age. Knowing a straight percent is not enough to know whether or not you are on the correct learning track or whether you are perhaps suffering in your learniang skills. Someone may take a test in New York and receive at 85. However, most of the other New Yorkers will receive 100. If you do not know how others are doing at education, you will not know how well you are doing on a larger scale. Contention #3- Proffesionals and parents support stndardized testing. . https://prezi.com... \"Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias A 2005 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll found that 60% of public school parents say the emphasis on testing in their local schools is either \"about right\" or that there is \"not enough\" testing. \" . http://standardizedtests.procon.org... \"In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least \"somewhat important\u201d as a measure of students\u2019 academic achievement, and 27% said they were \"very important \" or \"absolutely essential. \" 73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they \"have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation. \"\" Many proffesionals admit that standardized tests are beneficial to child learning. Statistics show it! Parents understand it! Teachers see benefits! The education system is currently reaching its climax because of standardized testing. With this huge support of proffesionals, there will be no reason to stop testing. Contention #4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. . http://www.pbs.org... \"The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy at Boston College compiled data from The Bowker Annual, a compendium of the dollar-volume in test sales each year, and reported that while test sales in 1955 were $7 million (adjusted to 1998 dollars), that figure was $263 million in 1997, an increase of more than 3,000 percent. Today, press reports put the value of the testing market anywhere from $400 million to $700 million. \" Money, another benefit of standardized testing. The test industry earns a lot of money on a yearly basis. This money can be used to make adjustments of out education systems. If we modify and perfect our system of learning, it will be possible to make sure that testing is even more efficient than it is currently. Investments into the future is a solution which will fit everyone. Contention #5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. . https://prezi.com... \"Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is \"about right\" and 79% believe test questions are fair. The 2002 edition of the survey found that \"virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously. \"\" Before moving on to my final arguments, I would like to clarify one thing. Students dont enjoy these tests. They consider them fair. In fact, the student body should not like testing. They should feel that it is FAIR. However, they should like learning, The enjoying of learning at the feeling that tests are fair are corrolated. Contention #6- Standardized tests raise students confidence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... \"Confidence: : a feeling or belief that you can do something well or succeed at something : a feeling or belief that someone or something is good or has the ability to succeed at something : the feeling of being certain that something will happen or that something is true\" On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity. Honestly, confidence is caused by being sure of yourself. That is what testing does. If students worked hard, they will know that they are smart. That is what happens in most of the cases. In addition, stress is caused by many other factors. So should we ban those too? Judges, I am sure that you can see why standardized testing has a positive influence on the education system. Thank you.", "qid": 26, "docid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7452414631843567}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind Act Content: NCLB standardized tests are a poor measure of school performance", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00040-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7451034784317017}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, standardized testing helps see which teachers should remain teaching. Let's say that you have a really clumsy teacher who does not teach anything at all. And you know that nobody will believe you if you tell them that the teacher is not teaching. Standardized testing is a good way to see where the teachers are at, as well as the students. Standardized testing is also not expensive at all! The average amount of students in a school is 800 and each student costs $7 for testing materials and booklets. $7 times 800 equals an average of $5,600 dollars per school with testing, which is nothing compared to what the schools make! And with the money they give to the school systems, they know that the cost is beneficial to their school.", "qid": 26, "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7447837591171265}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should NOT be banned Content: Rebuttals 1. \"SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years.\" Standardized tests are taken on one day out of a year. This day may not be a good judgement of the skills the student has. I, for example, took the Pre-ACT (which is required in my state) after getting a concussion. It is well documented that SATs are not a good judge of a student's skills. A single test score at a young age that shows below average skills may cause a student to be placed in a Special Education program, which are programs that cause a habit cycle that children rarely escape from. This, of course, harms their future. Furthermore, selection based on these programs is racially influenced, as well as influenced by district, breeding disparity. The test scores also can cause a child to be held back a year, which often does not lead to better preformance than the first year in year two. [1]2. \"SATs are not expensive at all, and only cost $7 per student\". While it may be true that the required tests taken by students are not particularly expensive, the cost of them is often not even worth what the tests will give to the student. There is no evidence that testing actually improves students scores [2] - in fact, in countries like Finland, where standardized tests have been eradicated have had higher test scores [3] than other countries. 3. \"SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material.\"Unfortunately, the idea that a teacher will be judged based off test scores leads to a way of teaching that is detrimental towards the student. Often the teacher teaches to what the child will be tested on, not in the best interest of the student. Of course, this breeds a variety of teaching in the U.S.A. I like to call \"taught to know, not to learn\". [4]4. \"SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer, etc..\"While that is true, to get into a program like becoming a pilot, lawyer, doctor, whatever else, you will have graduated from college, which almost always makes it necessary to have taken the SAT (not just a general Standardized Test, to be clear, the one that is taken by juniors out of 2200 points) and/or the ACT, which is good practice. Furthermore, optional Standardized tests would mean that students where practice in Standardized tets would be beneficial could take the tests, but where it wouldn't be (ex., I have a friend who has epilepsy and violently seizes upon taking any SATs from stress - I too am an epileptic, and tend to have seizures, though much less minor, during tests of that kind) they wouldn't have to take it. 5. \"SATs show what level a student is at.\"In essence this is just a restatement of #1. 6. \"SATs strengthen test taking skills for young ones.\"This too is basically a restatement, but I will still point out that it teaches bad skills, such as completing tests in the time limit, sitting in stressful rooms worrying, being taught that these tests are absolutely imperative to your life (which freaks children out), and being given bad mediums for preparing. Sources [1] http://beck.library.emory.edu... [2] http://standardizedtests.procon.org...[3] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...;[4] http://worklife.columbia.edu...", "qid": 26, "docid": "961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.744518518447876}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should remain in our schools. Content: I am arguing that we do need standardized testing, so my opponent has to argue for the CON side.", "qid": 26, "docid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7429733276367188}, {"content": "Title: Test Content: This is not much of a debate - but I will state some of my personal beliefs on the negative effects of standardized testing. 1. No improvements - whatsoever.The stated goal of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was \"An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.\"No child left behind - but since it was passed, the US education system has been left behind. When this legislature was signed, the US ranked 18th in math. In 2009 - seven short years later - the US had fallen to number 31. A similar drop occurred in science; reading scores have not changed quite so much. I am arguing that if the stated goal of No Child Left Behind - the program the jump started standardized testing - is to do what it says, it has not succeeded. In the same way, kids aren't succeeding as a whole. And the US education system is not succeeding, much less meeting the standards set before our younger generation. The USA recently ranked \"average\" among other world leaders in comparison to test scores. The large implementation of standardized testing has proved to be a drawback to this nation. 2. What is meaningful? Standardized testing does not measure what makes education meaningful. Gerald W. Bracey, PhD, a late education researcher, once stated that such tests cannot measure, \"creativity, critical thinking, resilience, motivation, persistence, curiosity, endurance, reliability, enthusiasm, empathy, self-awareness, self-discipline, leadership, civic-mindedness, courage, compassion, resourcefulness, sense of beauty, sense of wonder, honesty, integrity.\" These are really what kick-starts a student's interest in learning. Tests do not measure this. 3. Drill 'n kill. A five-year study by the University of Maryland found that, \"\"the pressure teachers were feeling to 'teach to the test'\" since NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was leading to \"declines in teaching higher-order thinking, in the amount of time spent on complex assignments, and in the actual amount of high cognitive content in the curriculum.\" This quality is important to me - that students get what they are learning, and understand it, instead of them remembering it for the tests and then forgetting it over summer break and the years to come. 4. Science, social studies, and the arts? A 2007 study done across the nation found that 44% of school districts were cutting time on subject areas such as science, social studies, and the arts by an average of 145 minutes per week. Why? To make time for reading and math - the majority of what makes up standardized tests. Science, social studies, and the arts should not be reduced in importance to students - even younger students. Science helps them understand the world around us. Social studies increases their understanding of the governments, cultures, and peoples of the world. The arts - art, music, etc. - can spark creativity in their young minds. Reading and math are important - but science, social studies, and the arts are subject areas that shouldn't be ignored. Testing encourages these subjects to be almost eradicated from the teachers' agendas. 5. Test preparation. Some schools spend a quarter of their time on test preparation - this wastes precious instruction time. After NYC schools' reading and math scores plunged in 2010, \"many schools imposed extra measures to avoid being shut down, including daily two and a half hour prep sessions and test practice on vacation days.\" \"On Sep. 11, 2002, students at Monterey High School in Lubbock, TX, were prevented from discussing the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks because they were too busy with standardized test preparation.\"Take some time, I say, to truly teach the subjects. Sure, some review is good. But when a large amount of instruction time is wasted on test preparation, I think the concept of standardized testing goes a bit too far. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I want to cite the website that I am getting my facts from - http://standardizedtests.procon.org...This website provides both sides of the argument on standardized testing; however, I believe that the cons outweigh the pros.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7427924275398254}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing should NOT be banned Content: In today's bustling society, technology is advancing at an exponential rate. With this rapid growth of technology, students are becoming smarter than ever. For example, not only do students have the luxury of researching things at the click of a button but students also have accessibility to a wealth of information which once would have taken days to find at a library . Because of the ease of researching , school tests and quizzes can no longer be a harbinger in determining the potential success that a student can achieve. Therefore to determine what can be accomplished by a student, a policy of taking standardized testings should be ensconced. Not only will this provide a fair and equal opportunity for all students across the United States of America, but it will also allow job employers and college admissions people to have a relative idea on whether the student would be a 'good' asset to the company. In addition by taking standardized testings, it will allow the college admissions and job employers to quickly asses the students scores and not waste more time than the admission staff has to use. Therefore, establishing standardized testing will not only allow the people to have a quick assessment of the student but it will also reduce possible wasted time on both sides of the party.", "qid": 26, "docid": "961ba92b-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7410299777984619}, {"content": "Title: NCLB testing is done more widely with greater effect Content: \"The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Student Achievement and Growth\". Northwest Evaluation Association. April 2005 - \"State-level tests tend to improve observed achievement on an independent measure, and therefore, increasing the number of grades in which state tests are given may improve achievement more.\"", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00112-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7403004169464111}, {"content": "Title: The National Curriculum provides reference points of achievement for parents and government. Content: The Blair/Brown government is obsessed with targets, though their effectiveness seems marginal to say the least. The national curriculum does not effectively measure achievement in either students or teachers. Especially under a national curriculum that uses merit based pay. Using standardized tests encourages \"teaching to the test\" (teachers giving only the information that is required to pass the test). Now all our students are do is MEMORIZE and REGURGITATE information... as opposed to actually UNDERSTANDING the material (so as to be able to apply what they have learned). Overall standardized tests are ineffective at providing the information you argue that our policy makers need, because the results are often artificial.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9e069680-2019-04-19T12:45:55Z-00017-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7382940053939819}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is not an accurate measure of ones intelligence Content: as I like to keep my opening arguments short, I will refrain from presenting much more than my simple argument Standardized testing is not an accurate measurement of intelligence. It does not encompass enough of the areas of the brain that lead to the difference in intelligence. Thank you and good luck to whoever accepts.", "qid": 26, "docid": "c7f1464d-2019-04-18T19:51:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7381488084793091}, {"content": "Title: Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning Content: Standardized testing often tests only a very limited range of skills rather than the broad range of skills we would hope our educational system is teaching. Standardized testing focuses largely on memorization, speed of recall, and critical thinking. Yet, a full education entails much more, including creativity, emotional insight, composure and dignity, physical health and an understanding of nutrition, and many other basic human values. NCLB, therefore, does not measure the most important factors in a student's education and future success and happiness. It is, therefore, useless as a measure of a student and school's performance.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00066-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7380388975143433}, {"content": "Title: Hands on learning should be mandated in every school Content: \"There is evidence that standardized tests fail to meet all of the desired affects. However, the standardized tests are also important in how schools get their accreditation and endowments. The government requires test scores to work with to make these judgments in performance. The idea of eliminating tests is in its infancy and would be extremely and unnecessarily risky to make the leap to eliminate standardized tests from our education system.\" Yes, and this indeed is the problem with the current system. It is so inefficient, yet people are reluctant to change it. Of course, a complete change in system will takes years if not decades, doing it in a matter of days or months is outrageous; nevertheless I am sure that it is necessary. In the beginning, schools should start small. Incorporate hands-on learning while still covering topics for the tests. Gather data regarding the effectiveness of hands-on learning then when enough data is gathered, a bigger change can be made. Deciding not to try applying hands-on learning at all just because it is difficult when the benefits are very clear is insane. \"here are many reasons that could explain why students are not learning important critical thinking and \"higher-order\" thinking skills. While the method in which it is being taught be a part of it, I believe the larger part of the issue is our relaxed culture that many (if not most) students take part in.\" It is true that there are several reasons, which includes lack of reading and too much messing around, but keep in mind that often, students mess around too much because they think they are not learning anything from class or can get away with skipping classes because they can still do tests easily. I've had friends and classmates that skip classes and still get As. Study also shows that part of the reasons why students are not taking part in classes because they find the class boring or that they can learn it better without participating in class. http://www.browndailyherald.com... \"There are issues with applying hands-on learning at the college level. Many students can find many activities to be trivial and quickly lose interest (I experienced that a few times), focusing on making the activities fun can actually hamper learning, failing to reflect on activities academically (usually in a lecture) ultimately makes the whole activity educationally pointless, and many abstract topics simply does not invite the idea of activities.\" I can say the same with lecture based classes. Many students find them dull and students who are non visual and auditory learners will suffer in classes like those. I am not saying to treat learning as a game. While it can still be fun, it should be emphasized that the activities are part of the learning process and should not be taken as a joke.", "qid": 26, "docid": "72a67f66-2019-04-18T16:12:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7374329566955566}, {"content": "Title: introduce year round schooling. Content: Improves student achievement.", "qid": 26, "docid": "44e1d5b3-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00009-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7373886704444885}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America Content: First, the rules have stated that you back up your claims with adequate evidence. You have not provided any evidence, so I ask that you provide evidence from now on. Your point one is saying that standardized testing takes away from class time. Standardized testing teaches things in the test, so you are saying that standardized tests teach too much about the tests and too little about the other subjects. This is another way of saying \"teaching to the test.\" According to Marcus Hirn, \"\"Teaching to the test\" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don't produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that \"if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more.\" [19]\" This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Your second point is saying that standardized testing is stressful. However, according to Jay Rakow, founder of ProCon.org, Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: \"Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned.\" [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that \"the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs.\" Standardized testing is NOT stressful, and the little stress it exhibits is normal and expected in life. Your third point is standardized testing does not affect student's grades. It actually provides the state with how students are DOING WELL. This is effective. Your solution, using students' overall grades, is ineffective. Worksheets and projects are good ways to test students about little categories here and there, but a standardized test is basically a big worksheet covering EVERYTHING. Now, onto my case. Contention 1: Standardized Testing Holds Educators Accountable (Hughes 2015) Their objectivity and ability to measure student learning, standardized tests are useful tools for holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable for success or failure. The tests help education officials pinpoint where something isn't working in a school or district. Contention 2: The alternative to Standardized Testing is Tenure, a proven failure. (Winters 2012) Their potential contribution to improving teacher quality--the single most important school based factor for fostering student learning--far outweighs the upfront cost. The alternatives to standardized testing have proved to fail, therefore standardized testing is the only possible program left. Contention 3: Standardized testing allows us to determine the most effective teaching strategies, and to make them contextually specific. Geir (2007) Several studies have examined the impacts of inquiry science interventions on measured achievement as they scale up to enactment across multiple schools involving thousands of students. In an experiment in 2006, data suggests a cumulative effect of the intervention as students participate over several years. The data describes positive achievement effects from a standards-based curriculum unit enacted in 10 urban middle schools. Contention 4: All effective educators determine instructional approach by adjusting to data revealed by assessment. More data is not bad, provided it's more accurate than no data at all. Aycock (2014) How would we know what kids know without assessments? That\"s the purpose of testing kids \" to figure out what they know and are able to do. Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn\"t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don\"t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching \" and that data comes from assessments. In sum, testing lets us know what kids know and can do, which helps us teach them better. Contention 5: Standardized Testing evaluates and improves student performance. Hughes (2015) Standardized testing is an indicator of skill. They are excellent objective indicators of student performance. The tests are designed to measure how well students learned the skills important tot meet state standards. Contention 6: Standardized Testing reveals and corrects flaws in students Flanagan (2009) Standardized testing yield quantifiable info results that can be used in screening programs, identifying students in need of further assessment. Standardized test results provide info regarding an examiner's areas of strength and weakness. Standardized tests can be used to assess students' progress over time results from a test administered in a standardized fashion can be empirically verified. This allows for results to be interpreted and ideas about an individual's skills generalized. That is why you should vote Aff.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.737246036529541}, {"content": "Title: Resolved on balance Content: I apologized for not making my style of debating clear from the beginning. I first present evidence to support the agrument I'm making, then I later make analytical arguments at the end. I see how this may have been confusing. BUT this doesn't mean my argument is false, that would be a \"fallacy fallacy\" (). And saying you don't need to present any further arguments just shows how week your argument is the first place. Now my plan for Round three is to present two pieces of evidence (I only put in the parts I thought nessary in order to save time reading) and then move on to analytical arguments to directly address your arguments. Argument 1. Why we don\"t need standardized testing http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second\"less radical and more familiar\"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: \"That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?\" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. \"To sum up, we don\"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence.\" Arguement 2. Standardized Testing Undermines Teaching http://www.npr.org... No Child Left Behind has turned into a timetable for the destruction of American public education,\" she tellsFresh Air's Terry Gross. \"I had never imagined that the test would someday be turned into a blunt instrument to close schools \" or to say whether teachers are good teachers or not \" because I always knew children's test scores are far more complicated than the way they're being received today.\" No Child Left Behind required schools to administer yearly state standardized tests. Student progress on those tests was measured to see if the schools met their Adequate Yearly Progress goals. or AYP. Schools missing those goals for several years in a row could be restructured, replaced or shut down. \"The whole purpose of federal law and state law should be to help schools improve, not to come in and close them down and say, 'We're going to start with a clean slate,' because there's no guarantee that the clean slate's going to be better than the old slate,\" says Ravitch. \"Most of the schools that will be closed are in poor or minority communities where large numbers of children are very poor and large numbers of children don't speak English. Schools undercut the opportunities for public schools, making public school students feel like \"second-class citizens.It's simply a way of avoiding the public responsibility to provide good education.\" Analytical arguments: 1. C1. by taking tests the students don't see how much they know just how much they can memorize right before taking a test; the information doesn't stick they can cram information the night before and then forget it all in a week. The purpose of education is to learn information and then use it later in the world and tests undermine that. -also standardized test don't tell the student anything they don't already know. Most students are already well aware if whether they know something or not; even if they didn't they have grades which provide more information than any test as it consists of more studies. 2. C2. we can make the term standardized tests broad enough so it covers all forms of tests. But most of the issues lie in the tests which do occur once a year as they hold the biggest impact on the students future. 3. C3. Just because a student does well on a test doesn't mean he or she know the information. Most student's don't consistently study, rather they cram all the information the night before, students who do study are much more likely to experience a block than students who cram info. (http://www.galamind.com...) -also there are, as we know today, three types of learners, tactile, audio and visual. and test only favor visual. Conclusion: Due to the lack of the pros arguments I uphold my belief to that standardized testing is NOT beneficial to k-12 education in the United States, and I urge the affirmation of the resolution.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7367412447929382}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: 1. My opponent's first arguement was that if a student is knowledgeable his test results will be consistent. I don't know where my opponent is going with this point. I provided an expert quote saying that the test results varried and were not consitent all my opponent did was say that they were in response. 2. In response to my second contention which I entitled \"The Luck Factor\" my opponent said that one still needed to know a little just to make an educated guess. Even if they are making \"Educated Guesses\" (which at the end of the day are still just guesses) you still do not have a full grasp of the material and are still just guessing. 3. My opponent said that test atmosphere is normal and if a student is prepared they will be fine. For some students being prepared will make them feel \"fine\" but for some students even undertsanding and having a full grasp of the material isn't enough. Many students still \"choke\" under pressure and can't demeonstrate an undertsanding of the material simply becuase there scared. 4. My opponent said that standardized testing is a good representation of a students academic value and also a good representation of the teachers. I belive I have already disproved this point. Standardized testing is to inaccurate to be used to represent a student or even a teacher. I thank you all and urge you all to vot CON!", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7364731431007385}, {"content": "Title: State Standardized Tests Content: None of that has to to with the debate topic. Unless you're saying that standardized tests are useless because absolute knowledge is unobtainable. That's kinda silly though. The goal of education and science are to create models of what seems to be reality, not to understand reality exactly. Absolute knowledge is unnecessary. Rockets and computers and heart surgery work just fine without absolute knowledge. But in order to become an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, a person needs to demonstrate that he possesses the required knowledge and is capable of obtaining more. Furthermore, because not everyone can be an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, there needs to be a means by which to compare people so that the most capable people are rewarded for their achievement. That's why standardized tests are necessary.", "qid": 26, "docid": "9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.735615074634552}, {"content": "Title: should standardised testing be eliminated Content: Standardised testing should not be eliminated, it should be improved and made more difficult. Why you may ask? It's simple, we as a nation are falling behind. Our kids know absolutely nothing. These test you want to eliminate help the school systems know where they need to improve. Nothing good will come from eliminating this from the school. Instead we should be pushing kids to do better and encouraging them to keep learning. Not the opposite. Without the test kids can just do nothing and still pass till they graduate and spend the rest of their life at mcdonalds.", "qid": 26, "docid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7356002926826477}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize Content: Is social advancement, lack of objective standards, and avoiding stress on students really best for students or the country? Is core competence in some subjects more important than competence in other subjects? Should employers expect a high school diploma to mean something? Those are the questions considered in this debate. I claim that exit testing from high school, done to non-trivial standards, is a basic step in restoring meaningful education. Con's arguments against the imperfections of testing apply to all tests by anyone on any subject for any purpose. All tests induce anxiety in the test taker, have imperfect questions, and can be made too simple to guarantee anything. Con's reference said that insofar as exit exams have been implemented, they are all too easy to guarantee competence. The overall failure rate is only 1%-2%, including the states with more difficult tests. Employers agree the the tests certify nothing. In this debate, I have consistently advocated raising the test standard from eighth grade competence to at least tenth grade competence. If anything, it ought to be higher than that. I raised the point that everyone from airline pilots to hairdressers must pass standardized tests, despite all the real-world limitations of testing. Con never suggested that such testing ought to abandoned, and his only counter was that high school students were too young to be stressed. Stress in part of life, and a very necessary part of learning. That applies not only to math and science, but to sports, games, debate tournaments, and even dating. No one, not even Con, suggests it is important to reduce stress in those other areas. Con argues that test anxiety is detrimental to learning. Anyone who says that they will study just as hard if there is no test as they do if there is a stiff test is a born storyteller. It is not remotely credible. Con erroneously claimed that testing costs a lot. He abandoned the point after it was shown to be less than $12 per year. Con claimed that it was unfair to a person's whole future depend on one test, but it is universally allowed to let failing students retake the test many times. Con claimed that subjects not tested are ignored, and provided some evidence that teachers ignore them. I argued that if teachers are foolishly spending time teaching eighth grade subjects to a student who is already competent at that level, then the problem lies with the teaching, not the testing. The remedy is better curriculum guidance. Beyond that, states are left to determine what subjects are tested in the exit exam and which are not. If there is too much language, math, and science and not enough of something else, educators can change the balance. Con did not respond to either argument. The organization that Con cited for international rankings, PISA, says on their web site that they only test science and that they include measures of enthusiasm for the subject, not just what students know. No matter what they test, , the European systems Con believes we should emulate are mediocre. He says we ought not use the best school systems, the ones in Asia, for comparison because \"it's ingrained in their culture that they are hard workers.\" I think that means that we need to ingrain hard work into American schools, not that we ought to strive for mediocrity. We are competing in world markets, so we need to bring our standards up to that level. Even if we somehow convince ourselves that mediocrity is good enough, it should be an honest mediocrity measured by objective testing, not by awarding fraudulent diplomas. Meaningful testing would raise standards and reward those who do work hard with meaningful diplomas. The benefits of exit exams are to provide employers and others with an objective certification of competence. Con's objections are largely trivial; the best school systems rely on standardized testing and get the best results as a consequence. Objective standardized tests also indicate how well schools are doing their jobs, and we need to know that to know which need improvement. The resolution is affirmed.", "qid": 26, "docid": "168a23bf-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7355635166168213}, {"content": "Title: A teacher's pay should be merit-based. Content: Thanks again to my opponent for what continues to be an interesting and stimulating debate. I will adopt the same approach as my opponent has done in this round and begin with general arguments before moving on to specifics. My opponent and I agree that the current system of standardised testing is inherently flawed. We also both agree that the current situation where schools in more privileged socio-economic areas attract the best teachers because of higher salaries is unfair and not in the interests of improving the education of the population as a whole. I have proposed a system of equal pay with bonuses awarded to teachers who can demonstrate the most significant improvements in individuals learning, based around independent peer evaluation. I believe this would alleviate most of the problems in the education system that my opponent describes. She maintains that peer evaluation is non-viable and that the problems she outlines are tied directly to the idea of merit-based pay. It is these contentions that I will attempt to disprove in this round. \"1. The peer evaluation system is not politically, logistically, or ethically viable, or at least not moreso than a standardized testing model.\" I believe that the fairtest.org article clearly argues that it is ethically and logistically preferable to standardised testing. As for party politics, as I suggested in the previous round these should not be allowed to get in the way of the fact that we 'should' be implementing the best policies possible. \"a. It isn't universally applicable in any way: keep in mind that my opponent clearly conceded that, in order to pay a teacher based on merit, the measurement of the merit must be universally established.\" Sincere apologies to my opponent if I have misled her in any way, but I'm not sure what I said that suggested I conceded this fact. I don't remember arguing for a universal testing system and don't advocate one, I believe the pupils should be assessed on their individual achievements not on their conformance to a standardised grade or even curriculum. I did suggest a universal basic rate of pay for teachers (before merit-based bonuses) so maybe this is where the confusion arises. \"Which teachers will assess? How will the localities be assigned assessment teachers? How will we ensure that all assessors have the same concept of how to meet educational goals?.... ....b. It isn't logistically possible: teachers are already incredibly pressed for time, especially with shrinking budgets and school years..... ....c. It doesn't solve the problem of flawed assessment systems: how will peer evaluating teachers measure academic success? Via grades? GPA? Test scores? Project results?\" I don't claim to have all the answers to making peer-evaluation work, but I think the panel of independent judges assessing student performance as described in the fairtest.org article sounds like a decent model. As I said I don't necessarily support a standardised curriculum, but trained judges should be able to accurately assess whether a pupil's knowledge and academic abilities have improved without resorting to such a system and without as much opportunity for the teacher who will be rewarded being able to unfairly manipulate the results. Remember that we want teachers to be motivated to do their best to improve their students results. We just need to make sure they do this fairly. A system that rewards the bad teachers and the good the same does not motivate either to try harder. \"1. I've disproved my opponents alternative as viable above. I also would like to point out his concession on accountability requiring universal standards, which is key to why his alternative cannot be successful. 2. Corruption is inherent in merit-based pay.\" I don't think proving that there would be difficulties in implementing something is the same as proving it non-viable, certainly not the same as proving it should not be a desired course of action. Again ,apologies but don't recall making this concession and can't find it when scanning through previous rounds. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I do not believe my opponent has proved that corruption is inherent to merit-based pay. \"states were not doing this until their educational performance affected school budgets. It is directly analogous to the affect merit pay will have on individual schools and students.\" I see these as two distinct situations, not directly analogous at all. In my model which is just one of countless hypothetical ones you could apply, bonuses would apply to individual teachers not school or state budgets, which would be a very different case. \"3. The problems of socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic locations will still exist within that utopian plan. These problems are inherent with or without peer evaluation. There is nothing to say that a given peer evaluation team would not be a suburban team coming into a rural school, or an urban team coming into a suburban school, where the learning environment can be completely different.\" I think the fairtest.org article again makes it clear that for such a system to work \"it is necessary to enact safeguards to ensure that race, class, gender, linguistic or other cultural biases do not affect evaluation.\" So there is something in my argument to say that such a situation as described by my opponent should not occur. \"my scenario of teachers flocking to places where merit-based pay is far more likely will become a quick reality.\" Yes but in the \"utopian\" system these places would be exactly those where performance is lowest and are in most need of good teachers. This would ultimately be of great benefit to society as a whole, a better educated populace being more economically sound and (in theory at least) having more regard for law, order and decency. \"The public will not accept, and should not accept, two classrooms of the same grade with vastly different abilities.\" There will always be children in every classroom with vastly different abilities. People are all better at different things. The idea of every child nationwide of a certain grade being at exactly the same level of achievement can not be a reality, so why every class? \"Improvement is only a piece of achievement, as my opponent admits in his initial debate posting.\" Maybe this then was perceived as my concession of universal standards: \"this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils.\" I can see how my use of 'merely' could have been misconstrued to suggest the notion of incorporating but I think 'rather' makes my real position clearer. \"2. While you may think it is easy to implement, two things stand in the way of us accepting this as a possible reality\" I never meant to imply it would be easy just not \"monumentally expensive.\" The fact that something is difficult does not make it impossible and does not mean if it is a good idea we should not attempt to implement it. Due to space limitations I apologise that I can not answer my opponents last three rebuttals in this round, but if my opponent invites me to, I would be happy to display my responses in the comments section. Anyway I believe I have argued that corruption is a separate issue and not necessarily inherent to merit-based pay and that peer-evaluation while admittedly having it's difficulties could effectively diminish the spectre of corruption. Once again a teacher's pay should be merit-based. Thanks.", "qid": 26, "docid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7353705763816833}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers\" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org...", "qid": 26, "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7352592945098877}, {"content": "Title: NCLB testing wrongly assumes all children are the same. Content: Any system of standardized testing (in order to pass a class) assumes that all students progress at the same rate. But this is not the case. Talented students and un-talented students should not be measured by the same standardized test.", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00067-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7352527976036072}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States. Content: Why we don\"t need standardized testing Resolved: On Balance standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the Unites States. Standardized tests don\"t provide any further information we don\"t already know - Greg Jouriles 14 http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second\"less radical and more familiar\"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: \"That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?\" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. \"To sum up, we don\"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence.\" But it has also been an opportunity. Recognizing our grading differences, we opted to create a common conception of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now align closely with the Common Core State Standards. Second, we created common performance tasks that measure these standards and formative assessments that scaffold to them. Third, we look together at student work. Fourth, we have begun to grade each other's students on these common tasks. We could publish the results of these performance tasks, and the public would have a good idea of what we're good at and what we're not. For example, our students effectively employ reading strategies to comprehend a text, but are often stymied by a lack of vocabulary or complex syntax. We've also learned most of our students can coherently develop a claim, citing the appropriate evidence to support it when choosing from a restricted universe of data. They aren't as good when the universe of data is broadened. They are mediocre at analysis, counter-arguments, rebuttals, and evaluation of sources, though they have recently gotten better at evaluating sources as we have improved our instruction and formative assessments. A small percentage of our students do not show even basic competency in reading and writing. That's better information than we've ever received from standardized testing. What's also started to happen is that teachers who use the same standards and rubrics, assign the same performance tasks, and grade each other's work are finding their letter grades starting to align. And, this approach has led to a lot of frank discussions. For example, why are grades different? Where we have looked, different conceptions of achievement and rigor seem most important. So we have to talk about it. The more we do, the more aligned we will become, and the more honest picture of achievement we can create. It has been fantastic professional development\"done without external mandates. We have a long way to go, but we can understand the value of our efforts and see improvement in student work. I would not advocate publishing individual teachers' grades because it would cause the same problems as publishing individual teachers' standardized-test results, but grades by subject, grade level, and demographic categories could be fair game externally. Internally, those breakdowns should stimulate hard conversations and necessary professional development. Of course, this proposal would have to be negotiated and modified locally to avoid the punishment/reward cycle of other accountability measures that force people to conform and tempt them to cheat. The goal is to spur the collaboration and conversation necessary for improvement. Well, that's your district, some might say. It's got a unique collaborative culture and a better sense of achievement than most. You can't do that across the nation. Why not? With the common core, a definition of achievement exists. And teachers are more likely to respond to professional development and accountability more concretely connected to their daily work. They are more likely to improve. That leads to the second argument. Even if standardized testing were not only desirable to give the public a picture of basic competencies, but also an efficient way to do so, the costs have been too great. Many have previously made cogent arguments (unrealistic definitions of achievement, skewed instructional schemes, inequitable curricular offerings, inevitable corruption, perverted charter school missions, alienation, disempowerment, and embarrassment of educators, etc.) in this vein, but let's think about a supposed example of success on this front\"a school with the high test scores. In general, such a school has a compliant or affluent population. Test scores are a point of pride. The school has a good reputation. But, when you go in and observe, the teaching and learning do not impress. Never once have I looked at the test scores of this kind of school and thought, \"How could I be more like them?\" That's because success represented just a score on a narrow test of a limited band of achievement (a test, by the way, with content that I was not even legally allowed to talk about), and I couldn't see how looking at that score could help me in my day-to-day teaching. Even worse, I don't think the teachers at such schools have learned much from their good scores. If anything, the scores have prevented them from becoming better. So, to sum up, we don't learn much from standardized testing, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence. The common core is at risk for failure, not because the standards are bad per se, but because with standardized accountability, as in so many partial reforms, we again won't get a real picture of achievement, people will be disappointed, and the standards and testing will run their course. Instead, why not just trust teachers and schools to report the progress of their students with the measures they have, and use internal and external local pressures to improve the measures and practices? It will avoid a plethora of social, emotional, and political costs. Any bureaucracy created can't be more of a drag on the government or economy than the legion of consultants and think tanks today feeding off the trough of education. This proposal is more in line with what we know about the success of sustainable local organizations and what we know about the inflated rise and inevitable fall of mass reform.", "qid": 26, "docid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7351933717727661}, {"content": "Title: Establish education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools Content: 1) a 2010 study in Rochester showed that children placed in an expeditionary learning school resulted in substantial and statistically significant achievement advantages for elementary students in English/language arts (ELA) and math, and for both years of middle school ELA. http://elschools.org.... \"Effect sizes suggest that the EL schools in this study are substantially closing achievement gaps for students eligible for free or reduced price lunch, English language learners, and African-American and Hispanic students. In many cases, the achievement gap was completely closed. \" 2) In schools, standardized tests are the way to measure quality of education. Standardized tests show much information the student can retain, how well the teacher are presenting the material, etc. http://www.cse.ucla.edu... 3) Of course there could never be a 100% fix. I am not sure where you obtained your information, but according to my source, test scores actually went up and it is working on our children. The gap in achievement is closing. With changes made and more progress, the NCLB Act could help improve children's quality of education among other factors as well. http://www2.ed.gov...", "qid": 26, "docid": "770b8b0a-2019-04-18T16:15:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7346315383911133}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. Content: Thank you, Con, for starting this debate. I generally feel the same way that you do, but in the spirit of debating, I would like to \"test\" you if I could. hahaha I'm so punny. As Pro, I have to state what my opponent has said in his title. I believe that standardized testing accurately represents a student's academic ability. That is, for each of the subjects that are covered in the standardized tests, those parts accurately test the abilities of that student. \"Standardized testing can be composed of multiple-choice, true-false, essay questions, authentic assessments, or nearly any other form of assessment. Multiple-choice and true-false items are often chosen because they can be given and scored inexpensively and quickly by scoring special answer sheets by computer or via computer-adaptive testing. Some standardized tests have short-answer or essay writing components that are assigned a score by independent evaluators who use rubrics (rules or guidelines) and benchmark papers (examples of papers for each possible score) to determine the grade to be given to a response. Most assessments, however, are not scored by people; people are used to score items that are not able to be scored easily by computer (i.e., essays). For example, the Graduate Record Exam is a computer-adaptive assessment that requires no scoring by people (except for the writing portion).\"[1] These standardized exams test the important subjects, on different levels, so one would need to know how to write, decipher correct answers from the wrong ones, and deal with \"true/false\" statements. Standardized tests are used to examine a students ability to answer those questions in the fields of math, science, history, and English. \"In the field of psychometrics, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing place standards about validity and reliability, along with errors of measurement and individuals with disabilities. The third and final major topic covers standards related to testing applications, credentialing, plus testing in program evaluation and public policy.\" [2] This means that the results are accurate, and can be generalized with all of the other students who take the same or similar tests around the country. This helps keep the testing process inexpensive, fast, reliable, and accurate. Point 1. Pressure. Students are put under pressure while taking this test, and anyone who has will agree. This is also true in the workplace, because there are usually deadlines to finish work by. This actually helps students get used to the grind of the work day, because no matter what you choose as an occupation, there is going to be pressure involved. It would be impossible to test every student in their own perfect and personal environment. This would require far too much supervision and if it were to be administered anywhere outside of educational supervision, it would be void and subject to cheating anyway. As far as the dependency of the students future riding on these tests, I would disagree that for a successful future, students must do well on these tests. There are plenty of rich, successful people who didn't even finish college or do well on standardized tests. There are a few (like the SAT and the ACT) that help you get into some prestigious schools, but ones future is not dependent on these tests. 2. I agree with you that debating can be seen as an academic pursuit, and that someone with great debating skills won't be able to show the testers that they have great debating skills. However, to be a good debater, one must have the skills that they do test in standardized tests such as the English/language, history, and writing portions. A failure to spell and have good grammar would actually hinder your debating. (As seen in another debate I am currently in.) [3] Knowing history helps you to pinpoint good arguments and being up good sources to help support debating. Aside from debating, math and science are basic fundamentals in education. Sure, one could skate by only knowing basic math and science, but or someone to excel in their respective fields, one must know what they test on the standardized tests. The tests help educators find those people who deserve awards or grants to help support their future education. Again, it would be impossible to compile a test for everyone to take that would include more specific skill sets. The test is long enough as it is; adding to the test would create more pressure and would end up hurting the students who have a good grasp of English, science, math, and history because it would require them to know even more than they should at that point in their life. On a side note, I agree that there should be more specific subjects in tests, but they should be optional and used to help you occupationally so that you can find a job easier. [1] http://www.ets.org... [2] http://www.apa.org... [3] http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 26, "docid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7342058420181274}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. Content: I am aware that this topic may not be overtly captivating but this is an upcomming topic of mine so I decided to gt some practice on it. Before I begin I would like to lay down a few rules: ------------------------------------------------------------ I want to keep this debate fairly brief for this purpose I have set the character max. to 5,000 Please do not except this debate unless you plan to respond PLEASE give me feed back, not inherently on what occurs in this debate but on additional arguments for Pro or Con if you would like to post the link to some good evidence please do that as well. Of coarse this is optional but I really would appreciate it. And with that my opening speech: Point 1. The pressure. Standardized testing creates an environment in which hinders children from being able to truly do there best. Standardized testing creates an enormous amount of pressure on kids to do well because they know that a large part of there future could be depending on these tests. In addition these test often cost money in order to take. In lower in come communities often families break there backs in order to raise enough money to purchase such tests for there children. In these cases not only is your future dependent on these tests but you are worried that you will fail thus putting $100 or so dollars that your family worked hard to earn to waste. Point 2 lack of subjects: One might say that debate is an academic pursuit and I would agree that it is. A child may be very good in debate but do poorly in math, science, language, and history. Standardized testing does not include debate so the childs one good skill would be ignored however he would do poorly on the other fields and then essentially be deemed \"unintelligent. \"", "qid": 26, "docid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.734134316444397}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins Content: SHENANIGANS!IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PSEUDO-SCIENCES THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND HEALTHIER AND REDUCE STRESS! MY FRIEND'S, NEIGHBOR'S, COUSIN'S, DOG LIVED 100 YEARS BECAUSE HIS OWNER TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS. THUS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE, YOU NEED STANDARDIZED TESTS OR YOU WILL DIE YOUNG. GOOD LUCK BEATING THAT KIND OF LOGIC, CON!", "qid": 26, "docid": "be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7337329387664795}, {"content": "Title: Education: Testing Content: Standardized testing has been used for many years, so why should the US change the system now if it has obviously been running well this entire time? \"Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states\" (2). It is an extremely useful tool when measuring students, teachers, and schools overall. It is ignorant to think that standardized testing is unfair just because one student may have less intelligence than other. In fact, that just proves both the students focus skills during school and their teachers ability to teach. Examples of a pro-testing education leader is Michelle Rhee, the public schools chancellor in Washington, D.C., who said, \"\"In order to have the privilege of teaching kids you have to be able to show that you can significantly move their academic achievement levels, she says. \"And if you can't show that, then you need to find another profession.\" Rhee launched a controversial evaluation system in Washington where test score growth counts as 50 percent of a teacher's annual performance score\" (1). In addition to Rhee\"s statement, standardized testing has other positive outcomes: \"Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed 'Education Policy Analysis Archives', teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement\" (2). In conclusion, not only is standardized testing proven to be fair, but it is also proven to be beneficial to everyone involved.", "qid": 26, "docid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7336711287498474}, {"content": "Title: should standardised testing be eliminated Content: either way. standardized tests do not really go as for college as SATs do. Colleges don't really worry about them. S.T. also takes away time from the curriculum that the teachers are supposed to teach, and therefore should be eliminated.", "qid": 26, "docid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7331236600875854}, {"content": "Title: Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community Content: I believe that standardised testing is beneficial to students. Indeed, there will be an added amount of pressure and stress, but I believe that this helps them propel them forward toward striving for success. Stress is an important catalyst in one's motivation to work and if wisely wielded, can be a powerful tool in the advancement of education hence it is not necessarily a bad thing. Standardised testing is a means for a government to know where it stand in terms of further educational and holistic development and is also highly useful in education analysis. Without standardised testing, it will not be known if the students of a certain level are performing up to par, and without the proper Intel to make due changes and altercations to the education system, this can be dangerous for a country to be grooming substandard future population which would inevitably hinder society and have drastic implications on the work force. For example, in Singapore, there are standardised tests that occur twice each year on the average in primary, secondary schools and even junior college. These tests give the schools and government information on the amount of resources that should be diverted toward education sector, whether the Budget should increase or decrease, and also gives insight on the effectiveness ok current curriculum and providing incentive for change or improvement. Standardised testing has proved to be extremely beneficial to Singapore, and it is one of the most educationally advanced and successful countries in the education sector that many other countries tend to go on a pilgrimage for.", "qid": 26, "docid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7330503463745117}, {"content": "Title: Kids learn just as much at a public school then a private school. Content: Studies have found that kids do better on standardized tests, when they attend private school. They typically go on to do better in life and attend better universities. http://nces.ed.gov... quoting Cape.org \"In a June 2002 report, NCES found that private schools had students who scored higher on standardized tests, had more demanding graduation requirements, and sent more graduates to college than public schools. The report said that students who had completed at least the eighth grade in a private school were twice as likely as other students to graduate from college as a young adult. NCES statistics also showed that students in private schools are much more likely than others to take advanced-level high school courses.\" http://www.capenet.org... studies have determined that students do better in a safe and supportive environment. http://nces.ed.gov... , and private schools have been determined to provide a safer environment than public schools. http://nces.ed.gov... You just can't deny the evidence. Kids in private schools do better on standardized tests. They are more likely to get a Bachelors degree and also ar more likely to attend advanced placement classes. http://www.capenet.org... This is a pretty simple case. I am just arguing a truism at this point.", "qid": 26, "docid": "acfa088a-2019-04-18T15:07:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7330141663551331}, {"content": "Title: should standardised testing be eliminated Content: I believe that standardized testing should be eliminated. They are not even a way for one to show their intellect.", "qid": 26, "docid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7309977412223816}, {"content": "Title: Hands on learning should be mandated in every school Content: \"Quick off topic question, where do you study?\" I study at Southeast Technical Institute: http://southeasttech.edu.... My majors are business administration and financial services. \"The current system uses standardized test to measure student's learning. This system is flawed in a lot of aspects. Standardized test tend to fail to teach critical thinking:\" There is evidence that standardized tests fail to meet all of the desired affects. However, the standardized tests are also important in how schools get their accreditation and endowments. The government requires test scores to work with to make these judgments in performance. The idea of eliminating tests is in its infancy and would be extremely and unnecessarily risky to make the leap to eliminate standardized tests from our education system. Finland has seemingly successfully done this in their public schools, but that system would be impossible to apply to the United States conventionally. Project-based curriculum is a new idea that is being done today in some schools. There is one such high school in the city where I live and it is moderately successful but not significantly compared to their test-based counterparts. I agree with you that critical thinking is better taught in a project-based curriculum, but it would be very difficult if not impossible to successfully make such a transition and could lead to other issues that we will debate out later like we are now. In regard of your hechingerreport article there are many aspects that it brings forward. While a project-based curriculum may solve some of the issue you have to consider that it may bring with it other issues. There are many reasons that could explain why students are not learning important critical thinking and \"higher-order\" thinking skills. While the method in which it is being taught be a part of it, I believe the larger part of the issue is our relaxed culture that many (if not most) students take part in. Many people simply do not take their studies seriously enough and changing the learning style may not necessarily solve that problem. \"In addition, the current system tend to teach students to memorize and also pushes teachers to teach to the test rather than teaching the knowledge.\" I believe this to be more of a teacher issue. If the teacher is unmotivated, lacking in enthusiasm, or simply unknowledgeable they will simply take the easy way out and just teach the test. There are other issues as well in some schools where they are desperate to get their accreditation so they will just purely teach the test to their students. That happened in schools in Atlanta, GA and some other places. That is only an issue with K-12 schools, not in colleges or universities. I have never seen the issue of unskilled instructors or professors in my college so I have always managed to learn and retain information quite effectively from my courses. Colleges usually only hire instructors who are not only educationally qualified but are also extensively experienced in their field so they truly know what they are teaching and are probably enthusiastic about it. \" It is indeed hard to find new examples of hands-on learning for some classes, but we have to face the fact that some studies have been done. When schools have the chance, they can just replicate the study and have the students as the participants in an experiment. This in itself will help students to learn so much rather as they experience it rather than just listening to people. It is also to possible to create a scenario and have students act it out and respond based on what they have learned.\" There are issues with applying hands-on learning at the college level. Many students can find many activities to be trivial and quickly lose interest (I experienced that a few times), focusing on making the activities fun can actually hamper learning, failing to reflect on activities academically (usually in a lecture) ultimately makes the whole activity educationally pointless, and many abstract topics simply does not invite the idea of activities. Source: http://www.educationspace360.com... I hope you get back in time to respond in this round!", "qid": 26, "docid": "72a67f66-2019-04-18T16:12:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7309896945953369}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests are Ideal for College Admission Content: So first I'd like to lay out my main arguments: [some form 1]1. Uniformity2. Fairness3. Direction / GuidanceOne thing that I would like to clarify before establishing my points is that I do not claim that standardized test are the best in each of those sub categories. I claim that they are the best overall option, and choose to emphasise these aspects if Con chooses not to prove some other aspect of greater value. He would also have to provide a way to achieve it, and if it wasn't obvious it has to be something achievable as observing the life of each applicant from birth to admission is a practical impossibility even though it would provide maximum accuracy or etcetra. For my first point, Standardized Tests provide a level field for all test takers. Developing on the definition I provided earlier, standardized tests are the same for all test takers [2]. This provides a level playing field for all students as it does not change depending on who is taking the test, or where they are, or even how they are. Not using standardized tests would mean that the students are less aware of what they are going to face, and so unable to prepare or feel secure. Having tests that are not standardized would not only make it unpredictable and difficult for students to prepare for these important tests, but also permit inconsistencies that would make it easier for some students, while it is much harder to others. Let me provide a picture of how a lack of uniformity would be detrimental to an average american high school senior. According to Collegeboard, the leading source of collegebound seniors, seniors should apply to about 5 - 8 colleges [3]. Now, let's say each college had their own exams built to their specific interests. I do not deny that this would provide more useful information to the college, but what I do have a problem with is that this will take too much time and effort from the individual student. If the student truly aspires to do something beyond mediocre, he will have to prepare for each individual test so that he may have a good application to each college. This takes a lot of time and effort, and adds a lot more stress to the students who already have to deal with their regular studies. An average high school student has about an hour of homework everyday [4], but this is not accounting for the extracirricular, college classes, sports or other things that students have obligations to. This press release provides support to my claim that most students are involved in extracirrular activites that take even more of their already limited effort and time [5]. In light of this, students would have to study for school, complete their extracirriculor activities, complete their homework, and get adequate rest, before they can start studying for these Standardized tests. That is why a uniform test is better for them, as they do not need to scrutinize different material for each test, but just the general for the general standardized. My Second point is that is is fair. Any other form of non standardized anything will cause inequalities making it easier for some students, while harder for others. This would be like one student recieving 1 + 1, while you are given the question to determine the square root of 49. The problems would be of different levels inevitably and therefore you might just be getting things harder than they should be, while others have it easier. My solution of standardized tests solves this as all students will have the same questions and therefore no student has an advantage over another as they are all presented the same material and asked the same questions. This will make the standard more stable and hence allow you to objectively compare one students result to another with minimal bias. anything non standardized falls to this criticism. Basing this claim off of the very definition of standardized tests [2], as all students recieve the same questions so that their results may be compared with one another, standardized provide a fair method for college admission.My third point is that a standardized test provided guidance. It tells people exactly what they need to study for and therefore allows them to prepare for the test. This allows for the students to get ready and so their results reflect the effort they put in. This goes back again to the stable nature of standardized tests. My second and third point are closelt related but they are two different aspects of the standardized test's stable nature. This point goes back to the point made by the business of high school students as a test that provides guidance will make it easier for the already busy students to study and prepare for them.(Just making sure to clarify, but just to say Standardized tests are inadequate is not enough to win Con the debate, but Con still has to provide a better alternative which is better than my proposition)Sources:1. http://apecsec.org...2. http://edglossary.org...;3. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org...;4. http://www.theatlantic.com...5. http://www.publicagenda.org...;", "qid": 26, "docid": "e79cf3ec-2019-04-18T13:51:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7301335334777832}, {"content": "Title: Should more or less money be put towards funding for schools Content: Let's respond to my opponent's argument about how education is needed to raise the children of today to become the innovators of tomorrow. I offer the following responses. Firstly, due to an increased emphasis on standardized tests, schools are putting more emphasis on \"teaching to the test\" rather than important subjects. According to the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (http://www.fairtest.org...) entire subjects may be dropped from curriculum such as social studies and science, because standardized tests mandated under the No Child Left Behind act only contain mathematics and reading comprehension. This omits from the curriculum many important skills, such as writing a research paper or conducting a lab report, both of which are very important if the world wants to solve global warming, as my opponent stated, or any other problem that needs to be solved. But we have to get to the root cause of this narrowed curriculum. What was the cause of the aforementioned harms? The answer is more funding into education. It was the increased funding plans dictated in No Child Left Behind that caused schools to focus so much on standardized testing and to get rid of more important subjects. This is another empirical example of increased funding harming education. Secondly, let's go into a specific part of this argument. My opponent argued that funding is necessary to keep the students' interest in school and without it, the children would get bored and \"not pay attention as much as they should\". This ties back into the standardized test point, because Michael Hout and Stuart Elliott's book \"Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education\" states the opposite of my opponent's point. They found that when teachers have an obligation or incentive to improve their students' standardized test scores, they use different teaching methods that are disadvantageous to students. They used different strategies such as increased lecturing and directing, which decreased the students' interest and \"willingness to undertake difficult academic challenges\". It's actually the increase in funding that harms education, not it's lack thereof. Now let's take a look at my opponent's response to my arguments. My opponent says that spending increases actually benefit the poor more than the rich area of New Jersey. However, Kenneth Wesson of the National Association for the Education of Young Children says otherwise. He finds that there is socio-economic discrimination in education and that the poor aren't benefited as much as the rich. Then my opponent says that that we could put more money into a better police force, and crimes would be decreased. However, increasing police funding is not part of our topic, as we are discussing whether education funding should be increased. Finally my opponent declares that in a study beginning in 1955, there have been beneficial impacts of increased education funding. David Klein of California State University Northridge actually explains that in 1955, The College Entrance Examination Board established the Commission on Mathematics. This increased the quality of mathematics classes in all schools across the nation. (http://www.csun.edu...). This is significant because PBS finds that there has been a high rise in the amount of jobs that are considered \"technical\", or requiring advanced technology. The same source finds math education is a good way to improve the quality of those jobs (http://www.pbs.org...). Then, even if you don't believe a word I said throughout this argument, my opponent has not responded to my tradeoff argument. Thus, all my impacts still stand and have weight in this round. Because we are weighing this debate on a utilitarian framework and my opponent has not responded to this, we have to look to which side can benefit more people. Even if you think that an increase in spending would benefit every single student in the nation, you're still not benefiting as many people as the CON side. Through this argument, I prove that by not increasing education funding, mortality is being prevented in the nation, and even greater, this is preventing 50 million people from going into extreme poverty and over 200 million people being pushed near starvation. Because I can prove benefit to more people, I should be winning this round. Thank you.", "qid": 26, "docid": "7e87a2f7-2019-04-18T14:08:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7295149564743042}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Testing Content: Standardized testing should continue to exist in schools. 1. It prepares students for future jobs: To land many jobs and be able to apply, (ie. lawyers, pilots etc.) standardized tests need to be taken to get such jobs. Teaching students from an early age how to handle them will help them for the future. 2. It is a non-discriminatory and fair way of testing: No racism, sexism etc. can be found with grading these kinds of tests because most of them are multiple choice and for the written sections, the graders do not know the students whom are being graded. This avoids bias and overall makes testing more fair for students to measure academic knowledge. 3. \"Teaching to the test\" may not be a bad thing: You may make the argument that teachers \"teach to the test\" and ignore crucial concepts just to cover all the test material in time. This is false, for all teachers do not know what is on such tests to prepare their students for them. They just follow the core curriculum. It helps teachers and students \"focus on essential content,\" and \"eliminates time wasting activities which prevent students from excelling.\" 4. It does not \"narrow\" curriculum: It simply just focuses on more essential topics to succeed. 5. Most parents approve of these tests: \"A June-July 2013 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 75% of parents say standardized tests \"are a solid measure of their children's abilities\" and 69% say the tests \"are a good measure of the schools' quality.\" 93% of parents say standardized tests \"should be used to identify areas where students need extra help\" and 61% say their children \"take an appropriate number of standardized tests.\" ~This quote is self-explanatory. 6. Most students approve, and are not \"overly-stressed:\" Most students have a positive view towards such testing. And approximately 75% of students support the test and believe it is fair, according to a 2006 country-wide survey. 7. Non-expensive: It only costs $2-5 per student, which is a small amount compared to buying other materials for schools. ie. textbooks, computers etc. Taxes pay for this for public schools. 8. Most teachers and administrators approve of such tests: 9. Unbiased grading: Once again, since the teacher of the students are not grading the tests, bias is removed. 10. It prepares students for the future: Not only jobs, it challenges students to comply with more demanding college work. Sources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org...", "qid": 26, "docid": "51fb112a-2019-04-18T13:44:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7289789915084839}, {"content": "Title: No Child Left Behind motivates unfortunate \"teaching to the test\": Content: The focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in the marketplace, real life, and to citizenship and democracy generally. Because teachers and schools may be punished if they fail to live up to standardized test score goals, they often have a perverse incentive to focus almost entirely on teaching to the test, especially where a school is at risk of being designated as \"failing\".", "qid": 26, "docid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00076-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7280452251434326}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States Content: The purpose of education has evolved over time. However, no where in the discussion does standardized testing seem to promote the goals of education. \"The one continuing purpose of education, since ancient times, has been to bring people to as full a realization as possible of what it is to be a human being. Other statements of educational purpose have also been widely accepted: to develop the intellect, to serve social needs, to contribute to the economy, to create an effective work force, to prepare students for a job or career, to promote a particular social or political system. These purposes offered are undesirably limited in scope, and in some instances they conflict with the broad purpose I have indicated; they imply a distorted human existence. The broader humanistic purpose includes all of them, and goes beyond them, for it seeks to encompass all the dimensions of human experience. \"Arthur W. Foshay, The Curriculum Matrix: Transcendence and Mathematics,\" Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1991 \"[The purpose of education] has changed from that of producing a literate society to that of producing a learning society.\" \"Margaret Ammons, Associate Secretary of ASCD, Purpose and Program: How Does Commitment Today Differ from That in Other Periods, Educational Leadership, October 1964 \"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason but no morals. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character\"that is the goal of true education.\" \"Martin Luther King Jr., speech at Morehouse College, 1948 (http://www.ascd.org...) It seems that the only ad coming off the pro is a uniform system of testing. In no way can we establish any sort of syllogism that connotes that uniformity leads to and increase in critical and moral thinking. For that reason we must reject the advocacy for tests and the notion that standardized testing is beneficial in the United States. On record, Standardized tests promote racial bias and promote conformity rather than ingenuity. Conformity stifles the ability for society to learn what it means to be a collective human race. Standardized tests undermine the purpose of our educational system and must be rejected.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7278640866279602}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: I thank my oppenent for a great debate and a timely response. 1. Here we are agin debating the same thing in contention 1. My opponent does not undertsand/or cannot comprehend my first point. Although to him there is no reason for results to change if a student knows the material there is and I have already given evidence to support this. Perhaps re-stating it will help my opponent realizing regardless of his take on it the actuall results prove me correct: National Center for Fair Testing -\"A test is completely reliable if you would get exactly the same results the second time you administered it. All existing tests have \"measurement error. \" This means an individual's score may vary from day to day due to testing conditions or the test-taker's mental or emotional state. As a result, many individual's scores are frequently wrong. \" I hope this has helped my opponent understand and realize that I am correct. 2. \"The Luck Factor\" my opponent has repeatedly said that even if a student guess's correctly he needed to know some information. This is not inherently true. Even if a student closes his eyes and randomly circles A, B, C, or D there is a large 25% chance he will get the question right regardless of what he knew or if he made an \"Educated guess\" (which like I said earlier is still just a guess). I am not saying that students are going through tests guessing on every problem getting every one correct, but with such a high chance of getting one right if you do guess makes them unrealiable. 3. Pressure, again another point my opponent has not understood through the entirity of this debate. My opponent said: \"I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. \" the debate is not to stop standardized testing but wether or not it accurately represent's a student's academic values. It is more than just a \"handful\" of students who do poorly under pressure. With so much on the line in standardized tests pressure and nerves are actually quite common. For some students there nerves get the best of them causing them to do poorly on the tests. To corrolate this with the resolution so my opponent can better undertsand: Pressure created by the importance and atmosphere of the test causes students to overthink questions causing them to get them wrong or \"choke\" under pressure. The tests are not really becuase in the cases of certain students the pressure they create is to much and the students un up doing poorly although they may have known the material thus giving an inaccurate representation. 4. My opponent has said that standardized testing can be used to determine areas that students need help in. In response I say the following: This is untrue, standardized testing can give many false readings. There are simply too many variables behing the score recieved on a standardized test to use it in order to judge areas that a student needs help on.", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7274866104125977}, {"content": "Title: Standardised testing should not be abolished. Content: I will now proceed to my arguments. C1) QuantifiabilityOne of the biggest advantages of standardised testing is quantifiability. By definition, standardised tests are scored in a consistent manner, and all test-takers are required to complete the same questions. Thus the ability of individual students, classes, schools and districts can be objectively measured against averages in the class, school, district or nation. Such a measure is needed for numerous purposes, all of which have great importance. Abolishing standardised tests is thus not desirable. I will elaborate under two headings below. SC1) Quantifying knowledge and abilityAn important purpose of standardised testing is to gauge students' knowledge and ability. Schools can use this measure to decide how to allocate resources to facilitate teaching. For example, supplementary lessons and homework can be given to low achievers, and classes can be formed according to ability, so there are fewer discrepancies in each class and teachers can teach more effectively, focusing on basic knowledge when teaching lower achievers and speeding to more advanced concepts when teaching more capable students. Abolishing standardised testing makes this type of assessment much harder to carry out. The measure is also essential for university entrance. For example, in Hong Kong, our universities select students through the JUPAS system. Students' results in the HKDSE, a comprehensive standardised test, are sent to universities through the system. Individual faculties or departments will then weigh the students' scores with a formula (for example, a science faculty might allocate greater weight to Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology). It would be unthinkable to abolish the HKDSE, or the universities will no longer have any objective criterion on which to assess applicants. Dr Richard P. Phelps, an expert on standardised testing, noted that abolishing standardised testing will lead to 'large-scale institution of remedial programs in colleges to compensate for any deficiencies of instruction in elementary and secondary schools'. (4)SC2) Quantifying the effectiveness of teachingStandardised tests measure teaching prowess. Parents choosing schools for their children, for example, can rely on these objective statistics to choose a school who will likely improve their children's academic performance. This also motivates schools to improve their examination results. If they improve them, capable students will be more likely to choose their school, further boosting their results. This creates a virtuous circle. Statistics from standardised tests are also important for policy planning. Governments can use these stats to determine the relative success of different schools so as to formulate strategies to improve pedagogy. For example, if it's found that a school scoring high in maths adopted a certain strategy, the government can introduce it to other schools. Schools can also use these results to assess the teaching prowess of their teachers. If some teachers are found to be incompetent or lazy, the school can urge them to improve accordingly (such as by providing training courses or threatening demotion if no improvement is shown). As you can see from the above, scores from standardised tests are a good way to measure the effectiveness of pedagogy. Thus they should not be done away with. C2) FairnessStandardised tests are fair because objective criteria are used to assess performance. Multiple-choice questions are generally marked using a scanner and computer. For DBQs and essay-type questions, marking schemes are fixed and usually rigid, so the risk of bias, favouritism and subjective interpretation is minimised. For example, a teacher cannot give a student a lower grade because of s/he does not agree with what the student wrote, as long as the student provided most of the points in the marking scheme. The majority of students agree: 79% found the questions in standardised testing 'fair', according to a 2006 study. (3) Should we abolish standardised testing, we would have to rely on grades given by teachers, which is very problematic. According to research, teachers often consider factors other than competence when they grade students, including 'student participation, perceived effort, progress over the period of the course, and comportment'. (4) Moreover, all students face the same questions and are put on the same curve. Without standardised testing, we can only use a student's internal results to measure his performance. However, this is not fair as many schools may thus inflate students' scores to improve their chances of success, such as by using easier test questions. Also, if a school is weak in a particular area, say English, then it will be much easier to score an A in English in that school. This is unfair to students studying in schools that are great at English. Therefore, a standardised approach is the only fair method to assess students, and standardised tests should not be abolished. C3) Increased motivationSC1) Teachers' motivationTeachers may feel accomplished if their classes have superior results in standardised tests, and shame if their classes do worse than average. I'll give an admittedly anectodal example for illustration purposes only. More than a decade ago, the classes of one of my teachers did very badly in the former HKCEE examination. The principle shamed him in front of all the teachers, declaring an explanation. Since that year, he has worked very hard to improve his teaching methods, prepare better notes and even to arrangd all the past test questions by topic for students for drilling. This greatly boosted his students' results; at one time, 30% got an A and 80% got Credit or above. To this day, he remains one of the most popular teachers because of his dedication towards teaching. Standardised tests motivate teachers to improve teaching methods, and their abolition would remove this pressure on teachers. Thus they should not be abolished. SC2) Students' motivationMeasuring students' abilities motivates them to improve these abilities. Economist Dan Ariely said, 'If we want to change what they care about, we should change what we measure. ' (1) If students know their ability will be assessed, they will have greater impetus to work hard and succeed in these tests. Standardised tests give students a clear goal as to what they want to achieve and what they should do to achieve it:-There is a clearly defined curriculum that determines what will and won't be tested. There are fewer worries that they will be tested on material they have not prepared for. -Question types are more or less fixed, so students can drill themselves on the common question types to achieve greater gain in the test. In a non-standardised test, however, this is not possible; they may have to complete questions of a type they have never tried before. -Past papers are generally available, so students can easily familiarise themselves with the types of questions they will come across, the most commonly tested material, how their work will be marked and so on. For example, according to rubrics from past papers, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority believes that unemployment has three costs: increase in crime rate, loss of skills and loss of output; the cost of retraining workers is explicitly excluded. Were the test not standardised, we wouldn't be sure if the cost of retraining workers is a cost of unemployment. Thanks to standardised testing and past papers, we can be sure. A clear curriculum, fixed question types and past papers allow students to achieve a good grade more easily than in a non-standardised test, where there are many variables they cannot predict before taking the test (including the question types, materials tested and the acceptability of answers). Therefore, standardised tests grant students, in economic terms, greater returns at lower risk, and thus motivate students to work harder. Statistically, it cannot be denied that standardised testing encourages students to work harder. In fact, 93% of the studies related to standardised testing done in the last 100 years found a positive impact on student achievement as a result of standardised testing. (2) The passing rate of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System rose from 45% in 1999, the year of its introduction, to 67% in 2002. (5) Given this stat, there is no reason for us to abolish standardised testing again. C4) Develop positive attributes like perseverance, diligence, etc. Standardised testing is a good way for students to learn skills, values and attitudes like perseverance and diligence. They often have a large curriculum that involves not only memorisation but also the acqusition of a wide variety of skills and abilities. For example, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education determines our future. Once we step into Senior Secondary (~high school), we have three years to prepare for this all-important test. This is an important test of our perseverance, diligence, concentration and resilience. Preparing for a high-stakes test is an important life event that allows us to develop these important attributes and prepare ourselves for life after school. (1) . https://www.washingtonpost.com...(2) Richard P. Phelps, \"The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910\u20132010,\u201d Nonpartisan Education Review, Apr. 2011 (3) . http://standardizedtests.procon.org...(4) . http://standardizedtests.procon.org...;(5) . http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 26, "docid": "6cfd1c53-2019-04-18T14:30:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7270396947860718}, {"content": "Title: Pre-testing in public schools Content: My opponent has not showed my pre-testing is better for public school. He just stands one case study.", "qid": 26, "docid": "5003a180-2019-04-18T17:54:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7256922721862793}, {"content": "Title: student ought not be required to take standerdized exit exams to graduate Content: REBUTTAL: 1) In my first point, I presented 4 arguments against my opponent's supposition that students should have to prove what they learned throughout the year via passing standardized exit exams. These points included: a) Just because someone passes a test does not prove that they have learned anything. They could have cheated on the test; gotten lucky with multiple choice answers; guessed; or memorized the material but not have actually LEARNED the material. Con suggests that cheating is unlikely, and that learning how to pass standardized tests is actually a skill that one should have to learn. I fail to see the merit of these arguments. First, just because cheating may be unlikely does not mean that it does not occur, thus the real issue here is not being addressed - simply pushed to the side and dismissed. Second, if standardized tests to judge competence are eliminated in general, then this point is null and void considering that there would then be no need to acquire this skill. Moreover, claiming that it should be a skill does not argue on behalf of the concept of the test in and of itself. b) There are various forms of intelligence and methods of learning. Most standardized tests don't measure improvement, or the overall education one has received. Con responded, \"As long as students learn the information and the material they need for the course, it doesn't matter in what way they learned it. .. There is no way for the teachers to know what is on the test, so all the information will be conveyed and a general idea of it will be put on the test. \" I disagree. There are courses specifically designed to teach you how to pass a test using logical deduction of multiple choice answers. I believe that memorizing a way to BEAT the test instead of PASS the test using your own knowledge is a flawed system. Additionally, Con has ignored my argument that there are various forms of intelligence (which most standardized tests completely ignore) and learning or demonstrating that intelligence. c) Certain students perform better on standardized tests than others. Just because someone might not do well on a standardized test doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't learned the material. Con's response to this point was that it was an irrelevant one considering that you usually only have to pass the test with 70% correct answers. This is irrelevant. My point is that some people are bad test takers in general, meaning even if they know 90% of the answers on the test, they may always score significantly lower due to other factors. My point has been ignored. 2) While Con notes that people who pass standardized tests make 2x as much money as those who don't, you'll note that this is not a cited study nor is a source included to prove this point, thus suggesting that we should eliminate this factoid all together. Moreover, simply because one makes more money does not necessarily mean that they are happier or even smarter, so again, I fail to see how this is relevant. Then Con adds, \"When I say that not all tests are written on paper and I believe that those are the hardest tests, I mean that they are the hardest - not the most important. My opponent has agreed that people are tested throughout their lives so this rebuttal is obsolete. \" Actually, I fail to see how my rebuttal was obsolete. I merely pointed out that (a) People are not given standardized tests in the real world, and (b) Con didn't prove how people's lives were made better as a result of being forced to take standardized tests, so I don't see how these tests have a long-term effect in improving one's life or helping them in the future. These points stand. DEFENSE OF ARGUMENTS: 1) I challenged Con's values and criterion in this debate: a) What does forcing students into taking standardized tests have to do with universal rights? Con said, \"By passing these tests, it proves that you are ready for society and ready to be given more opportunities and more rights. \" This is a gross misrepresentation of what rights are. Rights are not something that you are earn or acquire. Rights are something that you are BORN with. Also, opportunities and rights are NOT the same thing. b) Why do people need to take these tests to be free? Con ignored this question. c) I don't see how \"the ends justify the means\" in Con's argument considering that Con hasn't shown how these tests actually benefit the student. Con's response was, \"Teleology is the end effect determines the means. I am saying that no madder how you learn the knowledge, as long as you learn it you should be able to pass the test. \" Lol. .. madder. Anyway, I have already argued against this point numerous times. Just because you pass the test does not mean that you have actually learned the material. Period. 2) Regarding test performance, I again reiterated that not everybody performs well on tests regardless of whether they know the material or not. I also pointed out that some people have learning disabilities or anxiety, both of which will affect a student's performance. I submitted that because there was no way to ensure that the test taking process would be fair for everyone, then it was not a good judge of who should be eligible to graduate and who shouldn't. Con responded simply by stating that these tests worked around those with disabilities. He said nothing about the anxiety problems, mind you, but consider that my point was actually that by giving some students a test extension, it actually might be giving an unfair ADVANTAGE to them over the other students despite their learning disability (because there is no feasible or accurate way to measure each and every disability against the test). Moreover, just because someone might have more time to complete a test doesn't necessarily mean that the test works around the student's disability. 3) I've noted that preparing for these exit exams usually discourages teachers and school boards from focusing on other aspects of education. Con has consistently responded by saying that this doesn't matter - that passing the test is the most important thing, and the best way to determine intelligence and capabilities. However, note that he failed to respond to my point that there are various types of intelligence. By demanding that these tests be passed in order to graduate, you're promoting only certain aspects of knowledge which is unfair to the students and society as a whole, and that these tests are often discriminatory against those who are intelligent in ways beyond the test and which the test does not take into consideration. 4) Regarding alternatives, I presented the idea that if one does not pass a standardized exam, but their grades and class performance show a considerable degree of knowledge in the expected fields, then a system ought to be set up where educators or administrators can offer or allow other ways for the student to demonstrate what they've learned. Con simply said that anyone who knows the material should be able to pass the test, and did not even take the option of alternatives into consideration! 5) I presented a CITED source that showed those who are required to pass these exit exams do no better in the workforce than those who aren't required to pass these tests. As such, they don't seem to add any relative value to one's life or production in society. 6) To respond to my argument that these tests are expensive and not worth it in terms of a cost benefit analysis, Con says that these tests only cost the STATE money and not the districts, so it's no big deal. Wrong. The people who live in districts pay taxes to the state! Additionally, even if a school does bad on a test, it doesn't mean that they will stop receiving funding. In fact, they might receive MORE funding because of it.", "qid": 26, "docid": "ca5fcef-2019-04-18T19:17:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7255472540855408}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students. Content: 1. Standardized test scores are just unconsistant I don't know how many other ways I can say this inorder for my opponent to undertsand. If a student takes 4 different tests he will get four different results. I can see why my opponent would think otherwise but he is mistaken. I have already met the burden of proof by providng a quote from an organization that strives to make tests fair that agrees with me. 2. As far as the luck factor goes my opponent's responses have changed throughout this debate. At frist he said something about educated guesses and now he is saying something about how \"they can't guess throughout the entire test\". I concur that the chances of a student being able to guess through an entire test are low however the fact that it is still easy to guess correctly on a handful ruins the test accuracy. The following hypothetical should explain it all: You do not pass a standardized test becuase you got 1 question wrong and now you must go to summer school. The guy next to you passed becuase he \"got lucky\" and guessed right. Asside from the test your grades were better than this students but becuase of a lucky guess you know have to go through summer school and he does not. 3. My opponent keeps saying that if you know the material there is no reason to feel nervous. My opponent may feel this way about tests that he has taken but that is his own oppinion. Many students who do know the material well still test poorly just becuase there nervous. I agree that perhaps this is silly of them but never the less it occurs and affects their score negatively. 4. My opponents last point has fluctated through the coarse of this debate but I undertsand it to be: \"Standardized tests can help determine what areas a student needs help in. \" I disagree entirely. There are simply too many variables that affect a students score to think that a standardized test could be used as any sort of judgment tool. Suppose a student who does know the material well is going through tough times at home this will greatly affect his score merely becuase he is psyhcologically unstable at the moment. Let us not judge students academically through 1 test but through what they have demonstrated through out the year.", "qid": 26, "docid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7251492738723755}, {"content": "Title: Children Should Have The Right To Vote In Elections Content: The education system will be improved.", "qid": 26, "docid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7249224185943604}, {"content": "Title: Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy Content: Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student\u2019s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.", "qid": 26, "docid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00010-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7249080538749695}]}
{"query": "Should more gun control laws be enacted?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Gun laws Content: Should the gun laws be more strict?", "qid": 27, "docid": "718b7e3d-2019-04-18T11:34:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.81407630443573}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I think we should have more Gun Control laws.There are too many deaths in this country because of guns. In this year there were 7,910,100 crimes comitted, about 700000 were comitted with guns. There have been too many suicides because of guns. Also school shootings people! Innocent kids died because teenagers easily obtained guns! And this is why we should get rid of guns. We need too have compassion, we should have gun control laws that prohibit civilians to own guns, but the police and armed forces should be allowed to have them. With these laws murder rates will go down, according to www.justfacts.com there were 10,615 murders with firearms. Also there have been far to many accidents. Because of laws alowing us to carry guns, many children have died. In the case of Sandra Smith a 9 month old baby crawled up her dad's bed were there was a gun and shot herself by accident when playing with it. When people talk about that we need guns for protection, the government can start a program to trade firearms for tazers, that are not lethal. People could still be safe, and we could develop tazers that could shoot from a long range for more protection. In my opinion guns are to over-rated! We think we need guns for everything that involves protection, but guns have only brought trouble and disgrace into our nation.", "qid": 27, "docid": "579ea5ea-2019-04-18T20:00:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7950235605239868}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: I am sorry to see my opponent has forfeited his round, but, as promised, I will provide my rebuttal to my Pro\u2019s argument. \u201cThere should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years.\u201d First, I would like to illustrate there has not been an increase in mass murders in the last twenty years. A study conducted by Fox and Delateur asserts \u201cmass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and that few are committed by the sorts of mentally deranged individuals that are commonly portrayed in the media.\u201d [4] The study debunks the myth \u2018Mass murders are on the rise\u2019 by using FBI statistics and looking at any mass murders occurring between 1976 and 2011. Other sources such as \u201cMother Jones\u201d limit the definition of mass murders and show a distorted view unlike the Fox and Delateur study which is a comprehensive study. \u201cThe number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. \u201c My opponent does not provide any evidence for this claim. \u201cIn my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united states.\u201d Pro has not provided any evidence for his assertions. In fact, the link Pro provided in his opening statements actually shows union gun control, prohibition, and post-JFK assassination gun control corresponding to increasing the homicide rate in the United States in the related time frames. Thank you for your time, guy and gals! I look forward to Pro's Conclusion. [4] http://www.trendingcentral.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7925612330436707}, {"content": "Title: Why more gun laws are a bad idea. Content: We should not countinue to make more restrictions on gun laws. There are many reasons for this, crime prevention, protection, rights.", "qid": 27, "docid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00007-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7918519973754883}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)", "qid": 27, "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7904514074325562}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: There should be gun control.", "qid": 27, "docid": "9c3617c3-2019-04-18T17:45:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7846359610557556}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Should the US government tighten gun laws. Why and how for both answers", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c138b-2019-04-18T11:35:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7784130573272705}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control/ Assault Weapons Ban/ Concealed-Carry Ban Content: In the light of increased gun crime and mass shootings, Many a reasonable human has called for some sort of change to happen with our firearm laws. Although scholars seem to agree that it is the time for change, Some ideologues still stand firmly behind the current legislation? Why? Do they have the facts on their side? In this debate with Our_Boat_is_Right, Who I admire for his strong ability to debate and dedication to the craft, I will be setting out to prove that the answer is a firm \"no. \" --Concealed Carry Laws-- The National Research Council has found that \"shall issue laws\" (laws that require authorities to issue concealed carry permits) increase crime rates by 3 - 5 % [1]. Another study by Stanford Professor John Donahue also found that conceal carry laws increase crime [2]. There's very little to no studies that anyone can cite that say that concealed carry laws decrease crime. So, I ask Pro, Why does he support concealed carry? --Gun Laws-- My argument for gun laws is short, Simple and to the point: Places that have more gun laws have less gun crime than places that have less gun laws. We find that countries with more gun laws have less crime, [4] and although it is true that it is impossible to prove that less gun laws are cause of this, We can find that the states in the U. S. With less gun laws pretty consistiently correlate with the states that have the most gun crimes. [5] -- Assault Weapons -- Automatic and semiautomatic weapons do not save lives, They kill people. There is no reason to keep assault weapons. There is no evidence that they deter crime any more than your average gun. Will someone who may already be mentally unstable or desperate enough to rob a house draw the line at seeing not a regular gun but an assault weapon? There is no evidence that they do anything better than your average gun, Except kill large amounts of people. This is why they are the weapon of choice for mass-shooters. [3] --Unconstitutional? \" Finally, Some radical defenders of guns posit that gun restrictions, Bans, And the like are wrong simply because they violate the fundamental lawbook of our American society: the Constitution. But is this true? Are gun control advocates really violating the constitution? My answer is no, And this is what will be addressed in this contention. Here is the Second Amendment: \"A well regulated militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. \" According to The Supreme Court, Gun law regulation to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill is perfectly constitutional, Which is all the handgun control I advocate for. [6] The Supreme Court also dictated that banning sawed-off shotguns also doesn\"t violate the Constitution because they saw no way that a sawed-off shotgun could be used lawfully. [6] These similar restrictions would also apply to an automatic and semiautomatic weapon because these rifles were also made for the use of military combat, To kill as many people as possible. So, It is true that it is legal to ban certain guns. [6] Finally, Whether the Constitution prohibits regulation or banning of concealed carry laws is still up in the air. Of course, This could all be seen as an appeal to authority. So here are some of my individual arguments: It is fairly obvious that the Constitution would not want mentally insane people or criminals possessing guns. So gun control is pretty reasonable. It is also ridiculous to say that the Constitution would be against allowing assault rifles, Because they are guns that could be used for self defense. By that logic, Could someone have a turret gun on the top of their house, Because they could use that to protect themselves? Could someone have a bazooka gun, Because it could be used to protect themselves? How deep does this rabbit hole go? ! Finally, The Constitution says you can have guns. It doesn\"t say anyone can have guns. It doesn\"t say you can have any gun you want. It most certainly doesn\"t say you can own guns anywhere? On top of all of this, Bringing up the Constitution, A document written hundreds of years ago to dictate a government that had just escaped tyranny and was radically different from our own in modern times, Is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Just because it\"s an important law doesn\"t mean it\"s subject to scrutiny. In conclusion, I have proved that concealed carry laws increase crime and thus should be disallowed, Assault weapons increase crime thus should be disallowed, And I have proved that gun regulations decrease gun crime and thus should be implemented, And I have done it all within the framework of the Constitution. Sources in comments", "qid": 27, "docid": "855baa3e-2019-04-18T11:16:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7781240940093994}, {"content": "Title: more guns means more overall homicide Content: the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.", "qid": 27, "docid": "2e55489a-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7765185832977295}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America.", "qid": 27, "docid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7758874297142029}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind Regards for this Debate. I will take the Con side of the topic \"more gun regulation should exist\" and thus will be against more gun regulations. 1st I would like to define that we are talking about the USA here, as Pro has not stated what country we are talking about. Further I would like to define 'gun' as firearms and 'regulations' as sale regulations.Opening Statement:I would first of all like to point to the topic, \"more gun regulation should exist\". This topic is quite clear, however Pro has not actually posted a reason why this should happen. As Pro has not included an actual argument I will dismiss the majority of Pros statement as it has no context. However, I will still give my arguments, as well as do some rebuttals as to what Pro has stated in their opening statement. First of all I would like to dismiss the common fallacy that Pro has used, \"the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons\", as this is simply incorrect. If we take a look at the number 2 country of firearms per capita (after the USA), Serbia, with 69.7 firearms per 100 residents and looking at Pros thesis, Serbia should have a huge homicide rate. False. In fact, Serbia has about the same homicide rate as Australia, which Pro used as a 'case study' about how well firearm regulation works. In fact, the majority of European countries have about 30 firearms per 100 (except Britain) and have extremely low homicide rates, a fraction of the US rate. And just to make this thesis even more ridiculous, the country with the highest murder rate, Honduras, has a small amount of firearms, only about 6.6 per 100. Brazil, the country with the most murders, 50,108 in 2012, also has a relatively low rate of firearms per capita, about 8 per 100. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) Please note that the image is missing several European countries, such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and more. These all have high firearms per capita yet low homicide rates. If this does not prove Pros thesis as incorrect then I do not know what will. However, now to my reason as to why there should not be more regulations. 1st: The US constitution:The US constitution gives US citizens/residents the right to bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. Furthermore, the actual reason as to this is very important. No, the reason is not hunting or personal self defence. It is for defending the human liberties. The founding fathers were of the opinion that in order to create true democracy the citizens had to be armed. In case the government turned tyrannical, the citizens could regain their liberty as well as their country. After all, Government is supposed to be afraid of the people, not the other way around! 2nd: Firearms have no relation to violence:As proven above, there is no relation. This brings me to number 33rd: The 'US problem' is because of society, not firearms:Why are countries that are very similar to the US not affected by the same issue? The answer is simple. It is the US society. The US media bombards the viewer constantly with 'end of the world' and 'you are dying' issues. No surprise people react the way they do. Furthermore, the US prison system is not working, but this is a different issue. 4th: Firearms control does not work:When I lived in Europe I had several firearms pulled on me, although there are tight laws. And I am sure none of those were legal. In fact, even where I live in Australia there are illegal firearms. This is actually quite close to my area, and these firearms would even be illegal in many parts of the US. Yet they are home build, seemingly. This means that gun control does not work. In fact the hardest thing to acquire for a firearm are the bullets, not the firearm itself. Anyone could go to their local hardware store and buy the necessary components for a working firearm. And the people who would have firearms if all were taken away would be criminals and not normal citizens. 5th: Protection for the US:Lets say the US was invaded, not only would its armed forces pull off a hell of a fight, in every bush there would be some guy with a rifle taking shots at the enemy. This improves the US defensive power dramatically. 6th: Prime use of firearms:The grand majority of firearms never get used on humans. It would be like banning all knives because somebody got stabbed. I am sure that the majority of people use knives every day and do not get stabbed nor stab anyone, it is the same with firearms. Anything can kill you, that doesn't mean everything needs to be 'regulated'7th: The firearm makes equal:The modern semi-automatic firearm is the 1st thing in history that has made all people more or less equal. The possibility for a 5ft female to release 10 rounds in a short succession into a 6ft male has made people truly equal, where they are not, body and strength wise. Or is this not a good thing?I could keep going, but I think that is enough. Conclusion:Con has displayed 7 reasons as to why firearms should not be more regulated while Pro has not even shown one reason.What Pro has provided, the out of context 'evidence' was easily negated by statistics and proven to be simply not true.Thus I, as Con, am still of the opinion that there should not be more firearms regulations.Kind Regards to Pro for the debate, I am looking forward to your arguments.", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7717512249946594}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Rebuttals & New PointsI will admit that my equation was inaccurate in a sense. I will agree with you that there can be too many regulations. However, I will not deny that there must be some regulations put in place in order to ensure violent individuals do not obtain a gun and that the future crime can be prevented. The court cases you have listed - especially Heller v. District of Columbia - support my point: the second amendment must not be misinterpreted. That is what I have said in the previous round. It seems we agree on some issues, while we disagree on others. I will admit that there are some negative influences when you increase gun control, but there are also many benefits that one cannot simply ignore:\"There is no question, of course, that guns figure in countless murders, suicides and accidental deaths. Over the five years ending in 1997, the Justice Department says, there was an average of 36,000 firearms-related deaths a year. (Fifty-one percent were suicides, and 44 percent homicides.) Determining whether particular gun control laws would have, on balance, prevented some of those deaths is difficult.\" [1] There are three possibilities: 1. Gun Control laws decrease the crime rate.2. Gun Control laws increase the crime rate.3. Gun Control laws have nearly no effect whatsoever on the crime rate.I will support possibilitiy one and three. The crime rate will be influenced by gun control, whether it be a major influence or a minor influence. However, one cannot deny that there will be some influence. Some of the sources I will list will support me, some will support you, and some will support both of us. I do believe, however, that the sources I will list will strengthen my stance. \"However, the acts of violence themselves and gun control show that there may be a correlation between the availability of guns and crime. What the relationship is still undetermined for such contradictory data exists that can trump and repel arguments given by both sides of the gun control debate, pro gun control and against gun control.\" [2] You cannot deny that there will be a relationship between gun control laws and the crime rate. I will admit that some states have gun control laws that are too strict and that some states have too weak gun control laws. However, let's put party aside and work together for the betterment of the American society. We can begin by expanding a few aspects of gun control. You cannot deny that we need background checks, limited ammunition, and a regulation of gun production. We will need to improve security measures in order to ensure that schools, malls, movie theatres, and other public places are safe from violence. Both gun control and security measures will ensure that crime is DECREASED. The crime rate as a whole may stay about the same, but I assure you, there will be a positive influence once sophisticated gun control is enacted. I recognize that this debate is about gun control specifically, but I would like to point out some other ways to reduce crime: We need to reform our education system, increase spending in security, reform the tax code, and assist the people that are troubled, depressed, and maybe mentally ill. These measures, alongside gun control, will ensure that crime is decreased. I do not believe that the points you have are sufficient enough to support your claim. You will need to find new evidence. Sources[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://gun.laws.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "9c362ae5-2019-04-18T16:33:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7714120745658875}, {"content": "Title: there should be more gun regulation Content: I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" People should have a right to have guns.", "qid": 27, "docid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7710072994232178}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: I, WhiteHawk, will be arguing why there should be no more gun laws than there already are and every citizen ought to own a firearm. My opponent, I assume, should be arguing about why guns should be restricted from citizens.", "qid": 27, "docid": "dfe52293-2019-04-18T11:57:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7693077921867371}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: This is a gun debate, so I will just keep it at that. I see how you brought up the Sandy Hook shooting, but sitting here saying that more gun laws will prevent more gun crime is just false logic. Especially when you consider that the state of Connecticut already had an Assault Weapons Ban. It seems as though you want the law abiding citizens to not have the means to protect themselves against the criminals who will get weapons anyway because they have no such desire to follow any laws. Here is a good example (you might have heard of this guy prior: Adam Lanza shot his mother (#1) then stole three of her guns (#2, #2, and #4). Lanza then stole her truck (#5) and illegal transported three weapons (#6, #7, and #8). He then carried those guns into the school without a carry permit (#9, #10, and #11). Lanza then proceeded to break into the school (#12) and brought all three guns on school property (#13, #14, and #15). Adam Lanza concluded this law breaking fiasco by shooting 26 more people (#16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, and #41. In total he broke FORTY-ONE laws. Yet while the victims still lay in pools of their own blood, liberals like yourself are arguing that had there been more laws, this tragedy could have been averted. -Past Attempts of Gun Right Bans- Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime. In comparison, let\"s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen \" Piers Morgan \" who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating. Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst \"rich\" countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990R42;s. Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves. In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives. Another interesting thing to think about is the fact that Medical Errors, Unintentional Injuries, Alcohol Abuse, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Unintentional Poisoning, Drug Abuse, Unintentional Falls, and Non-Firearm Homicides ALL cause more death than Firearm Homicides. Over 50 times the amount of people that die from Firearm Homicides die from Tobacco Abuse every year, but I do not see ANYONE trying to ban or limit that. Source: http://www.infowars.com... -The Founders on Gun Rights- The founding fathers (who drafted the Constitution) believed that the citizens should not only be armed, but armed as heavily as the United States Government!! Take these quotes into consideration: \"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.\" -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 \"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.\" -Thomas Jefferson The Constitution preserves \"the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\" -- The Federalist, No. 46 - James Madison \"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.\" -- The Federalist, No. 29 - Alexander Hamilton \"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?\" - Patrick Henry \"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State...\" - George Mason It is very clear that the founders obviously believed that we should be armed as individuals, not only as a militia. -Liberal Logic Gun Analogy by Doug Hagin- \"Liberal logic says if we had fewer guns, we would also have fewer crimes. Therefore, from this we must conclude Liberal logic also dictates the following. Fewer eating utensils would soon lead to less obesity. Fewer restaurants would also lead to less obesity, as would fewer cattle. After all cows give milk, and milk can be fattening. Cattle also give us beef, which can also make us fat. So we can conclude, using Liberal logic, that if we had no cows, no restaurants and no utensils, obesity would be quickly eradicated. Fewer pens and pencils would lead to fewer grammatical errors such as misspellings. Fewer pens and pencils would also lead to fewer notes in class, thus leading to fewer kids getting in trouble for passing notes in class. Also without pens and pencils, students could not write nasty things about classmates could they. So we must eliminate these tools of intolerance. Paper too, should be tightly controlled. Without paper, even students with pens or pencils would be unable to write bad things or use poor grammar while writing. So using Liberal logic, which says more gun control and laws will lessen violent crime, we must also confess that having tight controls on pen, pencil, and paper would curtail poor grammar and hateful writing.\" -Doug Hagin Source: http://www.renewamerica.com... I rest my case for the time being and I look forward to seeing your next rebuttal.", "qid": 27, "docid": "dfe50f52-2019-04-18T17:19:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7680736184120178}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in the United States Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7652602195739746}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.", "qid": 27, "docid": "e0c0b3cb-2019-04-18T13:03:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7646417617797852}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: You said it well when you said, \"Like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them.\" We aren't talking about a gun-ban, nor the enforcement of gun control laws. We are talking about are gun control laws a good idea in general. We aren't talking about adding extra laws either. My position is simply gun control laws are a good idea to have, but not to go overboard with.", "qid": 27, "docid": "e0c0be54-2019-04-18T11:42:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7644311785697937}, {"content": "Title: Gun control results in a less violent society Content: Gun control is not necessarily needed. In my personal opinion, what needs to be done is ... 1) Guns to be made more expensive(Not Gun Control) 2) Wether guns are controlled or not, they will still be there.", "qid": 27, "docid": "3b6818da-2019-04-18T17:57:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7643338441848755}, {"content": "Title: Should we have Gun Control Content: I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.", "qid": 27, "docid": "810cf76c-2019-04-18T11:37:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7637924551963806}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws. http://www.politisite.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7637372016906738}, {"content": "Title: Should guns laws be implemented Content: Should guns laws be implemented and the second amendment abolished to prevent mass shootings. I personally feel as if we are safer with the right to bear arms. It is fairly rare for mass shootings to be committed by legally obtained weapons.", "qid": 27, "docid": "88a1fd68-2019-04-18T12:03:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7623766660690308}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like \"gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right\") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7614227533340454}, {"content": "Title: there should be more gun regulation Content: more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like \"gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right\") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.", "qid": 27, "docid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7614227533340454}, {"content": "Title: Loose Gun Control Content: I will start off with debating my opponents argument that allowing more gun ownership adds fuel to the fire, my opponent is assuming that if people are allowed to have guns, they will use them. Some people just want guns to feel more powerful and protected. We have no proof that if we allow people to get guns easier than they will use these to commit crimes. I am not saying that anybody should be allowed to have a gun. Obviously if you have committed a crime before you should not be able to get a gun, but the real thing is either way people are going to get guns. People get guns illegally all the time, how do you think people in gang wars, or drug dealers get guns? Do you think they get their guns legally? My answer is no, they get them illegally in the streets. I am not saying that we should give guns to criminals, that is not my intention. All i am saying is people are going to get guns regardless of the laws. Wouldn't you rather them get them legally so we can track the guns than illegally? Your argument saying that it creates more crimes is not true. Here are some facts i found about strict gun control laws put in place with the relationship to crimes: In England, which has the strictest gun-control laws of the developed nations and which had outlawed all handguns and most firearms, the Sunday Express of June 20, 1999, reported, \"In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws [Firearms Act of 1997] banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally minded individual. \" . http://www.fff.org... My opponent says that more guns create more crimes when it is actually the opposite, less guns equal more crimes. I have the facts, i dont see any sources or backing in my opponents argument saying that more guns will create more crimes. However i have a source that shows less guns create more crime. All my opponent is trying to do is argue against my arguments, when this debate is about loose gun control.", "qid": 27, "docid": "aadda99b-2019-04-18T18:52:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7610043287277222}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Debate: I will be arguing that the United States needs more gun control, my opponent will be arguing that the United States needs less gun control. Structure of Debate R1: Acceptance. R2: Pro's opening arguments, Con's rebuttal to Pro's opening arguments. R3: Pro's response to Con's rebuttal, Con's opening arguments. R4: Pro's rebuttal to Con's opening arguments, Con's response to Pro's rebuttals.", "qid": 27, "docid": "9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7609719038009644}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.", "qid": 27, "docid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7607818841934204}, {"content": "Title: guns should be banned Content: Yes. they should. So many people have lost their lives because there has been very little gun control. If there is no gun control, hundreds more could die. with all these deaths, people live in fear. fear that they might be killed or a loved one may be killed. Many families mourn over the deaths of their children because there is no gun control.", "qid": 27, "docid": "8540aecc-2019-04-18T11:37:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7605329751968384}, {"content": "Title: There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S ! Content: Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of \"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws\", stated in 1998, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes\". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7605001926422119}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Sorry for not posting my argument earlier, But I am very busy this week (Such bad timing to start a debate when I have an APUSH quiz this Friday, A Spanish quiz this Friday, And a pre-calculus quiz this Friday, Lol). So anyway, Here are my points: I am thinking of some universal gun control laws, Which are laws that should be implemented in every single state, If not implemented already. 1. All states must have a background check on all gun transactions. Why: Because this is highly useful for sorting out the good guys from the bad guys. 2 Any person that has already committed a serious misdemeanor or crime, Violent or property, Should be barred from owning a gun. However, There should be a time limit so that after a set amount of years, Criminals will attain a second chance to own a gun. Why: Because criminals overall have a higher chance of a committing a crime again, So barring them for a certain amount of time would allow them to think for what they did wrong, And then maybe be given a second chance to prove themselves they can be responsible gun owners. 3. All gun sellers must have a permit with them, Including private sellers or sellers that don't mainly rely on gun transactions for a living. Why: Informal and improper transactions increase the chances of a criminal obtaining a gun. A random person shouldn't be able to sell guns to anyone; only licensed individuals should be able. 4. Implement a law that measures the degree of self-control in an individual. Why: Because self-control is a key characteristic for being a responsible and sensible gun owner. Gun laws are very strict regarding obtaining a permit for concealed carry, And as a result, People that have a permit to conceal carry guns are very law abiding. 5. Require medical checks for medical disorders/conditions, Such as depression. Why: Because this would greatly help reduce suicides as well as murders. I also want to remove these laws: 1. School weapons ban. 2. Out of state honoring licenses.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c172d-2019-04-18T11:17:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7590652704238892}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: here is the debate with working links http://www.debate.org... more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons, or that they will just run out and get a gun illegally. background checks are just a step removed from the idea that not everyone will just find a way to kill anyway. https://www.youtube.com...... http://thinkprogress.org...... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com...... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org...... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like \"gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right\") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7574107646942139}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c6909-2019-04-18T11:17:03Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.756024956703186}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in America Content: Regardless of how I MAY have gone off topic, my main statement and idea is that the gun control laws should be better upkept. The gun buyers and sellers are the main part of the issue. If we keep hold of the gun buyers and sellers, the guns will follow. Double checking, triple checking and even more checking after that is necessary to uphold the safety of the people.", "qid": 27, "docid": "e95f1ffb-2019-04-18T16:59:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7547216415405273}, {"content": "Title: \"Assault Rifles\" (AR-15's Legality) Content: This is my argument from another debate: First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U.S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime. Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" Notice the, \"... Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...\" Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, \"Arms.\" Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, \"Everyone can bear arms\", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, \"We the people have the right to keep and bear arms\", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No. Now onto your argument. \" If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon.\" - Yes, but the effects of people owning guns can be felt when you get shot. \"yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and \"the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.\" That doesn't say \"the right of the people in the militia\" and it doesn't say \"the right of the people who are police\" and it doesn't say \"the right of the people in the military\" it says \"the right of the people\" the American people.\" - Can you prove what that comma means? Unless you can't, your argument is useless. The comma was mearly a grammatical comma. Anyway, this amendment is about technology. Tech changes over time. And circumstances change too. I would fully support this amendment in the 1700s. Why? Becaus the only guns were inaccurate, slow-to-reload, one shot muskets. And their was no strong military to stop attacks, so it makes sense that we need the people to be armed. But now we have the strongest military in the world, and our guns have hundred-round clips, that can be reloaded within 5 seconds, and are accurate for hundreds of yards. This means that the amendment is outdated, and needs updating. An example? Imagine if all the laws around drones are never changed again. In 20 years, when the public has access to drones with LMGs, bombs, and spy cameras on them, you would think the law needs an update. This is the same for guns. Your hunting argument is one I never heard before. Can you provide a link that will make this rebuttal make sense? \"If you believe in gun control, you are being lied to.\" - As I have shown in this debate, that is not the case. Some people might attack me for my arguments, as they are mostly focused on gun control in general. However, my opponent takes many jabs at gun control throughout, and he makes no laws regarding kritkiks, so my arguments are valid. I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response. [1] https://img.njdc.com...... [2] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [3] http://www.gunpolicy.org...... [4] http://www.gunpolicy.org......", "qid": 27, "docid": "c1dd1361-2019-04-18T12:56:07Z-00008-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.753275990486145}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind Regards, I will now precede with rebuttals to Pros claimsRebuttals:First of all I would like to note that Pro still has not given an actual argument. Thus Pro has not actually stated why 'more gun regulation should exist'. Furthermore Pro has, from 7 clear arguments Con provided in the previous round, tried to make a rebuttal of only 3 of them. Now, additionally, I will provide evidence as to why all 3 of Pros rebuttals are incorrect. Please note that Pro has not done that, Pro did not provide any evidence. 1.) Pro states that I have given 'anecdotal' evidence. Not at all! This information comes from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, (https://www.unodc.org...), I believe this evidence more than all the sources provided by Pro. Also we need to look at what focus Pros sources have. Lets start systematically.2.) I will dismiss the you tube video, as it is John Oliver, he is a comedian. His 'facts' always represent what he wants the audience to see and never the bigger picture. 3.) http://thinkprogress.org... This is an article about the US. The US is the only country with this 'problem' and I provided the evidence for that last round and Pro dismissed it as 'anecdotal'. I quote from the 'source', \"The largest study of gun violence in the United States\". Unrelated to Pros claim as to incorrect evidence. 4.) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... Once again, same as above. \"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey\". Same thing as above, unrelated to Pros claim. 5.) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... . This one is interesting, as it kind of relates. But only one piece of evidence. Not that Pro would have known that, most likely. But I looked at it nevertheless. 'Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide'. Lets look at the source of this 'source'. http://jonathanstray.com... here, so anyone who wants to read it. Their research seems quite bad. I mean look, the number 2 on the homicide rate in 1994 is Northern Ireland. This is a bad joke. Finland unsurprisingly has a high firearm suicide rate, as because of its location. But in fact, the countries that have a high percentage of firearms, Germany, France, Norway and such have extremely low homicide rates. Suicide rates are another thing. If there is access to a firearm and a person wants to commit suicide, the firearm is the easiest way. But this is about firearm homicide. And seemingly it is unrelated. So once again, Pros 'thesis' about my 'anecdotal' evidence refuted. This all means that Pros statement that \"but the studies I showed illustrate that the norm is as I stated\" is incorrect, as already shown in my previous round. In fact the US is not the norm, nor is Pros theory that \"the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur\". In fact the countries with the highest homicide rates all have very low firearms per capita. Please Pro, provide evidence that this is wrong. Lets provide a graph. Pro, refute this. With evidence, please. Just if you want to check yourself, I will, though I normally do not use that, simply provide Wikipedia links and you can check yourself. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) international homicide rate, just click the 'rate' and get it to sort descending. Here is the link for the count of firearms per capita (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Now simply check how many firearms there are in the countries with the highest homicide rates. Not many. The US may have a high homicide rate if you look at '1st world countries', but if you look at the entire picture the number is very slim. Honduras, the country with the highest homicide rate, the number per 100.000 population has a rate of 90. 'Only' 18 times higher than the US. The second country, Venezuela, 'only' nearly 11 times higher than the us with a rate of 54. The US has a rate of 4.7. Yet, this number is constantly played up to be enormous. It is not. Look at the graph above. As for Pros claim that background checks and 'regulateions' do not contradict the 2nd amendment, yes they do. The 2nd amendment is so that citizens can be as armed as the military infantry, in case of tyranny and they need to fight to regain the country. Is this the case right now? No, certain weapons are prohibited and as such the right to bear arms is infringed. As for the war scenario, yes, this was far fetched, but possible. And Pro has not said that it is not possible. Switzerland is extremely armed, as every male who completes military training gets to keep his rifle. These are military rifles to mention. And once again, Swiss firearms per capita is high but their homicide rate extremely low. \"besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns\". Really? Regulation is the first step. In my home country, Germany, I can walk into a weapons store when I am 18 and buy an air rifle. In Australia where I live now, air rifles are considered firearms in exactly the same way regular rifles are. You in fact need the same license for an air rifle as you need for a 'real' firearm. A Australian friend of mine wanted to license his .22 when he was younger when he moved state and was laughed at because 'we don't license those'. Look at Australia now. Farmers, who would need a semi automatic firearm cannot possess one because they are illegal. Is this in a sense not just infringing peoples lives and liberty? Once something is regulated, it will just continue from there. So I can well understand why people in the USA do not want any regulations. And as I have proofed above, firearms control does not work in Australia. Criminals have them. People who abide the law do not. So why would you want to start this chain? \"my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns\". Oh, so weapons would be 'taken away'. Does this not mean that the 2nd amendment is not followed? The 2nd amendment is there for a very good reason and everybody who does not understand that should keep out of politics. Conclusion:Pro still has not provided an argument. Con has refuted all of Pros claims and the half hearted rebuttal by Pro in this round. I still note that Pro has made rebuttals for 3 out of 7 arguments provided by Con. This is less than 50%. Con has negated all of Pros 'evidence' that was used to 'support' a non existing argument. Overall Con still stands to their opinion that Firearms should not be more regulated. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your final arguments and conclusion.", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.753055214881897}, {"content": "Title: should there be gun rights Content: Yes there should be gun rights. We should be allowed to own as many guns of whatever type we want. I win.", "qid": 27, "docid": "54ec013-2019-04-18T13:45:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7529861927032471}, {"content": "Title: Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado Content: To my opponent, I too look forward to this debate. I'm going to just get to it and counter my opponents arguments for more gun control. Your first point made is a very true statement, this is not the first incident of gun violence, and sadly it will not be the last. No amount of gun control will stop crimes committed with a gun. Moving on to the children getting hold of weapons, when you say \"The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child\" are you talking about a gun left out in the open and an unknowing 5 year old pick it up? Or are you referring to teenagers living in the cities getting guns from a dealer and committing crimes? With the first scenario, no law will prevent those kinds of incidents. Unfortunately it's either the stupidity of the parent leaving a loaded firearm out of its case at a level a child can reach, or some sort of distraction causing the parent to leave a loaded firearm in the open. Those are just careless accidents in the privacy of one's home. With the second scenario,we don't need to focus on preventing kids in the cities from getting guns, but instead try to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. If we can put together an economic recovery plan, not as many people will be forced to resort to crime. Now, with your second point. Yes, the shooting was senseless and horrible and nothing like this should ever happen again. But the sad part about reality is that something like this is bound to happen again. James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... With the final point, yes, you can enact stricter gun laws and tell people that there is less reason to carry firearms. You can tell people that statistically speaking that they are safer than ever before. This doesn't mean that they will listen or believe you. It comes down to a fact of feeling secure. If people feel safer with their Glock, Beretta, Sig or any other handgun resting in its holster under their shirt, then they are going to wear it wherever they go. I appreciate that you are taking time to debate this topic, as I find it an interesting one. The ball is now in your court.", "qid": 27, "docid": "8ae6bc77-2019-04-18T18:12:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7527666687965393}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I will gladly accept. However, I will specify certain things. Resolved: Gun Control should be a law in the United States I will be affirming/upholding this resolution (Pro). You will be negating this resolution (Con) I hope we can be civil and I wish you best of luck! -LDBen", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c0eb3-2019-04-18T12:03:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7522057294845581}, {"content": "Title: We Should Have Stricter Gun Control Content: This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control.", "qid": 27, "docid": "af032b19-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00007-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7514176368713379}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: When I mean by gun control, I do not mean by the government banning and confiscating all guns, Like some liberal extremists do. I just mean to make gun laws stricter, Especially in states that lack enough gun control laws. I am taking the pro side and arguing for stricter gun laws, Especially in states that need more gun laws, And con will be arguing for against stricter gun laws. Con will start the next round.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c172d-2019-04-18T11:17:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7497260570526123}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: ====FRAMEWORK====I will be going over rebutalls, before proceeding on to votes.===== REBUTTALS===== \"You are supposed to argue for less gun control, and I am to argue for more gun control. That was stated both by imabench in his forum topic, and by me in round 1.\"I agree with this, however I also agree that you have succesfully made arguments that have defeated your own case as you have argued pro control throughout this entire debate on several occasions. Thus I must assume that if you agree that some good control is good, there should be no reason why you should not think that ALL gun control is good. \"I have made it clear where we should strengthen gun control. This is not arguing both sides of the fence, as you put it, but arguing one side from different angles.\"To be honest, all me and the voters are going to see from this, is you conceding that gun control is okay. Which you have already done on several occasions. Thus since you believe that guns should be kept for some reasons, how are we going to regulate them so strictly, if we do not know most people's motives? Why complicate things and put any restrictions on gun control? Also what exactly are the restrictions were going to be supposedly putting on in the AFF world?\"I've given clear cases where an individual should have access to firearms, and where they should not. An individual who has a reasonable chance of being the victim of violence should have access to a firearm, whereas a person who does not should not have one, because he is more likely to cause harm to himself, which outweighs the benefit of having one during a home invasion or mugging.\" Glad you brought this up. You make gun control policies sound all fine and dandy, but you have yet to explain a situation of how we should enforce these policies. Even if you think we should restrict them to only certain people, how do we determine which people need guns? How do we determine which people are likely to have a home invasion? Given that the PRO requires BOP, and this is already the final debate round, all of the questions have gone un-answered. Even if the audience does buy your loopholey arguments that support the CON side, how are they ever going to see how enforcing gun laws is okay, if they don't even know how to enforce it, if you haven't given me or them, anything to look to?\"Secondly, they are not required by law in all 50 states. I can see why you'd advocate for their being required by law though, and I agree with your assertion that we must have more gun control over those who have weapons for self-defense.\"Even if you agree that we should have gun safe, this in no way helps your case in the slightest. Your goal is to prove why we shouldn't have guns. We have hundreds of safety procedures in act that go along with our gun rights, but removing or controlling them is not the answer. \"So children are still at risk in some states while there is a gun in the home.\"You can safely cross applt my resposibility Contention here. Every person has a basic right. Once that right is taken away, we lose it. But that doesn't mean we should never get the right in the first place. Responsibility means keeping the firearm a safe distance away from a child who may happen to wander upon a firearm. Also, even if not every state is confined to keeping weapons in safes, most laws require that a firearm not be loaded when being stored. If a firearm is not loaded, a wandering child should not have this problem. National law also requires that children be under direct supervision. So again cross apply my responsibility contention here as well.\"Also, I highly doubt that everyone owning a handgun or hunting rifle is going to deter the federal government if they ever decide to oppress us.\"I am sure thats what the british thought too during the revolutionary war. Independence can always be breeched when needed, there are plenty scenario's all over the world. India, Pakistan, The United States, etc. Guns enforce our freedom from government tyranny.\"The shopkeeper has a much higher risk of being mugged than the average joe walking the streets. That's the point I was trying to make. If there is a reasonable chance of you being the victim of a violent crime, then you should be able to carry a weapon for self-defense or have a weapon in your home for self-defense. As I've stated in this debate before, (and provided evidence for,) having a firearm in the home increases the chance of a member of your family being the victim of gun violence, so unless there is a good reason for you have a gun, you do not need one\" This claim is highly unsubstantiated for a few reasons. 1. You still have yet to offer a plan to carry this out.2. Why is a shopkeeper getting guns over anyone else? What about lawyers, doctors, Contractors, or any one else for that matter? Are they not entitled to their own safety and rights? How are any of them less likely to be mugged then a shopkeeper?3. This claim is unsubstantiated and lacks the evidence neccesary to be a proper argument. Thus it is a logical fallacy. \"I contradict nothing. Weapons used for showmanship shooting serve a purpose, just as hunting weapons do. Thus, they should be still be regulated, but not prohibited. They are less harmful than an assault rifle, or a machine-gun. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.\"Not in the slightest. They all serve the purpose of protection. Didn't you say that protection was an okay way to use gun control? \"I've already refuted this argument, I've given you examples of the capabilities of an assault rifle and the key differences it has from handguns. The ammunition used in handguns is not nearly as lethal, the handgun does not have the same rate of fire, the handgun is not as accurate and does not have the same range as an assault rifle.\"A guns purpose is to stop someone life. That is the point of your own self defence argument. So what difference does it make on how that gun is used to complete that action. Contra-diction. \"Buying weapons internationally will prove much more difficult and costly than buying locally. The prices on illegal weapons will continue to rise, and less and less criminals will be able to afford the weapons. Again, basic market principal; if you lower the supply, the price will go up.\"I explicitly cited drug abuse for this reason. Price doesn't matter. The people who will own and operate guns illegally are criminals. Price doesn't matter. Self defence is depleted when any sort of criminal owns a weapon and civilians do not. So you again contradict yourself.====MY CASE==== RIGHTS:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND.RESPONSIBILITY:ALL ARGUMENTS DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND .FREEDOM: \"The last thing we want is a shootout on the streets, the last thing we want is to turn poorer neighborhoods into warzones, where the weapons constantly get bigger and deadlier as the citizens try to keep up with the criminals.\"I have already refuted this. WE have had gun control for about 200 years. While there is a couple cases here and there where incidents have happened, having them has proved to be much better as we have used them for selfdefences. Our average civil life with gun control is not a gun control, so we have no reason to believe that it will ever be after retaining these rights for so long.====VOTERS====I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons. 1. In order for my opponents gun control policies to be effective, he requires a BOP strategy of how to implement them. He has not done so, thus we have no alternatives, or evidence to alternatives.2. My opponents arguments contradict his arguments. My opponent has conceded several occasions that guns ought to be held for self defence, hunting ans sports, yet also doesn't define who particulary gets these rights.3. My opponent has dropped 2 1/2 of the arguments on my case. Thus we must look to those when evaluating the round.I had great fun in this debate. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period, it's been a pleasure.", "qid": 27, "docid": "9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7493448257446289}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I am arguing that gun control laws should not be implamented in the united states of america, and that the existance of gun control laws are harmful over all.You may make your case first.Try to keep it somewhat short as well.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c0f6d-2019-04-18T11:49:18Z-00007-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7490044236183167}, {"content": "Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: more guns =/= more safety but having more restrictions is pointless if it has no actual effect on homocides. However, this is completely contradictory because if more guns = more crime, less guns will = less crime. Furthermore, your statistic doesn't actually say \"92\" in it, yet states that criminals find it easy to acquire guns illegally, but does not give a number of how many actually acquired them illegally. It merely states that only 8% stole guns. Adding restrictions on guns takes away guns, leaving fewer guns in houses, which as I have already stated will lower crime. All of my arguments still stand as my opponent has made no clash.", "qid": 27, "docid": "fc60053c-2019-04-18T17:42:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.748548150062561}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control in the United States Content: Thank you for your response. I'd first like to address that gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. I am not saying that enacting more gun laws would completely erase all gun crime, but is an essential component. As you stated, places such as New York, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Connecticut have had mass shootings, yes. But the vast majority of states with fewer gun laws, like Texas, have had mass shootings to. These are uncommon incidents that don't happen everyday. If you look at the bigger picture, the gun laws in places such as New York result in fewer gun crimes. My argument that gun laws reduce gun crimes is still valid. My opponent talks about how my source doesn't speculate why there are less murders. First of all, this website was about the facts, not the reasons. Secondly, it's difficult to comprehend why the murder rate is low in these states becuase there are many factors to consider. In my opponent's third paragraph, he explains that the source I used was against gun control. I was only showing the graph that showed how the United States has a far higher gun murder rate than any other country. I'd like to point out that my opponent stated that gun laws in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Palestine, are \"non existent,\" that is not the case. In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. In Palestine, there are no gun laws but only 125,000 people posses a gun. Do you know the how many people reside in Palestine? 4,000,000. I'd also like to point out that in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, the amount of guns purchased is low and the population in these countries is high. It's also problematic to compare Canada to Iraq because countries like Palestine are under military occupation, making it more difficult to obtain a gun. My opponent claims that Chicago has the highest amount of violence, I agree. But Chicago also has the highest amount of gangs in the United States. Also, Chicago is one of the many cities in Illinois and is only one area. http://www.zeigen.com... In the graph, you can see that there is a dip in 1934. In 1934, the National Firearm Act was founded and murder rate went down drastically. This was after the law was enacted. These might be reasons why murder rate went down. In 1990, the Crime Control Act was made as well as Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. After those laws passed, gun violence went down again. As you can see, gun violence and gun laws have a strong correlation. Again, I want to remind my opponent and the audience that gun control laws and murder rate is only a factor. Lastly, I'd like to point out that my opponent didn't give any sources about the other countries laws and gave false information. He also didn't provide a claim on why we shouldn't have gun laws. Looking forward to your response. http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://www.zeigen.com... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 27, "docid": "f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7484902143478394}, {"content": "Title: Assault Weapons Ban Content: The laws in the US should be kept as they are, the only change that needs to be made is more extensive background checks. Right now it's too easy to get hold of a gun. Your constitution grants you access to guns but they should be more strictly regulated.", "qid": 27, "docid": "d8fcc9f3-2019-04-18T17:02:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7480901479721069}, {"content": "Title: Gun control laws Content: Hello. In our society, many people wish to implement stricter gun control laws in our society. I am against the proposals, and am taking the con side of this argument.The link we will be using is here.http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...This is a very confusing legal document, so we will be quoting from here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...Yes, I know that there are quite a few gun control debates, but I think that this is a topic worthy of its controversy.First round is for acceptance, second round is for stating your initial arguments, then we can post our rebuttals. Thank you for the debate, and make sure it's serious. I do not want 50 word posts stating one argument. Good luck!", "qid": 27, "docid": "6910d58f-2019-04-18T17:00:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7478218078613281}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Laws Content: So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief. Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns. In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States. 1. Ban on assault rifles. 2. Ban on handguns. 3. Requirement for development of \"Smart Guns\" and technology to enhance safety. 4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs. 5. Increase in background check scrutiny. 6. High capacity magazine bans 7. Ammo bans. 8. Closing loopholes. 9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws 10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws 11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures. Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.", "qid": 27, "docid": "90dc25ac-2019-04-18T12:51:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7473486661911011}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Laws of Debate: Round 1 will be stating your 3 main arguments, and why you support your position in the debate. Round 2-4 will be backing up your argument with evidence and countering your opponent's arguments. Gun Control defines regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now for my three points regarding gun control Firstly, research has proven that more guns in a country are the main cause of more deaths therefor proving that laws targeting firearm restriction would lead to many fewer deaths. Secondly, the NRA (National Rifles Association) and the Republican Government know what they're doing is not right, so they need to keep money involved to make everyone happy. Lastly, Guns are used for protection, but we wouldn't need them nearly as much for protection if there were no guns to threaten people in the first place. Thanks for listening to my argument. Since this is a serious topic I hope that whoever takes this argument is mature and respectful enough to handle this especially after the recent massacre.", "qid": 27, "docid": "3a2ea41b-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7472715973854065}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights Content: I'm sorry I forgot to cite my sources, but since I'm \"new\" to this debate thing, I'm not very used to it. However these are the sources I used in round 2:http://listverse.com...http://www.balancedpolitics.org...-http://www.economist.com...http://www.motherjones.com...A principal would most likely not have not be able to defeat the shooter and most likely kill himself and cause others to be injured. Only 1.6 percent of mass shootings end in a successful intervention by a bystander and only 0.5% of Americans successfully defend themselves from gun violence each year. Statistically speaking, there is a 98.4-99.5 percent chance that he would get killed or worse, injured and brain dead. The argument that more guns= less violence is false, the 5 most dangerous states in America have less gun control than states that have more gun control. While citizens should be able to have guns they NEED to be controlled. The Unites States murder rate and crime rate have been decreasing because of factors, unrelated to gun rights. There are two articles here about it:http://usnews.nbcnews.com...http://www.bbc.co.uk...States have also been enforcing more gun control and crime is dropping. A ban on semi-automatic and auto-matic guns in from 1994-2004 helped curb crime and murder in the U.S. until it expired in 2004. The ban on semi-automatic weapons is proof that gun control actually works and crime is easily controlled by gun control. IT's okay for citizens to have guns, but they need to be controlled. With power comes responsiblity, that means background checks and banning dangerous military weapons like semi-automatic weapons so that is doesn't fall into the wrong hands. More guns actually mean more murders and crime according to a study done by Micheal Siegel in Boston College the more guns people have the more crime that they will commit. \"With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: \"for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,\" Siegel et al. found, \"firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. A onestandard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.\"This also happened to bethe largest gun study EVER DONE. http://thinkprogress.org...More guns= less crime argument makes no sense. Worse is the fact that the U.S. has the higher homicide rates and higesr gun ownership.", "qid": 27, "docid": "691333cd-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7470030784606934}, {"content": "Title: We need gun control Content: Sorry but gun control is flawed. If we ban guns there will just be more crimes. Store owners need guns but they don't. If guns were allowed in more places violence wouldn't take place. If teachers had guns they could stop the school shootings. If we past a law that allowed the officers on school grounds to act instead of standing by they could stop it. Maybe you should stop trying to ban guns and try to pass laws that allow more guns.", "qid": 27, "docid": "c6cefb24-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7469428777694702}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: Gun Control Leads To More Crimes", "qid": 27, "docid": "a6235621-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7469371557235718}, {"content": "Title: More Gun control or less Gun control Content: There should be more gun control, because there are way to many crazy people in the world for there not to be. Less guns mean less crimes and murders! In other countries like Canada, they have stricter rules on having/carrying guns, and they have WAY LESS crimes and murders then the united states. Guns can be used for hunting, but is it reasonable to carry an AK-47? If we have stricter gun control then people who have a mental illness would not go around killing people. THE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE THE PEOPLE KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS!!!! I've never needed to use a gun in my entire life, to defend myself. There are other ways you can defend yourself besides guns. If someone comes on my property with a gun and starts shooting isn't there other weapons I could use besides a gun? I could use a knife to defend myself, why do we need the guns. In the Second Amendment it does say we have a right to bear arms, but this right should be limited. We cannot have people going around buy guns and killing people. When you buy a gun , you have a background check, but what about the people who get the guns illegally? What are we going to do about them, there are billions of people in the world how are we going to stop this person from buying illegally a gun. This is exactly why we should gun control. America has a very low level of gun control already, and if we have people buy guns with bad intentions they are putting others in harm. THE WORLD ALREADY HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE WE HONESTLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM BY LETTING PEOPLE BUY MORE AND MORE GUNS? How many people have been killed by a gun in the past year alone, does it matter? NO IT DOESNT BECAUSE GUNS ARE GUNS AND THEY ARE USED TO HARM, THREATEN, AND KILL PEOPLE. They need limitations on fire arms.", "qid": 27, "docid": "6b19ced-2019-04-18T16:55:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7468835115432739}, {"content": "Title: We should ease up on Gun control laws and hunting regulations. Content: I believe gun laws and hunting regulations should be eased up on. My opponent may make the first arguement. Good luck!", "qid": 27, "docid": "615f0066-2019-04-18T18:53:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7467138767242432}, {"content": "Title: Stricter Gun Control in America Content: First debate here :) Anyways, I think stricter gun control laws should not be supported. Against popular belief, guns are much more useful than what people think. Reasons, I will state later. Thanks!", "qid": 27, "docid": "93e44982-2019-04-18T17:37:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.746492326259613}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting Content: Regarding my opponent's very literal interpretation of my argument: As clarified in the comments prior to the debate \"I'm arguing gun control laws, including but not limited to the examples provided, should be passed by Congress. I made an additional point that there is a refusal in Congress to even discuss these possibilities at the moment.\" I do not argue that gun control legislation is necessary for our day to day existence, I argue that gun control legislation is necessary to improve our country's safety from mass shootings and gun violence. Furthermore, necessity was the word of choice to imply the urgency, importance, and passion I feel for this issue. Now that this clarified I am happy to debate the actual issue. My opponent argues that \"We are teaching people about safety, and other methods. We are instilling things and discussing things which can help stop gun violence without having gun control.\" While I have no problem with educating people about guns there is no indication that it is effective by itself at curbing gun violence and preventing mass shootings. I contend that in addition to prayers that education, \"other methods\", and \"things\" are not enough. My opponent asks why I would ban only assault rifles as opposed to all guns since they represent a relatively small number of gun murders. First, an assault rifle ban would be a policy specifically intended to combat the mass shooting epidemic the US is undergoing seeing that they are the weapons most commonly used in mass shootings: http://www.motherjones.com... In addition an assault weapon ban is obviously a more realistic proposal than banning all guns. This is corroborated by the article provided by my opponent that cites a poll in which \"59 percent of likely voters say they favor a ban.\" I am not trying to ban all guns and strip Americans of a Constitutional right. But seemingly all other rights are subject to regulation and adaptation and the refusal to implement anything or even discuss implementing anything sort of regulation for this particular right is costing innocent lives and that is unacceptable.", "qid": 27, "docid": "822a2b32-2019-04-18T13:09:16Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.746140718460083}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control In America Content: I am a gun owner in America that is looking for a intellectual debate on whether or not gun control is needed to become more strict or loose. My stance subject at the moment is to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, to make gun laws the same on a nation/federal level instead of state laws. The NFA is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment but is one of the most obvious and highlighted ones to take down. While shootings are almost a common occurrence, I believe gun control is not the answer. You start with your claim first. Accept only if you're very knowledgeable about the topic", "qid": 27, "docid": "18fe5038-2019-04-18T11:50:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7459603548049927}, {"content": "Title: The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns. Content: Although i do not think gun control laws are right I think that the States should have the Final say in Gun control Laws. You say force as in without regard to the people of the states oppinion therefore violating the states rights.", "qid": 27, "docid": "42af831b-2019-04-18T19:42:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.745182991027832}, {"content": "Title: More Gun Control is needed in the United States. Content: To make it clear I believe I am going to debating about why more gun control in the US is needed; meaning more stricter rules. And with that I pass it on to my opponent for the 2nd round.", "qid": 27, "docid": "f138ee62-2019-04-18T17:33:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7444886565208435}, {"content": "Title: Banning guns Content: I'll concede the debate. This is my first debate on gun control, and I do not really have an opinion on it (I just thought it would be fun to argue). Even if guns were made illegal to buy, there are already too many guns in circulation. There would be no way to know whether my argument holds or not. Thus, Con convinced me that his argument was better than mine.", "qid": 27, "docid": "369e6f20-2019-04-18T17:27:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7442569732666016}, {"content": "Title: Gun ban legislation and the no fly list Content: The facts are as stated. Laws exist only to limit the law abiding citizen. That is not to say that laws are not necessary, but laws must be in accordance with the Constitution. Banning guns in an effort to reduce gun violence will not only fail, but accelerate gun related shootings to an all time high. The bottom line is that American citizens are guaranteed a right to be armed and have well regulated private militias and no matter how many people clamor to take that right away should not change the constitutional republic in which majority rule but minority right. Gun control is not about safety, it is a another measure by the international banks that run the world to dominate the last few dissenters.", "qid": 27, "docid": "e7df9de1-2019-04-18T13:04:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7429648637771606}, {"content": "Title: That gun control laws create more dangerous countries. Content: Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.", "qid": 27, "docid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7423595786094666}, {"content": "Title: Do u believe that Gun Control and a ban on assault rifles will solve the problem of gun crime Content: I took my opponent's challenge and explained how a new gun control measure would drastically reduce gun crime. I also refuted their limited arguments to the contrary. My opponent viewed my arguments, but then opted to forfeit the debate. My opponent was the instigator, but neither attacked my arguments nor defended their own; thus, my arguments stand unchallenged and their arguments stand refuted. The only logical vote is in my favor. Thank you for reading this debate! :)", "qid": 27, "docid": "7cf0756e-2019-04-18T17:56:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7423096895217896}, {"content": "Title: Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States Content: My opponent has implied that this gun control law would be ineffective. The truth is, laws are only as such. The effects of a law are not to put an end to something entirely, but lower the chances of the problem continuing. Laws, while they may not magically prevent something, provide a consequence for a person who violates them. While what my opponent is saying is true, I remind my opponent that the gun law has significantly decreased the violence since the Brady Law was signed. While a person with a clean record may purchase guns and sell them illegally, the gun law would make it more of a challenge than before. And, if the person is caught selling guns illegally, he or she could be prosecuted. I will clarify what I was talking about regarding felons. By felon, I was really implying those of which have a history of using guns against people, so I apologize if I used the wrong words. Prohibiting guns from convicted abusers nationwide would be a solution to my opponent's concern. However, even if gun laws are left to the states, prohibiting the sale of guns to known offenders would still lessen the problem of gun violence. I restate that laws are meant to lower the problem, not necessarily abolish it entirely, as this would be impossible. The logic to having the gun law would be, if someone can't be trusted with guns, why should they be trusted to use guns for only protective reasons? The problem with guaranteeing full gun rights for safety/hunting reasons is that they are not always used for such. Furthermore, the type of gun is important because if one is capable of committing murder with a handgun, then such will be the same with any gun. All gun types should be restricted for this. Even with the difficulty of bringing and hiding different firearms in banks, there are still many ways to use other guns for harming people. For example, shooting a person across the street with a different gun could happen. All gun types should be restricted from known abusers, in order to ensure that the person has the lowest chance of killing someone with a gun. Again, I apologize for my misuse of wording. By felon, I imply anyone who has misused guns for reasons other than safety/hunting.", "qid": 27, "docid": "37ce65c7-2019-04-18T19:12:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7421073317527771}, {"content": "Title: gun control laws being stricker Content: if have stricter gun control then we run the risk of increasing gun violence. we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment. if your house was robed you should have the right to defend you and your family and a kitchen knife wont do much. people also use guns to hunt which keeps the deer and other animal populations down. so if we have stricter gun control laws then we could increase gun violence but other animals population would go up and it could hurt the environment", "qid": 27, "docid": "22f13602-2019-04-18T11:49:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7417101263999939}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated. We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, \"constitutional rights\" this and \"safety\" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts. I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8bffed-2019-04-18T14:12:28Z-00007-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7416079640388489}, {"content": "Title: I challenge you to a debate over gun regulations! Content: I have a few main contentions for why there should be gun regulations. C1. Overall, more guns=more homicide According to a study written by Mark Duggan of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 10% increase in gun ownership is equal to a 2% increase in homicide rates. He came to this conclusion, by analyzing several different factors that guns which are going to be used in crimes are handguns, rather than rifles, because they are the most easy to conceal. That gun owners are most likely to own handguns because they are the easiest to use for self-defense. He also analyzed the sales of a certain gun magazine and analyzing the places it was bought in found that sale of this magazine and the ownership of a handgun was about 1 to 1. (Every person buying the magazine owns at least a single hand-gun). From this he placed his findings in a complicated algorithm along with the FBI, the states, and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data on homicides and found that a 10% increase in gun ownership relates to a 2.14% increase in homicides. (1) C2. Less guns=less gun homicides Furthermore, between 1993 and 1998, gun homicides fell by 36% while homicides utilizing some other weapon only fell 18%. In this time period, the GSS estimated that the \"share of households with at least one gun fell more than 42% to 35%\". This suggests that when there are less guns there are less gun homicides. (1) C3. Gun ownership has a greater impact on murder rates than murder rates on gun ownership. Once again using the same paper, people are not much more likely to purchase weapons in order to protect themselves from criminals. Using data from states, the FBI, and NCHS and utilizing a different, much more complex algorithm, it was concluded that a 10% increase in homicide rates only amounted to a .2% increase in gun ownership. Guns increase the murder rate 2.14% while murder increases the gun ownership rate .2%. Shouldn't the 2.14% be protected? (1) C4. Concealed Carry Laws do not impact gun ownership greatly. Between 1985 and 1991, ten states passed laws allowing people to carry concealed hand guns. You would obviously expect that since the benefit of owning a concealed weapon was greater the number of people owning a gun would increase substantially. The results of, once again, a different algorithm, was the number of people owning a concealed weapon increased by .0038% a totally insignificant number. The results are about the same at a county level, state level, and decrease at a national level. Even when limited to a certain time frame. (1) C5. Crime does not decline in high ownership counties. Let's say it is completely true that crime is decreased as gun ownership increases. Then it would be expected that in local areas which have high gun ownership also have decreased crime. We will assume, for now, that criminals can percieve the difference between high gun ownership counties and low gun-ownership counties. If a criminal really needed to commit a crime would they not just go to a low gun-ownership county and therefore crime decreases in one place but, not in another. But, here we run into a problem, \"violent crime did NOT decline significantly more in counties...that had high rates of gun ownership.\" So what does this suggest? More people carrying guns has a negligible impact on the behavior of criminals. More guns=more homicide. Les guns=less homicides. 1) http://www.nber.org...", "qid": 27, "docid": "1db532e1-2019-04-18T18:32:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7413854002952576}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: My opponent has used his acceptance round to state his arguments. Based on this I will begin my rebuttals in Round One, and post my main arguments afterwards. R1 \"The current gun control laws in the United States should not be increased and if anything should be abolished. Guns do not cause violence, deranged individuals do.\" It is true that guns do not cause violence, they are simply the middlemen, so to speak. And it is also true that deranged individuals are often behind gun violence. These two statements are true, but that does not mean there shouldn't be gun control laws in America, as my opponent suggests in the first sentence of the quote above. If deranged individuals do cause gun violence, then there should be laws in place to control and hopefully prohibit said deranged individuals' access to guns. Gun control laws are already minimal in America compared to those in countries like Australia[1] or Japan[2], and to further lessen our laws and regulations is an invitation to an even greater ease of access for deranged individuals. R2 \"Statistics show that in areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes. Gun control only helps the criminal.\" This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this. More importantly, there can be many factors not taken into account when measuring such statistics. For instance, what if an area is experiencing a significant amount of gun violence, and decides to give stricter gun control laws a shot. The following year after this decision may not see much change, simply because the new laws take a while to have full effect, but people taking the statistics take a quick look at the area and say, \"Yep, they've still got gun violence.\" R3 \"The original purpose of the 2nd amendment was to be the last line of defense against tyranny, armed civilians are essential to protecting liberty.\" I'd like to stress the use of the word 'original'. The Constitution was crafted at a time very different than ours, when militias were relied upon to help fight in the revolution. The United States was a baby nation at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the forces of law and order were few and far between, and so it was necessary for people to join into militias to provide protection. America is no longer at that stage however. We have a tangible police force to protect us now. A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. A complete ban on guns is not required, but completely free access to guns is no longer needed. R4 \"government does not have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot have as long as they do not hurt another person or violate another persons civil liberties. Owning a firearm of any kind is a human right as firearms in the modern world are necessary for self defense from enemies.\" It seems my opponent's contention here is aimed at a ban on weaponry. I am not for a complete ban on weaponry in the US, so I cannot rebuttal this in its entirety. However I will comment on the idea that firearms are necessary in the modern world to protect oneself from enemies. Statistics show that legally owned guns are rarely used to stop criminals. In fact, legally owned guns are found to be used in socially undesirable ways, such as threatening spouses and children, illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3]. Legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense. This is contradictory to my opponent's idea that guns are necessary for safety. Main Argument: Point 1 I do not argue for a complete ban on weapons in the United States. I argue for smarter and stricter laws regarding gun ownership, especially in gun acquisition. Currently 20% of gun sales are private[4], without background checks taking place. This is a huge loophole for potential deranged individuals. Point 2 We have seen many countries enact very tough gun laws, and been the better for it. My two biggest examples are that of Australia[1], and Japan[2]. Japan has virtually no civilian owned guns. The only weapons that are legal to purchase are shotguns and air rifles, and these are extremely hard to come by, due to the complicated gun acquisition process in place. Japan has had as few as 2 gun deaths a year. Compare that to the US's 12,000 firearm related homicides in the year 2008[2]. Or take Australia, which has seen significant reduction in gun related homicide since the NFA was enacted[5]. It is impossible to look at scenarios like this and claim it's due to chance, and that the same could not happen in America if stricter gun laws were introduced. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... [4] http://www.cnn.com... [5] http://guncontrol.org.au...", "qid": 27, "docid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7411375641822815}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: I feel that we need more regulations on guns to keep America safer.", "qid": 27, "docid": "38cc7420-2019-04-18T17:34:32Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.740864634513855}, {"content": "Title: Gun control in America Content: Again as I stated- having rifles which are dispensed from a controlled facility for the purposes of hunting still allows the right to bear arms to some degree. I will again restate my point that since guns have become much more efficient killing machines over the years, the 2nd amendment should adjust accordingly. Our founding fathers could not have possibly predicted what guns are like today. I have heard many times the argument gun laws only take guns out of the hands of honest gun owners, not criminals. Yes and no. Initially after more gun laws are passed, many criminals would still have firearms. The idea isn't to snap your fingers and do away with all illegal firearms, but to progressively weed them out over a period of time. Yes, many guns are brought in illegally. That problem is not by any stretch of imagination impossible to deal with. Your facts you cited, though I have no reason to believe they are false, are from a study attempting to prove gun control is ineffective. The problem with this is that if you want to, facts can be easily cherry picked to \"prove\" either side. Since gun control on a federal level hasn't ever been taken up seriously , I am not sure there is any statistical evidence that when looked at from an unbiased standpoint that suggests with conviction gun control in general does or doesn't work. To prove my point, here are some bias statistics that would suggest gun control does work: http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com... Now, here are the some statistics presented from a non bias source: http://hubpages.com... See what I mean. You can stack the facts to promote either side, but when looked at comprehensively, there is no solid statistical evidence either strongly suggesting is better. The determining factor is the amount of original crime before the laws were implemented, and more importantly, how you execute the laws. Gun control has failed in some countries not because it is a bad idea, but because authorities simply lack the strength to enforce it. If gun control is done correctly, and the government exerts an effort to remove illegal guns from the streets, along with a crackdown on illegal gun imports, it would be reduce the amount of violent crimes. Despite the lack of strong statistical evidence for either side, there is a solid and logical argument that gun control in the US would be a positive thing. If an armed robber enters a house, and sees that the owner is there with a gun, he will be more likely to kill in perceived self-defense. The owner of the house will also be more likely to kill in perceived self defense if the robber is armed. The rate of deadly crimes of passion, when guns are removed from the equation, will also decrease. It's much easier to act on emotion or impulse when a gun is easily available. Also, guns can and do fall into the hands of children, and many fewer guns means many fewer occurrences of firearms falling into the wrong hands, including those of children's. It is my opinion and the opinion of many defense of material objects is not justified by the taking of life if there are other ways to obtain justice, such as through a court system and police. Additionally, if it was proven sufficiently that gun control didn't reduce violent crime or deaths from it, then why is it so many areas plagued with violent crime are screaming for gun control? Although I don't pull out this argument frequently myself, gun control would also reduce school shootings and potentially prevent terrorists from stockpiling weapons. \"Why don't we just do background checks instead?\", you might ask. To which my response is that background checks are not successful in preventing aforesaid people (terrorists and potential shooters with a mental disability) from obtaining a gun. Additionally, the same people who advocate the success of background checks are the same people who riddle them with loopholes making it easy to stockpile weapons. As long as there are weapons out there, criminals will get their hands on them. Thus, the idea is to have the smallest amount of weapons possible. Many people would counter this with the idea that \"criminals will be intimidated if they know citizens are statistically well armed and that there is a good chance the owner of the house they are robbing is in possession of a firearm.\" While this seems like a logical statement, facts suggest this is not true. There are nations with very low gun ownership rates that have crime rates lower than nations with high gun ownership rates. Ultimately, my point is that gun laws can and will work in reducing homicide rates and crimes of passion if you combine them with an earnest effort to stop illegal gun imports. The reason gun control has done nothing in Europe, where much of the gun rights people get their data, is that trade is very difficult to regulate and one can transport guns through borders with relative ease if one so desired. We do not face this problem nearly as severely. Canada already has strict gun control laws, so we would receive little or no illegal guns from them. The main effort would be to stop shipments of guns from Mexico, which with a combined effort of strengthening of the border patrol (which we arguably need anyway), and patrol from the Coast Guard, is entirely doable. Another argument is \"Guns are part of America's history, it's wrong to take them away.\" My response to this is simple, just because something is part of our history or an element of American culture, this tells us nothing about whether said thing is good or not. For a long time, racism was part of American culture. Therefore, is it a malicious infringement of American culture to make it illegal to deny someone employment because of their skin color? Of course not. Just because something is a part of America's past doesn't mean we must or should embrace that thing in the future.", "qid": 27, "docid": "7c7dd03a-2019-04-18T16:12:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7404052019119263}, {"content": "Title: There should be mental health regulations rather than gun regulations Content: I will say again: I am not assuming that gun regulations should be completely, absolutely and formally wiped off the face of this planet. Yes, with the gun laws now, we don' have people running around with guns per say. But I don't think more gun restrictions is going to help anyone. Lets take Chicago for instance. Guns are shipped in and out of that city, which is why gun restrictions don't work to their full potential. Right? Is it just that city? Is California better off? Placing gun restrictions on \"mobile\" guns do not help anyone. Its just like illegal shipment of drugs. Marijuana is illegal, most people at my HIGHSCHOOL use it. \"It is because of the lack of gun regulations, guns are being transported illegally and that's a very big issue.\"- Placing gun restrictions only increases its value. Yes, if your strict enough to prevent VISUAL transportation of these weapons, that great. But its the INVISIBLE transportation of guns that we should be worried about. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW GUN LAWS. But we do! You think that by limiting the people's supply of guns is going to help us fight those who DO NOT follow gun laws? Laws mean nothing to the outlaws. Laws only help the lawful but in this case, it could be the death of us. \"A robber with a gun can easily break into your house, putting your life in danger.\"- Yes. Of course he can. But that still happens even with gun restrictions now. Gun restrictions cannot prevent an intruder from entering a home. That intruder can still get a gun from his friend that has every right to have a gun. So why are we cutting off the tail of the snake instead of the head? We think we are stopping gun violence by getting ride of the product, but if we get ride of the source, the idea that breeds the thought of pulling the trigger. You think gun violence is bad now? Wait till guns are illegal. Why do we need gun laws to keep the mentally ill from using gun? What wrong with putting them away so they don't even walk into the store? Again. We are only cutting off the tail on this one because we think guns are killing people but they are not. I know its clique but: guns don't kill people. People kill people. The real threat is us. We choose to buy the guns; our brain does. Guns just don't pop up on someone's front porch and scream \"USE ME!\". To your point about common sense: common sense is irrelevant to both mental and gun laws. Gun laws will not make someone say \"hmmmm he says he's hearing voices and yet he has a gun. Oh well.\" Now before you say anything about more gun laws. Before you say that more gun restrictions would keep a person like Aaron Alexis from getting a gun. The place he goes to buy the guns knows NOTHING about his mental status. Why? Because he never went to a therapist, so there are not records of him showing signs of schizophrenia. Crazy people never tell other people they are crazy. WE have to determine that so they don't buy a gun, not through laws, but by plain, old, underrated common sense.", "qid": 27, "docid": "56b3b699-2019-04-18T16:17:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7403835654258728}, {"content": "Title: A Gun Tax Content: The shooting in Las Vegas left 59 dead and over 500 injured. It's been deemed one of the most devastating and deadly shootings in America. In response, many politicians have called for more gun control. This is a debate about what actions should be taken to reduce the amount of shooting deaths in America. I, pro, will be arguing for a tax on guns. My opponent, con, has the freedom to argue any other action to reduce shooting deaths, or advocate for the current laws being enough for gun control.", "qid": 27, "docid": "1df47ea-2019-04-18T12:03:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7403704524040222}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America Content: Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health\"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "3a2ea41b-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7403067350387573}, {"content": "Title: Guns should be more regulated in the United States Content: Hello, I apologize for this debate slipping my mind. Looks like it did for my opponent as well so lets just start now. As a roadmap I will give 2 contentions showing my position on the topic. First Contention: 1. Gun Control Is No Answer to Crime. According to a Harvard study in 2009 the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that \"the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths\" is wrong. For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway \"has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.\" And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8. The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should \"at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).\" But after intense study the authors conclude \"those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.\" In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. Second Contention A. Guns are needed to protect ourselves 1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated. 2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the \"more difficult\" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated. 3. After the rise of the Nazi\"s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the \"Brown Shirts\", were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts\" fate. 4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated. As we\"ve seen in the past, guns are a very important of self protection and while some might use a tool with malicious intent we cannot punish all citizens. Regulation does not solve this problem because whether or not it is more regulated someone with malicious intent will find a way to commit a crime whether or not these regulations exist. What we need to focus on instead is actually focusing on how to reduce the amount of this criminals and actually address the problem itself. Thank you, I urge a vote in the negative.", "qid": 27, "docid": "bc8e03f8-2019-04-18T16:49:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7394410371780396}, {"content": "Title: Gun Laws Content: So I think I am supposed to say why gun laws should be in place because that is what my opponent told me in a message. Contention 1: Not all guns should be restrictedBy all means we should have tighter gun control. But I am not referring to taking away our guns. Access to, and the types of guns that we have, should be more closely regulated. Guns for hunting and sport shooting and even for one's personal defense could be allowed. But no one outside of the military or the police needs a semi-automatic rifle or heavier guns. Contention 2: Recent ShootingsI'm sure you have seen the news lately. Schools, movie theatres, former police officers, teens, and a former sniper. Why? Because all of these people have managed to get their hands on any type of guns because the law permits them to. But if these laws were stricter, then they wouldn't be able to get their hands on ALL these heavy guns used in the military, police, and other government related departments. I am not saying to ban all guns to citizens. I know that we need them. Contention 3: Mental PersonsWe cannot control a mental person's action. Sometimes not even they know what they are going to do. Like the one in Aurora, Colorado. The man had some type of mental illness. If the government enforced that the person to own the gun wasn't having mental related issues, then the citizens of the United States would be a little safer. Additional Info: An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U. S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world. In 33 of the 50 states, criminals can buy military-style weapons from \"private dealers\" on the internet without any ID or background check. This can be very dangerous. Each year in the US, there are 30,000 deaths related to guns. This is a hot topic in the media, but the presidential and congressional candidates do nothing about it. Once again, I am not saying to ban all guns. I am saying to enfore some stricter laws on guns so that the US citizens are safer in their homes and evironments. Sorry for the short round; if I had posted it earlier, I would have been able to make it longer. Thank You and Enjoy!", "qid": 27, "docid": "d4c415df-2019-04-18T17:44:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7392868995666504}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights. Content: Wait. I read your entire round 1 debate. Nowhere does it say that the feasibility of gun control is what we're discussing. The debate itself was only ever over gun rights. You treated this debate as if were pro gun control, but i'm simply con gun rights. You took away philosophy and replaced with politics. Now I shall use the UK as a case study to tear your argument apart.In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law In England & Wales in 2009 there were 0.073 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the USA was 3.0, about 40x higher, and for Germany 0.2.[2]In 2006, writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis[3] but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, \"in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall\"[4]. Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences.Possession of a live firearms round can lead to severe penalties. Shotgun cartridges can be possessed by anybody over the age of 17 but a Shotgun Licence is required for purchase.While Scotland has had its own parliament (Holyrood) since the Scotland Act 1998, power to legislate on firearms was reserved to the UK Parliament, which led to tensions between the British and Scottish parliaments, with the Scottish government wanting to enact still stricter laws.[5]A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare, with fewer than 3% of offences resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[6] The number of homicides per year committed with firearms remained between 49-97 in the eight years to 2006. There were two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period, and 107 non-fatal shootings.[6] In 2005/06 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.[6]For international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[7] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.[8] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average.[9]While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[10] Only those \"firearms\" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[10]Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[11] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. \"Slight\" in this context means an injury that was not classified as \"serious\" (they did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as \"slight,\" which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making \"inaccurate and misleading\" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[12][13] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, \"We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall.\"This is proof of the fact that gun control can be successfully implemented. Solid, undeniable, unquestionable proof. You wanted to talk pure statistics? You got it. I look forward to seeing how you counter this.Sources:[1] Malcolm, p. 91-98[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics. Total 2009 firearms homicides for the England & Wales are given as 41, which equates to 0.073 per 100,000 of the 56 million inhabitants; this figure is rounded to one decimal place in the table, i.e. 0.1.[3] http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org...[4] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[6] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[7] http://www.fbi.gov...[8] http://www.unodc.org...[9] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[10] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[12] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...[13] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...", "qid": 27, "docid": "6912af72-2019-04-18T18:10:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7392399311065674}, {"content": "Title: Gun law Regulations Content: Gun control is definitely needed in today\"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, \"Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?\" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.", "qid": 27, "docid": "7525390b-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7391484975814819}, {"content": "Title: We Should Have Stricter Gun Control Content: I agree with the definitions and parameters for this debate, though I will add that this debate should be localized in the legal context of the United Stated. This might be irrelevant, but I want to avoid any possible discrepancies. I will argue that we should have stricter gun control - but first, it is my opponent's turn to argue.", "qid": 27, "docid": "af032b19-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7390969395637512}, {"content": "Title: The Second Amendment should be repealed Content: It is a pleasure to be debating you and I am glad we can debate this topic. FrameworkIn this debate, I will attempt to show three things: 1) That gun control is effective; 2) That the 2A restricts any meaningful gun legislation; and 3) That the current gun culture is out of control and that the 2A only contributes to this issue. For those reasons, the 2A should be repealed. Gun control is effective Research has shown time and time again that gun control measures are effective. For example, a paper that was published in 2015 in Epidemiological Review found \u201cEvidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e. g. , background checks) and access to (e. g. , safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. \u201d [1] According to a report by The Lancet, universal background checks will reduce firearm deaths from 10.3 to 4.6 per 100,000 people; Background checks for ammunition purchases, which could reduce the mortality rate to 1.99 deaths per 100,000 people; and Firearm identification, by either microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting, which could reduce the death rate to 1.81 per 100,000 people. [2] After Australia passed sweeping gun control legislation in 1999, studies show that there has been a significant decrease in crimes and homicides [3, 4, and 5]. Fiona MacDonald notes: \u201c [R]eview of gun control laws in more than 10 countries over the past 60 years, published back in March, showed compelling evidence that the tighter legislation reduced firearm deaths. \u201d [5] Rights are not absolute The United States is the one of a handful of countries in the entire world that etches the right to own guns in its Constitution (the others being Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala [6] ) As Rolling Stones noted: \u201cThe liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more. \u201d [7] My right to life and to be safe trumps any right to own a firearm. 2A Impedes Progress The main problem with the 2A is that it impedes any progress on mass shootings and violence in the United States. In fact, more people have died of gun violence since 1968 than than on battlefields of all the wars in American history combined. [8, 9] The 2A impedes progress by limiting what, if anything, that the Government can do to help curb gun violence. Furthermore, because of the long history of the 2A, guns have become part of the American psyche and American culture. In order to make any substantial progress, we must eliminate the culture of guns. Repealing the 2A would be a helpful start. Conclusion In summary, the second amendment should be repealed if we want to make progress on curbing gun violence in the USA. The United States is the one of two countries in the world that etches the right to own firearms into its constitution (the other being Mexico). Gun control is an effective way to reduce violence and crime. The 2A impedes on any meaningful gun legislation. Therefore, the 2A should be repealed. The right to life and the right to safety trumps any right to own firearms. I now turn it over to con. 1. (. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org.secure.sci-hub.cc...)2. (. http://www.thelancet.com...(15)01026-0/abstract)3. (. http://www.snopes.com...)4. (. http://www.reuters.com...)5.(http://www.sciencealert.com...)6. (. http://www.slate.com...)7. (. http://www.rollingstone.com...)8. (. http://www.bbc.com...)9. (. http://www.politifact.com...)", "qid": 27, "docid": "5edd8bbd-2019-04-18T12:52:01Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7390435934066772}, {"content": "Title: DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban Content: Sure as shooting, it's time to debate.Gun Control Increases CrimeFor this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, \"Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime.\" He goes on to say that, \"[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time \u2014not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.\" s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt=\"\" width=\"427\" height=\"332\" />This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. \"Where is the United States on this graph?\" you may be asking. It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. http://johnrlott.blogspot.ca...The Reason why Gun Control Does not Deter Crime Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime still manage to use weapons like guns, knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, \"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide\")Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researchers Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slightIn the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. http://johnrlott.tripod.com...Americans Have a Justifiable Right to own GunsThe above evidence goes to show how banning ownership of guns will have a negative effect on crime. Now how will it affect the people who rely on guns in everyday living? The people living in the mountains,forests, anywhere where hunting with guns is an essential part of life. People rely on guns not only for a feeling of security and protection but to hunt for food. Guns are essential in those \u201cneck of the woods\u201d and taking the food and protection away from them is unconstitutional.Next the fact of the matter is, guns save more people than they kill. Research shows that law abiding citizens use guns up to 2.5million times in a year for self defense. [Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, \"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,\" 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)]That makes it, give or take, 80 times more likely for a gun to defend lives than take lives. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org...The state of Vermont and Mexico; Undeniable evidence on how Gun bans have a negative effect on crimeYou can see evidence that gun control laws either have no effect or cause more crime when you look at the state of Vermont which has one of the most permissive gun laws in North America. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...Yet Vermont is the safest state to live in.https://www.google.ca...Next take a look at the country of Mexico which has some of the strickest gun laws in the world which has one of the highest crime rates in the world. http://www.theblaze.com...It is obvious that criminals will always find ways to keep guns and a gun ban although may be great theoretically, the only people that will give them up are the law abiding citizens and the criminals will keep their guns leaving everybody else defenseless. In conclusion...My whole argument is to prove that guns keep people safe and gun bans are a danger to society. And since I have shown this, gun bans should not be implemented in the United States of America. I look forward to my opponants response.", "qid": 27, "docid": "9488d5b8-2019-04-18T13:24:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7389832735061646}, {"content": "Title: Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind Content: I understand and fully respect the principles and rights outlined in the Second Amendment - as a matter of fact, I support them. I accepted the debate as I believe there is more that could be done to further lessen the casualties due to gun-related violence; for example, longer waiting periods for certain makes of assault rifles (maybe 3-5 days for more high-powered weapons, lesser waiting times for those which aren't as robust), yearly (or at least, on a regular scale i.e. every three/four years) training courses, and higher standards for the keeping of these weapons (under lock and key, or with a fingerprint scanner or input code - something that, in the event of an emergency, wouldn't significantly impact upon the time taken to protect yourself but also adds preventive strategy from mentally-ill people from hijacking your weapons and doing dangerous, unruly things - similar to the way you unlock your iPhone). All of these factors can allow authorities to more properly vet those people who are a genuine threat to society, whilst also allowing those who are responsible gun owners to continue to live their lives. What I'm trying to do here is find some middle-ground; a compromise. I am aware that there are already similar measures in place, such as background checks, waiting periods, and training courses - what I am proposing are just some more measures to spot the potential people who misuse these weapons and villainise the law-abiding citizens who use them properly; for self-defense, sport, hunting, and more. What we are seeing today happen in America is a significant increase in mass shootings - which, no matter what side of politics you are on, you can definitely agree is a bad thing. And because of strict rules on research and general toxicity around the gun-control debate in the U.S., we simply don't know whether or not it will truly help bring down mass murder and crime statistics. Other countries would point to tighter gun control rules as being able to help more than hinder, but until it is actually tested in the United States, we simply won't know. What this solution proposes is a system that allows law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, to play sports, and go hunting - whilst also decreasing the safety risk for everyone in the general public form lunatics who misuse guns and commit terrible acts of violence and hatred. The government should absolutely not interfere with the Second Amendment by banning all guns; because then, as you said, tyranny could take over - which is why the 2nd Amendment was established in the first place (you know, with the higher tea price and all :P). But what they also shouldn't do is do nothing; because standing by when clearly there is a problem (the problem may not be guns themselves, but how easy it is for mentally ill people to access them) is most certainly not the right answer. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I'd be interested to see what you think of the points I've made; whether you agree or disagree, what you would change, or anything. (TL;DR: Guns should be able to be owned by law-abiding citizens, but there needs to be higher restriction to stop them from falling into the wrong hands.) :)", "qid": 27, "docid": "e5109f18-2019-04-18T11:36:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7388476133346558}, {"content": "Title: the USA should have universal background checks Content: con posits we need stricter enforcement of current laws to reduce violence. well, then let's do that. but there is no reason we can't have more checks and such. in fact, it would be completely arbitrary to just say we are at the magic spot restriction wise, and background check wise. if checks work, why not have more? con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them. con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns. no one wants to take hunting guns away. his point is here basically pointless. gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun, as he posits that the guns are used for hunting and such. this first of all defies the studies i showed, that said the more likely person is to have a gun, the more likely they are to have problems with it. and, it defies common sense. like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings...... and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems. con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave.", "qid": 27, "docid": "a2b0b345-2019-04-18T15:54:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7383842468261719}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: con gives some anecdotal evidence for defying the proposition that the more guns a country has the more overall homidide it has. to be sure, there are exceptions. but the studies i showed illustrate that the norm is as i stated. background checks or resonable regulateions do not contradict the 2nd amendment. they just add some reason around the edges. and this isn't without precedent. even the 1st amendment has some well known exceptions. con argues an invasion could occur. this is true, but is a far fetched scenario such that hte only way you could side with con is to engage in radical thought. besides, no one is talking about necessarily taking away guns, at most have more background checks. this would mean more regulation and my resolution would be true without taking away so many guns.", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.738018274307251}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: I accept and look forward to a meaningful debate. Personal beliefs on gun control: I think it is unacceptable that criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, etc. are able to legally and easily access the guns they use for their crimes. I think firearms and the right to bear arms have enjoyed an undue immunity from any sort of regulation and this refusal to give any ground is costing lives. I do believe there are \"common sense\" gun control measures that will protect responsible gun owners' rights while preventing firearms from getting into the wrong hands. In the wake of acts of terror, natural disasters, and epidemics the U.S. takes drastic response measures, it is time we treat gun violence the same way by enacting gun control legislation.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c07ad-2019-04-18T13:04:12Z-00008-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7379310131072998}, {"content": "Title: Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened Content: Gun controll laws should not be tightened because approximately 92% of guns used in crimes come from an illegitimate or illegal source. Therefore, tighter gun laws would only make it harder for people who want guns for a legitimate reason such as self defense or hunting to get guns and defend themselves from the criminals that aquire them illegaly. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...", "qid": 27, "docid": "fc60053c-2019-04-18T17:42:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7379239201545715}, {"content": "Title: State's Rights Content: By talking about gun control, I once mentioned before that it is very important issue. So that is why I do not see the reasons for not accepting this law by whole country. In my opinion, the states already have enough rights. They have their own laws and rules, what is next? I just do not understand, why and for what reason states should get more rights than they have now. In my own country, we also have a country divided into regions. But all the regions obey to the one legislative branch above, there is one Constitution and laws for whole country. And if the government accepts new law, for instance, about fight against terrorism, all regions accept that, despite for fact that some regions simply \"want\" it or not. And it also works pretty well.", "qid": 27, "docid": "22034e3a-2019-04-18T17:08:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7376509308815002}, {"content": "Title: Should we have Gun Control Content: I'm also very new to this site and I thank you for debating with me, also I do live in the U.S. While its true that criminals break the law stricter laws will make fewer criminals break the law. Also while it is true we have background checks and some limitations on firearms we could still have more. Also with the current laws we have, it is WAY to easy for anyone to get a gun by going to gun shows. Also, the current laws we have don't hold stores to these laws and they can easily break them with no punishment. You said that \"We need to protect our second amendment.\" but here's the thing gun control DOES NOT violate the second amendment. Why is because this is what the second amendment says \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You see that gun control is not violating that because it is only making more background checks, and to make it as easy to buy a gun. It is not infringing on that right because you can still buy a gun it will just be harder. Please do your rebuttal for your next argument so things can move along smoothly thank you.", "qid": 27, "docid": "810cf76c-2019-04-18T11:37:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7376207709312439}, {"content": "Title: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws Content: Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that U.S. Congress has the right to pass gun control legislation as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment--but how is this possible? Easy. It's because most people don't truly understand the Second AmendmentBefore we get into the lively discussion of why U.S. Congress should impose sensible, more effective gun control laws than are currently on the books, I'm going to briefly explain that U.S. Congress has this power, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has historically and consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation [1][2]. Furthermore, the implied powers granted to U.S. Congress via Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--the portion I'm referring to known as the \"Necessary and Proper\" Clause--give Congress the authority to pass gun control legislation, as long as it does not violate the Second Amendment [3][4].First of all, in order to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional, we have to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment--which brielfy states the exact motive for having it inserted in the Bill of Rights.\"Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. [5]\"There are actually several ways to interpret this, but the most conservative U.S. Supreme Courts (and by extension, U.S. Congress) have interpretted this to mean that people have the right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense--but not necessarily for anything beyond that [3]. In other words, the Second Amendment grants people the right to arm themselves in self-defense--but not to maliciously and criminally injure others, to rob other people's property, or to act against law enforcement or state and federal governments [3]. Of course, this fits in line with the most conservative rulings of the nation's highest court, but historically the Court has also interpretted the Amendment to mean that having arms is only constitutionally protected for military purposes [4]. In fact, this is a position held by several sitting members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, and also the recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens [4].Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about having moderate (conservative rulings) to abundant (liberal rulings) national gun control laws, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the unrestricted, unconditional right to own firearms [1][3][4].In fact, because of historical U.S. Supreme Court rulings, U.S. Congress has already passed various laws restricting gun ownership or requiring gun registration and background checks on some gun purchases. As early as 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain firearms and destructive devices to be registered with the U.S. government and which imposed a tax on sales of such devices; failure to comply with the act had criminal penalties, including up to 10 years of incarceration and between $10,000 to $100,000 fines for individual violations [6]. Over the years, congressional legislation signed into law has made it a crime for convicted felons, those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and for fugitives of justice to own and use firearms; people who illegally use drugs are prohibited from owning/operating a firearm, as are people who have been committed to a mental institution and who suffer a dangerous mental illness (however, not everyone diagnosed with a severe mental illness is prohibited from owning firearms); others are outlawed from owning and using firearms as well [1].Current Federal Gun Control Laws and Their Limitations In the last paragraph, I explained that certain people are probited from owning/operating firearms under federal law in the U.S. These people include [1]:-convicted felons/people convicted of certain misdemeaners-fugitives of justice-unlawful users of drugs-non U.S. citizens/non-permanent legal residents-people committed to mental institutions and diagnosed with dangerous mental illness-those with a criminal history of domestic violence (a single misdemeaner incident or more/greater)-some othersBut current federal gun control laws also place legal responsibilities (punishable with a fine and/or incarceration for not complying) on people who engage in the business of selling and buying firearms, also known as gun dealers.Current national law requires gun/firearms dealers to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and federal restrictions make it a crime for them to sell firearms to people under 18 years of age and other people prohibited from owning/using firearms [1]. It is a crime for a gun dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm without the transaction first being approved by a prescribed source, after a background check has been conducted; the dealer is also required to document the sale of the firearm with federal form 4473, which identifies the purchaser's information and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm [1]. However, form 4473 is kept by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to put the purchaser's information in an electronic registry that can be later used by law enforcement; furthermore, current laws (the Tiahrt Amendments) require that the ATF destroy records on background checks after 24 hours that it approves a gun sale, and the ATF cannot use tracing data in some legal proceedings to revoke or temporarily suspend a dealer's license [1]. The ATF can only investigate dealers on an individual basis with regards to purchases, and can only collect 4472 forms after a gun dealer goes out of business [1].It's these limitations that place great strain on the ATF and that prevent it from more effectively carrying out its work. Because the ATF cannot create an electronic registry on gun purchases and must destroy information after it approves a gun sale (background checks are performed soley to determine if the gun purchaser is someone prohibited from owning/operating a gun), crimes committed with firearms take longer to investigate and provides the assailant with more time to break the law. The lack of an electronic registry on gun purchases in some cases allows assailants who use guns to avoid ever being detected and be brought to justice.The Bradley Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that the current weak guns laws in place at the federal level have allowed tens of thousands of guns to leave gun shops without checks or records, one of the reasons being the severe restrictions placed on the ATF's role during transactions and the follow up [7]. Requring gun dealers to better keep records of all firearms in their possession and to register all gun purchases in an electronic registry would allow the ATF and other law enforcement to better track guns in this nation and would vastly reduce gun crimes and violence; it would also shorten the time between an incident of gun crime and apprehension by law enforcement.Gun sales and transactions between individuals is even less strict and unfortuneately a background check and federal form 4473 are not legally required in such sales, which increases the probability that someone prohibited from owning a firearm will obtain one through such a transaction, such as a convicted felon or a minor. It also makes it more difficult for the ATF and other law enforcement to track a gun sold in this way used in a criminal incident [7]. In point of fact, firearms sold by \"occassional sellers\"--people not required to abide with the federal background check--were used in the Columbine School massacre that killed 12 students and 1 teacher, not including the two young perpetrators [7], who committed multiple felony violations of federal in the days leading up to the school shooting [8].Firearms sold by \"occassional sellers\" in the U.S. have also found their way into the hands of terrorist organizations in the middle east, including the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, and across the Southern border into Mexico, where rivaling drug gangs have used the weapons to mow down each other and countless innocent bystanders [7].Shockingly, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that more than 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels originate in the U.S; 2000 guns are estimated to cross--illegally--the Southern border into Mexico per day [9]. Mexico, where guns are strictly outlawed, has seen over 100,000 people lose their lives in a drug war partly fueled by illegal firearms being shipped in from the U.S. [10]. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are made by unlicensed sellers who do not perform background checks, and that this is one major reason why guns are flowing across the Mexican border at such an alarming rate [9].But, as we shall see in the next ROUND, the U.S. is also suffering a major crisis all its own, for its weak/inefficient federal gun control laws currently in place.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://online.wsj.com...)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] (http://www.businessweek.com...)[5] (http://www.ushistory.org...)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "qid": 27, "docid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.737177312374115}, {"content": "Title: more gun regulation should exist Content: Kind regards for you post.I will now proceed to deliver my final Rebuttals, as well as my final conclusions.Final Rebuttals:I would first of all like to point to the great issue here.Pro has not posted a single argument as to why there should be more gun regulations! In every single round I have commented on this, 3 rounds long, yet Pro was still not able to provide an argument supporting the topic, other than 'sources', that, without an argument, have no context to this debate. Now I would like to comment to Pros statement about 'finding a conflicting study than my links'. Incorrect. I did not use any study, I simply used factual evidence as to firearms per country and homicide rate. Pros sources were exclusively US related, one excluded which factually did not show a link between firearms and homicide rate, which is what Pro seemingly is trying to provide. It does not matter by whom these studies are made, they are not related to what I was talking about, which is that there is no link between firearm availability and homicide rate. Maybe there is a small link on an US level, but the US homicide rate is not as high as people like to make it out to be. This however is not a valid reason for more firearms regulations. As for Pro calling my diagram 'biased' because of the website I have it from, this is absolutely ridiculous. If Pro would have taken one second longer and looked at the diagram and what it says on the lower left side, Pro would have seen why this statement is ridicule. The source for the data is given there. And, surprise surprise, it is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Please tell me again how the UN is biased and Pro guns. I am sorry, but factual, statistical evidence cannot be biased, it is simply true. Statistics can be incorrect as to mistakes in numbers, but statistics cannot be biased. Pros second paragraph is mostly incomprehensible. Thus I will make general assumptions as to what Pro was trying to state. Seemingly Pro is trying to state that it would be absurd to think that regulations would have no effect. I agree. Indeed it would have an effect. The effect that I tried to demonstrate in the first round already with this video..First of all, possession of this firearm is illegal, thus the owner is a criminal. Second of all, no normal resident would need this kind of firearm nor would have such a firearm, other than a person that was trying or wanting to commit crime. This means that criminals will have firearms, while people who abide the law will be regulated. Sure, there will be the odd one who will be stopped, but if you want a firearm you can get one. And that will be whether it is a handgun, sub-machine or machine-gun. Or any other firearm. In fact, as I was mentioning Australia again, a lot of 'shootings' here are committed with bolt action rifles, as these are the most common kind of firearm, but criminals do possess things like military machine guns, as seen sub-machine-guns or handguns. Your standard person who works 8-4 does not possess these kind of things, it is only people with criminal intent. So why would you regulate people who wont break the law? And reward people who do? Criminals do not abide by the law. Otherwise they would not be criminals. The law does not stop them , police does. Pro also seems to think that all criminals have or want firearms. No, that is most definitely incorrect. Only a small number of criminals possess firearms, as only a small number of criminal commit violent crimes or crimes with firearms. The majority of 'crime' committed has nothing to do with firearms. So no, not 100% of all 'would be criminals' would acquire firearms, as not 100% of all 'would be criminals' even need firearms (for their crime). These are criminals such as fraudsters, robbers (non firearm), assault, drugs, vehicle offences and so on. Criminals, such as individuals in gangs, 'big' drug dealers, basically all the individuals who already possess illegal firearms would be the people that would still have access to firearms. And you are making it easier for those people. Now, if they threaten somebody who, unknowingly to them, has a firearm, which is likely, they can be shot. If there are regulations, they can threaten somebody with a firearm and feel really safe, knowing that that person most likely does not have a firearm. Also, as I have already stated, background checks are the first step to taking all weapons. Statistically nearly everyone in the US possesses a firearm. Do you think it would be good if the government would check nearly everybody? Would that not be exactly what Edward Snowden was trying to warn people about? As a final point, yes, gun control may decrease the homicide rate, but the real question is if it is beneficial for the US in so many other factors. I would say no. Simply consult all of Cons arguments that Pro did not (try) to rebut. That should be reason enough. Final Conclusion:Pro, until the end, did not provide an argument as to why there should be more 'gun' regulation. Not a single reason. Pro only 'tried' to rebut 3 of the 7 arguments provided by Con, leaving 4 arguments unchallenged. The 'sources' that were supplied were easily negated through statistical evidence and if connected to Pros argument(s) (that did not exist) out of context. All of Pros 'rebuttals' were negated by Con.Furthermore Pros conduct is more than questionable. First of all, as already stated above, in fact in every single one of my rounds, Pro did not provide any arguments. Second, Pro did not provide any sources to the majority of their theories. Pro called Cons statistical evidence 'anecdotal' and 'biased'. Statistical evidence, here provided by the UN (United Nations) can be neither. Pros last paragraph is not comprehensible and I conceive it as a bad joke that Pro would think that, after no argument from Pros side, Con would \"need to concede the debate\" if a statistical probability was admitted. Con stated several times that Pro had not provided any arguments, thus easily enabling Pro to state an argument, but Pro seemingly ignored this. Kind regards to Pro, all readers and all voters. Have a good day!", "qid": 27, "docid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7371765375137329}, {"content": "Title: Gun control lowers crime Content: According the the set rule of the debate I'll solely conclude here, though I'm positive that the reader can extract necessary rebuttals to the questions put forward in the last round from my previous arguments. Conclusion:Through this debate I used cross-sectional data and comparing two countries, one in which the gun control laws are next to nothing, USA and another one which takes gun control rather seriously, Canada.I maintain my case showing different comparisons that I offered in the previous rounds that gun control is an effective way for controlling the gun related crimes. After the exclusion or serious reduction of gun related crimes using gun control laws, it is further the responsibility of a proper body of law enforcement to reduce the other forms of crime and making the society as safe as possible. In other words gun control is a necessary step but on its own not sufficient. Still combined with other necessary steps its a process that leads to a safer society.Vote for the side with the better argument. Cheers", "qid": 27, "docid": "53fdade9-2019-04-18T17:57:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7371700406074524}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government should increase Gun Control Content: Rebuttal That the source is poor (it is \u2013 it\u2019s a person\u2019s blog) and the author known for basis (he is [1]) I am inclined to listen to my own advice, and not bicker about the statics. It is incumbent on me to provide a rebuttal, so I must give it due attrition. 1) The stats referenced only discuss criminal activity, not touching on any other problem associated with guns. Societal problems with guns run deeper than simple criminality. 2) The study cited attempts to connect more gun ownership with crime. As someone has come before me has done to the work to eviscerate the poor work of Lott, I will quote from Tim Lambert\u2019s rebuttal. \u201cEven if we decide that there were more guns and less crime it is wrong to conclude that \u2018more guns caused less crime\u2019. The mechanism for causation proposed by Lott is not consistent with the empirical evidence on how often criminals encounter armed permit holders. The observed changes in crime rates are consistent with past changes in crime rates caused by factors other than concealed weapons\u2026\u201d [1] \u201cNo matter how you interpret the phrase \u201cmore guns\u201d, it remains true that there were not a significant number of \u201cmore guns\u201d. This fact alone is sufficient to destroy Lott\u2019s case\u201d [1]. [1] http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au... Conclusion and summary. All the gun statists aside. All the bickering over validity of one data set or another. All the disagreements over interpretation of data. All of it can and should be ignored for the answer to the question of this debate. Congress, and in specific \u201cthe peoples house\u201d has a responsibility. Written by our founding fathers \u201cGovernments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,\u201d The congress enacts laws that the governed request. The limit to the laws they wright is the constitution. Provided there is will, and the proposed law fits within the constraints of the constitution, it is the responsibility of the legislative making body to reflect the will of the governed. State by state, support for additional gun control is supported, with few exceptions. It is subversive for our representatives to ignore our will. It is un-American. My thanks to my opponent for this debate is more than just opponent perfunctory. The passions run high on both sides of the debate. I acknowledge and respect his thoughtful debate.", "qid": 27, "docid": "a2eaad4e-2019-04-18T15:15:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7369225025177002}, {"content": "Title: Guns should be banned Content: I believe that gun laws are already just and that no major changes should be made to gun laws in America. If you accept, please state your claim (including specifically what guns should be banned/held restrictions on and/or how the process of obtaining a gun should be changed.) Thank you.", "qid": 27, "docid": "9ccb6cda-2019-04-18T11:33:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7366963624954224}, {"content": "Title: Guns should be more regulated in the United States Content: I look forward to arguing this topic. I assume that my opponent will be arguing that guns should not be regulated to any greater of an extent than that to which they are currently regulated. I, on the other hand, will argue that guns should be regulated more than they are now ( but not banned outright.)", "qid": 27, "docid": "bc8e03f8-2019-04-18T16:49:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7365953922271729}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: First, my name is 100% ORIGINAL! Second of all, even if we have gun control, Violent individuals can just rob the gun stores, and repeat the Las Vegas massacres anyway. What we really need is a better law enforcement. If there were more police, the Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have been as bloody. I affirm that stricter gun control doesn't need to happen, as it would be futile.", "qid": 27, "docid": "ea8c0fab-2019-04-18T11:49:00Z-00007-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7365132570266724}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: First off, I am sorry for my mass listing of statistics, but they do help my point in a way, which I will elaborate on later. Instead of blurbing out statistics, I will largely focus on points 1Aa, as well as my opponent's contentions in this round. A1) While some statistics may not be directly impacted by gun control laws (or the lack thereof), and it may be impossible to truly know whether or not gun control laws cause spikes or drops in crime rates, they do go to show the general trend. After all, in most countries with gun control, there is more overall crime rate than in countries without gun control. However, there is one major point that you did not address. It is point 1Aa. Americans using guns for good. This statistic really goes to show the effectiveness of gun rights. 11,000 people are killed with guns a year, while 162,000 households think someone would have died without a gun. That means that even if 140,000 households were wrong, there would be DOUBLE the lives saved by guns than killed by guns. This alone should be enough to implement right to carry laws and significantly reduce gun control. If gun rights save 150,000 more lives than deaths they cause, or save approximately 15 times more people than they kill, then gun rights seem like the obvious choice. There is no real reason to implement gun control laws when faced with this fact. A2) Let's continue with my opponent's example. Canada has double the crime rate of the US[1]! This just goes to prove my point. Yes, there is more gun crime, but the crime rate is lower overall. However, this point doesn't even matter much when faced with contention 1Aa, and my opponent would probably refer me to his correlation-causation argument. A3)Actually, the reason I chose London and NYC was because that was the only comparison of Britain and America I could find. If I could have found a overall comparison of Britain and America, I would have used that. However, I now have a better comparison of Canada and America. As for sites with bias, all of my facts came off a site known as justfacts.com, which is hardly a biased site. I cannot really reply to statistical overload except with my argument 1Aa. B1) I will concede that gun control does have some effect on criminal ownership, but it saves so many lives that it makes it worth it. Not only that, with gun control, it is now some hardened criminal with a knife versus say... your grandma. Your grandma would have a much better chance with a gun than without. As for points 2,3, and parts of 4,5 and 6, part of my opening argument in 1Ae. was that some gun control laws should be common sense, and that citizens should have access to firearms. B2) The \"and now that your average citizen can't obtain guns\" was talking about a hypothetical example of what would happen if gun control laws were implemented. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Your second point says that there is other self defense options. While I will concede that they can be effective, the links talk about putting up lights to deter crime and taking self defense and rape prevention classes. If you suddenly meet with a hardened criminal, it won't matter how many karate classes you took or how many lights you put up, as they won't exactly save your life like the round the clock protection of a handgun. Could being a karate expert or surrounding your house with light really have the same chance of saving you as something that can instantly deter a criminal if you brandish it or they think you have it? After all, 34% of criminals had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\" and 40% didn't commit a crime because they \"knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun\". I'm sure the numbers of criminals deterred by light fixtures or karate wouldn't be anywhere near that of guns. a) Yes, but there is no real way you can disprove argument 1Aa. There is 11,000 people killed by guns a year in the US., and in a survey 162,000 households believed someone would have died if there wasn't a gun. There is no claims that one causes the other. All there is in that statement is two hard facts. b) But can gun control ever have the effect of something which can give any citizen something that instantly deters criminals? It can prevent some crime, but it mostly causes other crimes when criminals are no longer as scared of assaulting/killing/stealing from others. c)You aren't helpless without a gun, but you are a lot more helpless without a gun than if you do have a gun. After all, if a hardened criminal confronts you, you'd much rather have gun than 20 years of karate under your belt. Conclusion Though some statistics may or may not support gun control, there is one statistic that cannot be refuted. Gun rights save 15 times more lives than it ends. Without gun rights, you are a lot more helpless than you would be with gun rights. Obviously, gun rights is the way to go. Sources [1] http://archive.newsmax.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "dfe50773-2019-04-18T18:47:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7364513874053955}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control (Copy #2) Content: Thank you for responding. R1 I need to clarify my position, gun control laws should be lessen back for law abiding gun owners. Why should law abiding citizens be punished because of the actions of deranged people. I would certainly not want someone who is mentally ill or violent to own a firearm, but there is nothing we can do about it other than arming ourselves to protect us from them. If someone wants to own a firearm they can get one illegally. Adam Lanza the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws that day, more laws would not have stopped him. This also shows that gun control does not work as Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. R2 \"This statement can be considered unreliable. One thing to note is that my opponent never cited a source with this information, and therefore cannot prove statistics do actually show this.\" \"In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.\" The murder rate did not just average 73% higher over the span of 1 year, rather it rose exponentially over 30 years. This shows that areas with increased gun control there are more gun related crimes, specifically murder. DC is not the only example, numerous other cities have shown the same results such as Chicago. When the handgun laws of DC were overturned in 2006 the murder rate in DC has dropped exponentially. R3 The original intent, remains the same today, \"We have a tangible police force to protect us now\". The reason the right to bear arms exists is to protect us from the police and government forces. \"A free people ought to be armed.\" George Washington once said, without trying to make an ad hominem argument, I think the principle behind that quote remains true to this day. The right to bear arms is essential to protecting our liberties from enemies, even if the enemies are those who swore to protect us. R4 My argument here needs clarification, I understand you are not calling for a complete ban of firearm, my point here is that nobody has the right to limit my freedom to own a firearm. Yes, I will acknowledge that firearms are used for terrible things, but to judge all gun owners on the actions of the few is irresponsible and unfair. It is like judging freedom of speech by the actions of neo-nazis and the KKK. It simply isn't fair. \" illegal usage under purported claims of self-defense, and claims of gun self-defense are grossly exaggerated[3].\" \"legally owned guns are an instrument in all of those things more frequently than they are an instrument in self-defense.\" A government survey from the 90's shows that \"Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade.\" This was during a time of higher crime rates in the United States than today, also it is very difficult to measure how many firearms are used in self defense and protection because you cannot measure crimes not committed due to knowledge of firearms in a home or on a person. MAIN POINTS REBUTTAL P1 In order to argue against this I need clarification on what your overall position and what \"gun control laws\" are we debating. Specifically background checks or something else. P2 Foreign Nations: In order to understand why other nations with gun control laws have lower gun crime rates one must look at many factors specifically, culture and overall crime rates. In many nations such as Britain who have fewer gun murders than the US, when their gun control laws were enacted, the homicide rate rose in which guns were used and not used. Britain since has one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world. Also, the 12,000 statistic is unreliable as it does not consider how many of the firearms used were illegally purchased. Also while on the issue of other nations, Switzerland's gun related homicide is (for 2010) 40. In a country where people are required to own semi automatic weapons. Every male is required to own(http://en.wikipedia.org...) a SIG SG 550(http://en.wikipedia.org...) A 550 is capable of fully automatic fire. You have completely ignored the culture issue that is much larger than laws. Sources: http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.cnn.com...", "qid": 27, "docid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7362046241760254}, {"content": "Title: there should be more gun regulation Content: con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses. you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways. you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to. also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.", "qid": 27, "docid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7361701726913452}, {"content": "Title: Gun control in the United States Content: Gun control is a major topic in the US nowadays, so I am pleased that my opponent started this debate. I look forward to hearing new, fresh points. As Pro I will be arguing that gun control should be administered in the US. Con has not mentioned any rules, so let me propose my own. 1. No swearing or calling names 2. Arguments and rebuttals are allowed at all times, but no new arguments should be put forth in the last round. Con has not stated the definition of \"gun control\" in this debate. Please state it in the next round.", "qid": 27, "docid": "91839639-2019-04-18T17:45:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7360560297966003}, {"content": "Title: Assault weapons ban in the United States Content: Expiration of the assault weapons ban could enable better gun control laws", "qid": 27, "docid": "efd066b3-2019-04-17T11:47:46Z-00013-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7359638810157776}, {"content": "Title: Gun control is good. Content: My thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate. One comment pointed out that the term \"Gun Control\" is not defined in the opening rounds of the debate. As such, I am going to take a controversial approach and argue two different definitions. My opponent can engage which he wishes, and I will drop one if he doesn't address it. Definition 1: Some limitation on access to/ownership of firearms. Under these terms, law-abiding citizens would still have access to guns, therefore law-abiding citizens WOULD have guns, yet law enforcement would have at least SOME tools to restrict the general flow of guns into the hands of the public, some of whom, inevitably would be criminals as pro points out. Definition 2: Complete illegality of firearms. This seems to be the definition my opponent is interested in arguing. To quote The Onion's response to the most recent mass shooting, \"This couldn't have been prevented, says only nation where this regularly happens!\" To ruin the joke by explaining it, many countries ban firearms and do not see increased rates of gun violence. In fact, in virtually all nations where guns are banned, the overall death toll from firearms every year is miniscule compared rates of gun death in the United States. Despite \"gun freedom\" advocates' frequent statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people, guns make killing much easier and seem to factor in a huge number of killings when they are available over other alternatives. Let's take my opponent at his hypothetical best, though. Let us assume that *some* number of criminals are repelled by the use of firearms. I would argue that this number is very small over all: Criminals typically have the drop on who they wish to rob or kill and tend to put themselves in a better position to avoid return fire, and the presence of a gun may make a criminal who only wants money feel pressured to kill to protect himself where he otherwise might not have. In essence, the presence of two guns at a robbery raises the chance that SOMEONE is going to die, and the death is still more likely to be in favor of the criminal. It comes down to an interesting ethical question: Is it better to lose 100 lives to gun violence if 10 of those lives lost happen to be the lives of criminals who \"deserve it\" OR is it better to simply have 10 lives lost to guns overall? I would argue the latter is far more favorable, both from a utilitarian perspective and a moral one. Less death is better without seriously mitigating circumstances, and in this example, the mitigating circumstance is a false sense of safety given by possession of a firearm.", "qid": 27, "docid": "7b4a0cb3-2019-04-18T16:08:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7359115481376648}, {"content": "Title: I'm pro gun, change my mind. Content: What gun laws would you pass that don't already exist?", "qid": 27, "docid": "1b8357bc-2019-04-18T11:47:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7355678081512451}]}
{"query": "Should prostitution be legal?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Prostitution should be illegal. Content: This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.", "qid": 28, "docid": "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8830723762512207}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be illegal. Content: This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.", "qid": 28, "docid": "52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8830723762512207}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I am hoping for a great debate with whoever accepts this case. I will be arguing that, under certain circumstances and societies, prostitution should be legalized, and I will clarify what those qualifiers are in my opening argument. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing that prostitution should not be legalized. Hope to debate you soon!", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.880275309085846}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: The resolution is that prostitution should be legalized. Con will attempt to argue that it should stay illegal. Definition of prostitution: The practice of engaging in sexual relations in exchange for money or other objects of monetary value. Round one is for acceptance only as well as any definitions or clarifications con may wish to present. No new arguments can be presented in the last round. Good luck con!", "qid": 28, "docid": "94b676c-2019-04-18T16:56:27Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8699013590812683}, {"content": "Title: prostitution should be legal Content: conclusion: prostitution should be legal :)", "qid": 28, "docid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8653767108917236}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: A short debate.Not to be confused with the unrelated debate on the morality of prostitution, the debate here is concerned with whether or not Prostitution should be legal.To briefly state my case:Prostitution, whether it is prohibited by law or not, will always exist in Society. There will always be a Demand for sex, and likewise there will always be a Supply of it. Many of the woes that people claim come with legalized prostitution (pimping, child trafficking, forced prostitution) would actually be solved by legalizing prostitution as that the legal stigma would vanish. Both prostitutes and \"johns\" would have nothing to fear in approaching the police regarding potential crimes. However, those same crimes listed above are made worse when prostitution is illegal, both because of underworld economics and because prostitutes are less likely to go to police when they fear being arrested (as do their customers).", "qid": 28, "docid": "e410cf7a-2019-04-18T12:25:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8653151988983154}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: Prostitution should be legal since women can have the choice to practice it or not. If they are not being forced then I don't see the problem. If we legalise it , many women that can't find a job will want to do it since it is not against the law. They can win money, have fun and give others pleasure too. There is nothing sexist about prostitution, and so it should be legal.", "qid": 28, "docid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00009-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8646608591079712}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I accept your challenge, for I do not believe prostitution should be legal under any circumstances. Good luck.", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8640451431274414}, {"content": "Title: legalized prostitution Content: Prostitution should not be legal because it is very immoral and it is not safe for the well being of the woman in the first place. Now a days we know all the of the effects that having sex can do to ones body. They can send different diseases and should not be legalized.", "qid": 28, "docid": "286347c6-2019-04-18T12:24:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.859786868095398}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: The resolution is that prostitution should be legalized. Con will attempt to argue that it should be banned. Definition of prostitution: The practice of engaging in sexual relations in exchange for money or other objects of monetary value. Round one is for acceptance only as well as any definitions or clarifications con may wish to present. No new arguments can be presented in the last round. Good luck con!", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3e1a-2019-04-18T17:01:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8546791076660156}, {"content": "Title: Legal Prostitution Content: 1. Prostitution should be legalized. BUT, only if it is highly regulated, like the state of Nevada, Amsterdam, and Sweden. All Prostitutes must have STD tests every week, and there clients must use condems or they will be fined. Rape and abuse must be reported. 2. If a woman wants to sell herself, that's HER choice. 3. If a woman/man is in a bad financial situation, this is a better option over working at MCDonald's and getting paid minimum wage. 4. Its better than somebody breaking into a house and raping somebody when they can just go to the local brothel and get sex morally and legally correct. And if a prostitute is raped than it will be reported and the client will suffer consequences. 5. It will generate a lot of tax revenue. 6. No matter what, it will still happen, so we should just legalize it.", "qid": 28, "docid": "2d28827a-2019-04-18T15:32:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8502866625785828}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal. Content: Side note: This is my first debate on debate.org. Okay, my opinion is that prostitution should be legal because what people do consensually should not be regulated. If x thinks y is attractive, and goes up to y and offers money for sex, and y accepts, what's the problem?", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00008-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8455427885055542}, {"content": "Title: Challenge me Content: The resolution we shall be using will be is the following: \"Prostitution should be legalised in the United States of America\". I will be Pro on this topic. Seeing as my opponent has not yet posted an argument I too will reserve mine until the second round, but I will use this round to establish some definitions. I suggest my reserving the third round for rebuttal. I reserve the right to use my previous opening argument from other debates. == Definitions == Prostitution - The act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money. [1] Money - A commodity or asset, such as gold, an officially issued currency, coin, or paper note, that can be legally exchanged for something equivalent, such as goods or services. [2] Legalised - To make legal [3] [1] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] = . http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "6bbe373b-2019-04-18T19:04:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8382098078727722}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Prostitution should NOT be legalzed. Prostitution is the selling of one's body for a profit. There is NO need to sell a body. To be able to sell one's body that body must be seen as property and we haven't viewed people as property since slavery.", "qid": 28, "docid": "f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.836364209651947}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in Nevada Content: Even though I disagree with Prostitution, and find it very immoral. It should be legalized. Our state government shouldn't have a say on how people treat their bodies. Furthermore, legalizing prostitution would be a benefit to our state. If anyone disagrees feel free to debate, I have debated this issue over and over again (Law Class) and won each time. I need more challenges.", "qid": 28, "docid": "53ea1c8-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00008-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8354907035827637}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: I believe that prostitution should not be a crime and should be legalized. My first point would definetly be that prostitution is a victim-free crime. It is the prostitutes choice. My second point is that sex work is legitement work and problems within the job are caused by the fact that prostitutes are very vulnerable and thats what creates victims. My third point is if prostitution wasnt such an underground activity it would allow prostitution to be alot more peaceful and less abuse.", "qid": 28, "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8330532908439636}, {"content": "Title: Legalized Prostitution Content: Full resolution: \"The United States of America should legalize prostitution\". Definitions: Legalize: \"To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law\" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Prostitution: \"The act of having sex in exchange for money\" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rules (Made by bsh1 and edited slightly): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9.", "qid": 28, "docid": "66ec5f0a-2019-04-18T15:03:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8321250081062317}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: \"Prostitution Should be Legalized\"Definitions:Prostitution- The work of a prostitute : the act of having sex in exchange for money. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Legalized- To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Rules1.) Pro agrees to support the notion that \"Prostitution Should be Legalized\" and Con agrees to support the notion that \"Prostitution Should not be Legalized\".2. ) Con agree's to waive the last round.3. )", "qid": 28, "docid": "f2b77005-2019-04-18T14:36:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8313459157943726}, {"content": "Title: DDO Official Tournament 2: That prostitution should be legalised Content: Rules are as for all the debates in this tournament (including the fact that this is an acceptance round). I doubt there will be serious definitional issues in this debate. The topic is not tied to any specific jurisdiction. Prostitution is exchanging some kind of sexual service for currency. Legalised means the government makes it legal to do it. It is presumed that prostitution is not currently legal. I will be affirming that prostitution ought to be legal.", "qid": 28, "docid": "e70d8e5c-2019-04-18T18:06:52Z-00007-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.8289591073989868}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I want to challenge you to this debate, i am new to this website and to debating on a whole however i want to try and prove that Prostitution should not be legalized. The rules for this debate is as follows: 1)Valid definitions 2)Rebuttal/Arguments 3)Rebuttal/Arguments 4)Conclusion Should you accept this challenge i will take it from there by establishing my Arguments however i would like you to go first.", "qid": 28, "docid": "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8287981748580933}, {"content": "Title: Legal Prostitution Content: Prostitution should be illegal. If it is a person's right to decide what they want to do with their body, it follows that they choose to suffer a high probability of getting sexually harassed, raped and possibly be continually followed by the attacker if the person does not act. Suppose prostitution is legal, then the availability of prostitutes will rise, allowing for more people to purchase this service. Their motives are usually: sexual urges, satisfy sexual fetishes and dissatisfied with partner. This produces problems with men/women that cannot contain their sexual urges: sexual harassment rates increase. Additionally, if the person is religious, their acts of sins may make them go alcoholic or take illegal drugs to control their emotions. My last point is that people with sexually transmitted diseases will increase because cheap brothels will accept nearly everyone as they require currency to survive. As a consequence, the clients may have STIs and sexually transmit it to the prostitutes unknowingly and then we see a rapid spread.", "qid": 28, "docid": "2d288299-2019-04-18T13:53:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8287807106971741}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: I am starting this debate again because last time my opponent forfeited every turn. Please comment first if you are willing to make this a legitimate debate. Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4.", "qid": 28, "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.82720947265625}, {"content": "Title: Legalize prostitution in the USA. Content: StructureRound 1: Acceptance and brief summary of position.Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defend against opponent's r3 rebuttal. I think we should legalize prostitution in the USA. I base this on two fronts. A. Government should not form laws against non-violent sins, AKA separation of church and state.B. Elimination/reduction of black market of prostitution. Thanks for reading and accepting in advance.", "qid": 28, "docid": "ddcd2e78-2019-04-18T12:57:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8270221948623657}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legalized Content: The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not \"wrong\" or \"immoral\" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!", "qid": 28, "docid": "bbe2f561-2019-04-18T19:26:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8262795805931091}, {"content": "Title: Legalized Prostitution Content: Full resolution: \"The United States of America should legalize prostitution\". Definitions: Legalize: \"To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law\" http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Prostitution: \"The act of having sex in exchange for money\" http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Rules (Made by bsh1 and slightly changed): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. Plagiarism results in an automatic forfeit 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9. Both debaters must follow this format: R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (No rebuttals) R3: Rebuttals and arguments R4: Conclusions (No new arguments in this round) 10. Violation of any of these rules results in an automatic forfeit Thank you and good luck.", "qid": 28, "docid": "66ec5f29-2019-04-18T15:01:11Z-00007-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8261534571647644}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, prostitution should be legal. Content: In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.", "qid": 28, "docid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8259576559066772}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be Legalized Content: I'll be arguing that prostitution should be legalized. R1-Acceptance R2-Opening Statement R3-New Arguments, Rebuttal R4-New Arguments, Rebuttal R5-No New Arguments, Conclusion Don't accept this debate if you have no desire to finish this up to the end. Idiotic brain-dead neanderthals are prohibited in taking up this generic debate. Go eat some rocks or whatever it is stupid people like to chomp on.", "qid": 28, "docid": "1a28e069-2019-04-18T12:15:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8254505395889282}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I will be arguing that prostitution should not be legal because I believe it is unethical, that it degrades women, it would lead to a public health crisis and problems with children. First and foremost, the obvious; it is unethical for a woman, or a man, to sell themselves away for money. Even if they consent to it, it is still wrong. I predict my opponent will say something along the lines of \"My body, my rights\", and that's what I'll get to later. Second off, what kind of society would we be creating for ourselves if we allow prostitution. A society that basically believes that women are good only for sex work? That's not the kind of society I want to live in, or the kind of society I want the next generation to grow up in. And than there are the two downfalls of prostitution; the spread of STDS, and the unwanted children. I have no doubt that no matter how much government regulation there is, the spread of STDS would lead to a public health crisis. And imagine how many children the prostitutes would have. And don't say \"Just get abortoins\" because abortion is even more unethical than prostitution itself.", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8251597285270691}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Please Note: This is a 5 round Debate. Structure 1. Acceptance: brief introduction to your position 2. Pro' s opening arguments/ Con's rebuttal 3. Pro's rebuttal/ Con's 2nd rebuttal. 4. Pro's 2nd rebuttal /con's 3rd rebuttal. 5. Closing arguments and final rebuttals I believe that prostitution should be legalized. Prostitution as defined is the \"The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment\". This is classified as the oldest profession in the world. it is very obvious why this profession has survived so long and why it has continued to strive. Therefore I believe that decriminalizing this profession will yield many benefits and legally open doors once closed. (1) www.dictionary.com", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3dbd-2019-04-18T18:24:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8243584036827087}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: I accept my opponent's invitation to debate.Resolution: Prostitution should be legalI'd like to clarify the rules and structure to avoid confusion.Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening StatementsRound 3 - RebuttalsRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritkiks3) No plagiarism4) No new arguments in final round5) Please use citations6) No forfeiture7) No troll arguments8) BoP is sharedTerms:Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.Be - (used to indicate the condition of a person or thing)Legal - allowed by the law or by the rules in a gameVoting Rules:1) Vote Convincing Arguments2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand4) Only vote reliable sources if they're proven to be false, biased, etc. by opponentsThank you. I look forward to your arguments.", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8209624290466309}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should not be legalized in the United States Content: I will be arguing that prostitution, or the act of providing sexual intercourse or other related activities should not be legal in the United States. I believe that the resolution is relatively self evident, however if there are any questions in regards to clarifying the resolution please ask before accepting as I wish to avoid any arguments contingent on semantics. The negating party has the option of presenting their arguments in the first round with the understanding that they will not post in their final round or simply accepting in the first round. In order to win the affirmative must demonstrate that the harms of legalization would outweigh the benefits provided and the negative is under a similar burden of proof.", "qid": 28, "docid": "e388f11d-2019-04-18T14:49:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8209127187728882}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Resolution: I am arguing that prostitution be made legal in the United States. Con must argue that prostitution laws should either stay the same or become more strict. The burden of proof will be shared equally.Definition to avoid semantics: The practice of engaging in sexual activity with a customer for payment. Note that prostitutes may be male, female, or both; and their customers may be heterosexual, homosexual, or other.An introduction to my arguments: After round 1, I will elaborate on my following arguments:1) People should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.2) By making prostitution illegal, a dangerous black market is created (which is what is happening now).3) Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crime.4) Personal and economic decisions of the people are none of the government's business, therefore making prostitution illegal is an intrusion.5) By legalizing prostitution, prostitutes will become safer and the business will be more efficient, adding another sector to the market.Rules: Pretty generic. Maintain a respectful attitude. Round 1 is for acceptance and any clarifications, perhaps a few opening arguments. It doesn't matter.Rounds 2 and 3 will be for statement of positions and rebuttal.Round 4 will be for closing arguments only.Thanks and good luck!", "qid": 28, "docid": "a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8208121061325073}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752 Content: As con, I shall argue that prostitution should remain illegal. Since this is an extremely short debate, I request that my opponent answer a question of mine on the comments page. Is this a debate on prostitution in the international community or domestically? If domestically, then which country? Until these questions have been answered, I shall attempt to make my argument be sound both internationally and domestically. My opponent claims that people exploit women in the prostitution career. How would legalising prostitution help this? Shouldn't these women be prosecuted anyway for acting illegally? The basis for legalising something cannot be based on the fact that it is being done illegally. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder because murderers commit murders illegally anyway. I stress, it cannot be based on this. What is required, in any event, is better enforcement. If these women are prostitutes, then they are acting unlawfully, and shouldn't be doing so anyway. Therefore, exploitation doesn't come into the picture. The next statement I agree with. For it to stand, however, we would have to accept that the basis for legalisation is because it's happening illegally. In any event, if it were legalised, then all the Health and Safety laws would apply to this industry as well, so it isn't really a problem. As for the ad, I am confused. What does this have to do with the debate? I would like to point out that whilst the government would earn money from the legalisation, prostitutes usually have jobs as strippers or \"escorts\" at bars, casinos, etc. Therefore, they are not entitled to welfare. Government money would not be saved as much as my opponent states it would. To begin with, we see issues of morality. Most people feel that it isn't moral to sell sexual services, as this is something that should be done out of love and affection. By legalising prostitution, many women would suffer from criticism from their neighbours and friends. The client, too, is seen as immoral, as he is having sex with a person he has no intention of maintaining a relationship with. According to religion, sex is an act of intimacy that shows affection and bonding. In prostitution, however, there is no affection or bonding. As asserted by my opponent, this is not a consensual act. Prostitutes are being forced to sell their \"services\" due to socioeconomic factors. On occasions, it leads to serious psychological and physical problems. As asserted partially, but not fully by my opponent, there is correlation between prostitution, drug use and drug selling. The risks with health is also a problem. By legalising prostitution, there could be an increase in the number of people with STDs and other factors associated with unprotected sex. Additionally, my opponent fails to realise that prostitutes, whether working full time or part time, would be having sex 5-10 times a day. This is unhealthy. A study carried out by a UN reporter concluded that, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitution satisfies the elements of human trafficking. I shall post my sources at the end of Round 2.", "qid": 28, "docid": "7a081757-2019-04-18T18:57:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.819880485534668}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: This is the first debate that I posted. I am new to this side but looking forward to debating this topic. As shown above, I am arguing in favor of legalizing prostitution. Just for you information, I am not used to this debating format and so I will almost inevetibely make some sort of mistake. I do know how to make a point however and so don't expect the debate to be a pushover. Finally, have fun. This is a serious topic but some light-heartedness goes a long way. Good Luck.", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3ddc-2019-04-18T17:34:00Z-00009-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8172428011894226}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Prostitution Content: We will be discussing the legalization of prostitution, I will be arguing that prostitution should be legalized, while my opponent will be arguing the opposite. Burden of proof lies in Con to show that the continued prohibition on prostitution is having a positive effect. Con will make his opening arguments in first round, and I will make mine in the second. To give both of us equal debate time, con will concede the final debate round. Good luck to con in advanced.", "qid": 28, "docid": "d262e637-2019-04-18T14:54:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8144991397857666}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should Be Legal Content: Prostitution should be legalized. A bullet point list of reasons why; -Safer, cleaner services, which also cut down on incarceration and diseases -Less stigmas and taboos against sex, lust, and the human body -Economic boosts -Hurts the human trafficking trade -Improves overall happiness and decreases stress of the population", "qid": 28, "docid": "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8144305348396301}, {"content": "Title: Intemediate's Debate Competition R1: Prostitution Ought to Be Legalized. Content: This debate is part of the Second Official DDO Tournament, hosted by TUF. http://www.debate.org... And part of the Intermediate Tier of the tournament. http://www.debate.org... This is my first time initiating a debate, as well as participating in a tournament. Good luck, have fun, and learn things :D ========== Topic: Prostitution Ought to Be Legalized. Definitions: Prostitution \u2013 the act of having sex in exchange for money [1]. Legal \u2013 sanctioned by the law. Putting up a reasonable amount of regulation still counts as legal. Context: This debate is about the legality of prostitution in the United States. As of now, states have power over the legality of prostitution: \u201cin most states, prostitution is considered a misdemeanor in the category of public order crime, a crime that disrupts the order of a community,\u201d all except parts of Nevada [2]. Rules: R1: Acceptance. R2: Arguments. R3: Rebuttals. R4: Rebuttals. ========== [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 28, "docid": "b62b0bc1-2019-04-18T16:51:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8142308592796326}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I believe that the occupation of prostitution should be legalized in America. The fact that it is illegal is what makes this whole business dangerous for the prostitutes. The fact that it is illegal forces these women to work in a dark alleyway to avoid being caught by the police, while opening them up to violent attack. The only thing that prostitution affects is the prostitute, and the person seeking sexual favors. Since it only affects those two why would it be illegal. It only waste money by putting people who aren't a danger to society in jail. And I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the fact that money is being flushed down the toilet like this. Thoughts?", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3d9e-2019-04-18T19:00:02Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8128963708877563}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized. Content: Prostitution-the act of engaging in sexual activities for money. Legalized-Making it legal for persons over the age of 18 to be prostitutes or to \"use\" prostitutes at a federal level. However, prostitutes must be mandated to carry a license. Introuduction Currently, 49 states outlaw prostitution (Nevada is the only one that doesn't). As PRO I stand in affirmation that Prostitution should be legalized. I believe so for the following reasons. a) Prostitution is a victimless crime. No one is a victim of prosecution. It is not on the same level as rape or murder, where victims are involved. Prostitution is just a way of conducting commerce. To limit prosecution would be to limit freedom. b) Revenue. Legalizing prostitution would lead to a boost in the economy (not like were to going to come out of a recession or anything, but it will increase GDP). In countries where prostitution is legalized (Thailand, The Netherlands, etc) \"sex tourism\" is a big part of their economies. People use other services (hotels, restaurants) while using conducting \"sex tourism\". Also, the government could tax the the activity for a nice profit. c) The Equal Protection Clause is violated under the current law. In the current law only prostitutes are prosecuted, their customers are not. A similar analogy would be to only prosecute drug dealers and not drug users. It violates prostitutes' rights. d) Prostitution will become more visible. The more \"openness\" of prostitution will make it easier to monitor and regulate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Thanks for taking this debate.", "qid": 28, "docid": "94aebaa-2019-04-18T19:21:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8123160600662231}, {"content": "Title: Governments must protect the moral and physical health of citizens from prostitution. Content: Initiating the legalisation of prostitution would grant implicit approval to a dangerous and immoral practice. Prostitution should never be regarded as a legitimate career option for a young girl.", "qid": 28, "docid": "87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00099-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.811852216720581}, {"content": "Title: No to legalizing prostitution Content: Although legalising prostitution itself is perceived as a negative thing, it is very easy to see the positive side of this decision. First and fore-mostly, prostitution is going to exist no matter if it is legal or not. Making prostitution illegal does not stop people from taking this path, or going to a prostitute, similar to making drugs such as heroine illegal will not stop people from buying them, dealing them, or using them. Thus, all of your points will still stand no matter if prostitution is legal or not. Given this case, acknowledging and making prostitution legal at least give prostitutes basic rights to protect themselves from abuse, being under-paid, or being raped. If prostitution would forever remain illegal, it will not die down, and the prostitutes, often young and vulnerable, will have no rights protecting them from various harms on the streets. Although making prostitution legal will not terminate anything, it will still decrease the chances of ' finding themselves at a place, where they do not want to be. ' as they will be under the protection of the law. Making prostitution into a lawful job also means that laws could be implanted so that STDs and such diseases could be checked frequently, and an age limit put on. Thus making prostitution legal will be beneficial to the health and safety of both prostitutes and their customers. Of course, most of the people entering prostitution are young and should be getting an education instead of selling their own bodies. This is largely due to poverty, domestic abuse and human trafficking. This phenomena is not going to improve whether prostitution is legal or not. It is structured deep within society and unless there are ways for domestic abuse and human trafficking to stop, there will be forever children and teens entering the industry. This also brings me back to my previous point. If prostitution is to remain illegal, 'in the dark', and as a social taboo, the children and teenagers will find themselves in a situation in which they would never make enough money to get out of, and being constantly abused at the same time. If prostitution was legal however, their situation will improve drastically, as they will be under the protection of the law, perhaps even providing them with a minimum wage and various welfares. Lastly, forced prostitution and human trafficking aside, if someone is willing to exchange sex with money and enjoy the process of it, why should it be illegal? The pornography industry is perfectly legal, so why isn't the prostitution industry legal? In conclusion, it is undeniable that forced prostitution should not be supported, but it is also clear that if prostitution remain illegal, prostitution will not stop and the conditions will be relatively worse. On the other hand, if it was legalised, laws could be implanted to protect the prostitutes from harm and abuse and help them get on the right track, and it will also give people who enjoy this profession a lawful job. However please keep in mind that most problems with prostitution is not caused by 'prostitution' but factors like poverty and domestic abused, as well as human trafficking. Source: http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "436cc21d-2019-04-18T13:44:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8106754422187805}, {"content": "Title: The USFG should legalize prostitution. Content: I will make this very short, since my opponent didn't make a conclusion. I have successfully shown the benefits of legalizing prostitution, and also used sources, that supported my arguments. I have also shown my opponents arguments to be faulty, by using evidence.", "qid": 28, "docid": "626e386a-2019-04-18T13:16:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8106417655944824}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised Content: The resolution of this debate is:'Prostitution should be legalised by the government, in a similar manner to legalisation in Germany (1) and the Netherlands (2).'I will be CON on this issue, whilst my opponent will be PRO. Since legalising prostitution is a move against the status quo, Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the benefits of legalising prostitution will outweigh the negatives. I will be making my own arguments against legalising prostitution, but I need only negate Pro's arguments to win the debate.StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Open debatingR3: Open debatingR4: Closing summaries; no new arguments made in this round should be credited by votersRulesNo kritiksNo trolling_____________________________________________________________________(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 28, "docid": "9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00007-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8104405403137207}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be legalized Content: The resolution is that prostitution ought to be legalized.", "qid": 28, "docid": "105d8c2a-2019-04-18T15:59:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.809012770652771}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: If prostitution was legal it would allow them to do checks on prostitutes and make sure they dont have any sexual diseases that can be passed on. They should have check ups at the doctors to make sure they are healthy and if they are not they shouldnt be aloud in the profession. Prostitutes wouldnt have to be victims if it was legalized because it wouldnt be so underground and secret and they could build hotels for prostitution services and if the prostitutes had any issues they would just call the main desk and they would notify police right away and stop the crime. GOLFWANG OFWGKTA", "qid": 28, "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8088864088058472}, {"content": "Title: Should prostitution be allowed. Content: If prostitution is legal, we could make prostitution licenses stating if they have STD or other sexual transmitted diseases.If prostitution was legal we would not need pimps anymore, who knows the new agents for the prostitutes could be themselves or the government.", "qid": 28, "docid": "f26ab52f-2019-04-18T12:22:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8084856271743774}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: There are three reasons as to why prostitution should be illegal. 1. It is an immoral act according to many religions. 2. It helps with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 3. It is a gateway to other bad behaviors such as drugs.", "qid": 28, "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8084697127342224}, {"content": "Title: A Resolution to Legalize Prostitution Content: So far the opponent has only been able to refute my case and not give detail of his own case as to why prostitution should become legal... Seeing how I have already given my case...talking about (1) The economic issues (2) How un-healthy it is and (3) The social effect I will refute the little information the opponent has provided of his own case... The opponent has only stated talking about \"taxation\" we already have enough taxes. We need to stop putting taxes on everything! What's next? Taxing those who are overweight?!? NO! We need to stop seeing taxes as a benefit to every problem this country has! For the following reasons I have stated, I still urge a strong vote on the negation of this debate. :) Thank you!", "qid": 28, "docid": "d1002c17-2019-04-18T19:25:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8079074621200562}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in brothels Content: Pro did not establish any rules or definitions and so I will do so. Rules, (1) Pro has all burden of proof, (2) Pro must show prostitution to be moral, (3) Pro must provide a plan of implementation for his proposed legalization, (4) the debate centers around prostitution in Belgium, (5) Pro loses regardless of argumentation.Structure. Round 1 - acceptance and establishment of rules. Round 2 - Pro's case, Con's extension of Rules. Round 3 - see round 2. Round 4 Pro loses. I will present an argument for fun on the basis of the rules. Pro assumes prostitution is illegal for his argument to work, however, he loses the debate as he does not specify WHERE it should be legal. Prostitution is legal in Nevada in Brothels, and also Argentina, Austria, Armenia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey.Since the Rules established state that Prostitution is being considered in regards to Belgium, and prostitution is legal in Belgium, there is no debate here and Pro loses. In addition I would challenge Pro to prove that Condomns exist. However, I would argue that Brothels should require Condoms. I have noted the 2,000 character limit. Definitions: brothel: a place of fine dining of italian food, but only on Thursday nights or nights that have a full moon. -LIL", "qid": 28, "docid": "3f7340ce-2019-04-18T12:13:23Z-00006-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.8078839778900146}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: We must accept the fact that even if prostitution remains illegal, there still would be rapists and pimps. The question is to make it beneficial since some women would like to practice this job. In another way, if there would be no pimps at all, prostitutes will be happy doing their job since they are not forced to. Legalizing it will only be beneficial for those who want to do it increasing police searches will find the criminals, not be making it illegal.", "qid": 28, "docid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8071513175964355}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: I will start this round by making my rebuttals then apparently conclude this entire debate afterwords. \"Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. \" - ProProstitutes have the same rights as any other woman in the United States because they are human beings. The only problem is that the laws are either biased or the prostitutes are afraid to speak up. A prostituted woman might be afraid of what her pimp will do to her and afraid for her life if she tries to leave; pimps often threaten the lives of the women who work for them, which may prevent a woman from leaving prostitution(1). Pimps assume psychological, biological, social, and economic control over the lives of the women they sell to johns (clients) through the use of chronic terror, cunning use of various aspects of captivity, and isolation from others who might offer support and validation. In addition they employ starvation, sleep deprivation, protein deprivation, conditioned physiologic hyperarousal, unexpected sexual violence, and learned helplessness(4). Also, most women in prostitution do not report rape or other crimes committed against them to the police because of the stigma associated with prostitution(2). In other words, whether or not prostitution is legalized, there will still be cruel judgement against them. Quote(2):\"None of us went to the police. .. There was lack of trust. You didn't know which policemen to trust. Half the girls were being touched up by them. .. It would be like you chose to do this job: get out and do it, or get a life. .. The police have no compassion. They think the girls and women put themselves in that danger, so why should they be helped. \" - Maria, a prostitution survivor. \"Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. \" - ProI understand the rate regulation, but lack of paying considered rape. .. ? Not only is this ridiculous, but I don't see this happening in a real court case. As I have stated before, rape is unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim(7). If a prostitute consents in the beginning, she can't just change her story and cry rape because a client fails to make payment. Let's say prostitution is legalized and you have a customer; he chooses the consenting prostitute he wants but he isn't satisfied by her type of experience so he refuses to pay, or he already paid for her services and demands a refund. Is the manager (pimp/boss) supposed to call the police and say this client \"raped\" one of his prostitutes with no valid evidence of the accusation? No pay is NOT rape. \"If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. \" - ProMy opponent has only quoted an outdated statement by some \"professional\" escort from 1995 as a source, instead of at least showing statistics of who would honestly \"enjoy\" the life of prostitution. \"In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. \" - ProA 25% decrease isn't very impressive considering that there's 630,000 women raped each year(3). \"If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. \" - ProHow do you know? Women can enter prostitution legally and still be financially, physically, or mentally and emotionally damaged. A study has found that PTSD resulting from exposure to physical danger is more common among prostitutes than among troops who have weathered combat duty(7). \"Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. \" - ProMost prostitutes are NOT similar to promiscuous people. Promiscuous people have sex with random people of their choice for their own entertainment for no amount of money. Prostitutes don't choose their clients, clients choose them, and often times, pimps choose their clients. And unlike promiscuous people, most prostitutes don't enjoy the sex they have with clients because, again, they don't choose them. If prostitutes don't obey their clients, they either don't get money to survive, feel the wrath of their pimps, or worse. At least promiscuous people can reject whoever they want because it's not their job. Responses to MissLenaElan's rebuttal's:\"It promotes children to be trafficked\"\"In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. \" - ProProstitution IS human trafficking. There's no difference between them. Both are part of a system of gender-based domination that makes violence against women and girls profitable to a mind-boggling extreme, and both prey on women and girls made vulnerable by poverty, discrimination, and violence and leaves them traumatized, sick, and impoverished(4). Legalizing prostitution won't make a significant difference, it'll just be legal trafficking. As long as there are perverts/pedophiles in this world, there will always be child sex trafficking. I don't find one of my opponent's sources that she cited in her statement very useful to her offense because it has several flaws. My opponent stated, \"If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive,\" but in her source, [. http://www.listland.com...], in the section where it mentions \"legal prostitution would protect minors\", it says, \"A lot of pro-decriminalization of prostitution believethat if people can legally buy sex from women 18 years or older, it will significantly reduce child exploitation\". This statement alone is based on beliefs and not estimated facts. According to a study of 218 \"johns\" (clients) who were warned that the women they were looking at online were actually minors, 42% still wanted the underage girl(5). Hypothetically speaking, how are prostitution businesses supposed to keep up with the demands of the other half of their customers if laws are regulated for only 18-year-old or older prostitutes? They would still have to resort to child trafficking in the US. \"Most of the prostitutes are victims\"\"Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. \" - ProPeople don't have to be forced into prostitution to be involved in it. A vast majority of them are involved because they lack basic human services such as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol addiction. Also, for many women, prostitution and sexual exploitation might be the only life they know(1). If the US ever legalized prostitution, that would mean having a set age limit. Have you ever thought to yourself what would become of all the underaged prostitutes and future runaways in America trying to survive? Without the right help, they would most likely die on the streets or be forced into still illegal child prostitution. In other words, it would still not be a victimless crime. \"Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job\"\"There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a \"safety button\" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can\"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. \" - ProNevada may have legalized prostitution, but 81% of the Nevada women still want to escape it, regardless of its legal status. One of them even stated, \"It\"s all the same emotionally, no matter where we work,\" referring to other \" illegal \" locations where she had been rented for sex(4). I do not understand what my opponent means by a \"safety button\" because she did not elaborate. And as for some of her sources, I find them invalid because some of them lead me to the main pages and not to anywhere that proves my opponent's point. Such as:. http://www.history.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.womenslaw.org...And a site with blank parts. .. . http://www.usdebtclock.org...Prostitution is wrong beyond all means and legalizing it will not make it any better for this country or for the victims involved in it. America needs to help these prostitutes get out of their lifestyle instead of making it worse. Vote ConSources:(1)-. http://www.womenslaw.org...(2)-http://www.thefword.org.uk...(3)-http://listen.nycagainstrape.org...(4)-http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...(5)-http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org...(6)-http://www.nytimes.com...(7)-google dictionary", "qid": 28, "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.8067700266838074}, {"content": "Title: Help control prostitution Content: If prostitution was legalised then attempts to control the business would be made. Those who prostitute themselves would be in safer environment and measures could be taken to control those who come into the business. This would also mean that there could be more steps taken when any violent acts or wrongdoings such as not paying could be controlled and then actually prosecuted if needed.", "qid": 28, "docid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00028-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8064428567886353}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised Content: Thanks for accepting!IntroductionI will make two arguments that explain why prostitution should not be legalised.Just to clarify, in R1 when I said 'legalise prostitution', I am referring to the legalisation of prostitution to a similar extent that the Netherlands and Germany have legalised it. This does not mean that the exact prostitution laws in these countries must be defended by Pro, all it means is that the extent of legalisation in these countries (personal prostitution, brothel ownership and pimping all being legal) is the extent to which Pro is arguing for in his burden of proof.A further implication of the extended resolution (stated in R1) is that the context of the debate is within a western society. This is because society is very different in cultures such as Thailand and Japan, and hence the debate would be too complex if we do not specify the type of society we are talking about.Argument #1 - Encouragement of prostitutionThis argument forms the following syllogism:P1: A harmful profession should not be encouragedP2: Prostitution is a harmful professionC1: Prostitution should not be encouragedP3: Legalising prostitution would encourage itC2: Prostitution should not be legalisedHarmful profession: a profession that harms those working in it and/or the wider society, and is unnecessary.Encourage: stimulate the development of something. (1)This argument is sound insofar as the logical steps between the premises and conclusions are unavoidable and indisputably correct - the conclusions are true insofar as the premises are true. Since the only points of contention are the premises, I must defend these premises in order to support the argument. Note that I only need to prove inductively that these premises are true, viz. I only need to prove that it is likely that the premises are true, not that they are necessarily 100% correct.P1I presume that my opponent accepts this premise, but for the sake of thoroughness I will defend it anyway.First, we must consider the role of the government. In a Western democracy, the government is voted in by the people to serve the people. Indeed, the government is only legitimised by the consent of its citizens, hence it exists solely to serve the interests of the populace (2). I will call this the serving of 'the common good of the people', which is the maximisation of the overall welfare of all law-abiding people, not just individuals or certain groups.They do this by making laws and providing assistance (welfare) and public services. But how do we establish a normative basis for what the government ought to do? Consider that a clock only exists to tell the time, a clock therefore ought to tell the time. In the same way, because a government only exists to serve the people, a government ought to serve the people. It doesn't make sense to ask why a clock ought to tell the time, given that we know why clocks exist. The same can be said of governments.As a legislating body, it follows that the government's laws should have, as their ultimate end, the interests of the people at heart. If a governmental action does not ultimately serve the people, then it does not come under what a government ought to do - it deviates from the principle that the government should serve the people.The government should not encourage a harmful profession because doing so would not serve the common good of the people - it is contrary to both the welfare of those working in the profession as well as those who are negatively affected by the profession.Therefore, the government should not encourage a harmful profession.P2I argue that prostitution is harmful both for society and for women who work as prostitutes.For society:- Legalising prostitution encourages sex tourism, which in turn harms wider tourism and encourages a culture of promiscuity. Tourism workers in Amsterdam have expressed fears that 'visitors are vanishing along with the city's reputation'. (3)- The majority of men who visit prostitutes are either married or in a long-term relationship (4). It stands to reason that, since it is likely that men who cheat on their partners will get caught, the increased prominence of prostitution will increase the frequency of unfaithfulness within marriage. This damages marriage, which in turn is bad for society due to the negative social impacts of divorce.- There is a significant correlation between drug use and prostitution (5), so it is a reasonable inference that more prostitution will be accompanied by a higher prevalence of drug abuse. It goes without saying that drug abuse involves a plethora of negative social impacts, including unemployment, crime and health problems.For the prostitutes:- Ruchira Gupta MA, a researcher and activist in the field, wrote that:'we have seen that the women in the Red Light areas actually earn less as they grow older, get deeper into debt and suffer from multiple mental and physical health issues related to repeated body invasion. Their victimization is evident from any point of view physically, socially, and legally.' (6)- Melissa Farley PhD found that the prevalence rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in prostitutes is 'comparable to the rates of PTSD among battered women seeking shelter, rape survivors and survivors of state-sponsored torture'. (7)- About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape (8). Rape has multiple negative effects including PTSD, depression, self-harm and substance abuse (9).- Prostitution is a dangerous profession; the mortality rate for prostitutes is 40 times that of the national average (10) and 70% to 95% of prostitutes are physically assaulted (11).The wealth of evidence I have just presented explains why prostitution can rightly be described as a harmful profession.C1This is a logical deduction from P1 and P2.P3This is fairly obvious; legalising prostitution is an act of tacit approval by the government that says 'prostitution is a legitimate profession'. This would encourage more women to enter the profession because of:1. Ease of recruitment by pimps (they no longer need to recruit whilst avoiding law enforcement).2. The industry would expand, and supply and demand would necessitate more women to become prostitutes.3. Women will not be put off entering the profession by the risk of criminal punishment.This is backed up by statistical evidence. In 1997, before prostitution was legalised, there were around 100,000 working prostitutes in Germany (12). But in 2005, three years after legalisation, this number has quadrupled to 400,000 (13). This increase cannot be attributed significantly to overall population increase, since the overall population only increased by 430,000 in this period (14). This is pretty solid empirical evidence that governmental legalisation of prostitution will, directly or indirectly, encourage prostitution as a profession.C2The conclusion, which is the negation of the resolution of this debate, logically follows from C1 and P3.With this argument, which I have cogently defended, I have concluded that prostitution should not be legalised.Argument #2 - Human TraffickingP1: Legalising prostitution is likely to increase the frequency of human trafficking.P2: Human trafficking is a harmful phenomeonP3: A government shouldn't make laws that increase the prevalence of a harmful phenomenon (except when it is necessary, which human trafficking is not).C: The government shouldn't legalise prostitutionP1The evidence for this is both theoretical and empirical. Theoretically, it stands to reason that legalisation of prostitution expands the industry, attracts more clients and consequently requires more prostitutes to meet the demand. Often, this causes the industry to get involved in human trafficking in order to provide more prostitutes.Empirically, we can see that human trafficking 'is least prevalent in countries where prostitution is illegal, most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized, and in between in those countries where prostitution is legal but procuring illegal.' (15)A second study concluded:'On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows...' (16)The presence of the strong correlation between levels of trafficking and legality of prostitution provides cogent empirical evidence in favour of the premise.P2Human trafficking has many negative effects and virtually no positives. Victims 'often suffer physical and emotional abuse, rape, threats against self and family, passport theft, and even death' (17). Since all of the above are clearly harmful, I am justified in asserting that human trafficking is harmful.P3As previously established, the government ought to serve the people. Since a harmful law doesn't serve the people, the government shouldn't make it.CThe conclusion logically follows.ConclusionI have presented two arguments that both negate the resolution. (1) Google: 'Define encourage'(2) https://www.constitutionalenforcement.com...(3) http://www.patheos.com...(4) http://www.50ish.org...(5) https://en.wikipedia.org...(6) http://prostitution.procon.org...(7) http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...(8) http://www.rapeis.org...(9) https://rainn.org...(10) http://www.rapeis.org...(11) http://www.psychiatrictimes.com...(12) https://en.wikipedia.org...(13) ibid.(14) Google: 'German population 1997'(15) http://link.springer.com...(16) https://ideas.repec.org...(17) http://www.justice.gov...", "qid": 28, "docid": "9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.8063708543777466}, {"content": "Title: should prostitution be legalised Content: I am putting the three point in favour of legalization of prostitution. Protective sex, Labour right's to prostitutes, Reduce violence Against Prostitutes Protective Sex: It would provide protective sex to prostitutes and to her customer, and also Legalized prostitution would allow the state to require a information that all prostitutes take regular health examine, and ensure that she or he is not carrying a sexually transmitted diesease like AIDs or HIV. Therefore Sex worker may get weekly tests. It would give employment rights to prostitutes: They can get rights like minimum wage, weekly holidays, freedom from discrimination , and a safe work environment etc.. Reduce violence Against Prostitutes: If prostitution is legalized then they can call the cops in case of any violence and may reduce force sex. Well-regulated and Legalized would pave way for licenses and registration, whereby workers would have their own identity, access to public facilities, and other services. Which leads to both safe and profitable.", "qid": 28, "docid": "10dba703-2019-04-18T16:38:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.8062665462493896}, {"content": "Title: Government funding for hookers Content: My opponent has forfeited the round. My whole case lies in that hookers are illegal as prostitution is illegal, therefore why should the government fund them? There is no economic, social or political benefit to such a move. Until Pro can come up with any argument on this matter, you must stand firmly in the negation.", "qid": 28, "docid": "dcd732cb-2019-04-18T16:05:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.8059704303741455}, {"content": "Title: Should prostitution be legal Content: Prostitution should be legal for a lot of reasons. A good example of prostitution working in a civil society is the Netherlands. Prostitution has been legal for years in this country and the people has benefitted from the tax revenue generated from prostitution. Many people say prostitution should be illegal for religious or moral reasons. This is a false premise to ban prostitution. The urge for sexual reproduction is inherent in all men. Those men who lack the skills or time to court women and engage in sex should not be denied their sexual instincts because the government deciding prostitution is illegal. Some argue that prostitution is derisive to the women who work in the industry. Allegedly many legal prostitutes are forced into their work and have no choice in the matter. The Dutch engineered a solution to this by providing social services and protection to the prostitutes working in the country's many red-light districts. If a Dutch night walker feels under pressure from a pimp and not acting under her own choice she would have many resources available to her. In a country with illegal prostitution these options do not exist. In Sweden the government has tried to fight illegal prostitution by prosecuting the men caught in the act rather than the hussy. Then they offer the call girls alternative education opportunities to reeducate them and reintegrate them into moral society. The man on the other hand must endure the difficult legal process and face the possibility of paying fines and doing community service/Jail time. While it is not surprising the Swedish socialist government would opt for such an extreme measure it nevertheless highlights why neither side of the exchange should be punished for paid sexual favors. While many men enjoy a good go-around with a slankpop once in a while we should still raise our children to avoid such behavior.", "qid": 28, "docid": "936e7b82-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.8058276176452637}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be illegal. Content: Thanks! Prostitution should not be illegal for four reasons, and should be legal for a few other reasons: (1) If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice. Just like a BMXer or Skateboarder or Skydiver - it's dangerous, but it's their choice. (2) Nobody said this is the reason anybody would legalize prostitution. Not eliminating violence? That's like saying \"let's not fund Lung Cancer research because it won't eliminate Breast Cancer.\" (3) If a woman chooses to sell her body for sex, then yes, it increases human trafficking, but that would be legal, and the woman's choice, so I don't see how this is a bad thing. (4) ....If someone has the option to make easy money, do it. Who cares if someone else can't, maybe they could find another way to make money.Now, for the reasons it should be legal: [1] Primarily men, who are incapable of finding a partner or really any form of sexual release, can easily fulfill their sexual desires by paying for it. No talking, no flirting, no \"game,\" just money, and sex. [2] Legalized prostitution can decrease the rape numbers by upward of 25%. [3] Legalized prostitution can lower the number of sexually transmitted diseases, much like in porn. [4] Legalizing prostitution is disallowing the government to control our own bodies.(1) - You have forgotten to take into account that your stats are coming from illegal prostitution. I agree to an extent that currently, illegal prostitution is very hard to live with and can easily lead to a much shorter life span, as well as many different types of addictions. However with legal prostitution, many of these interactions can be in places such as brothels, where there can be security, as well as safe sex, and a lack of illegal drugs.Even if what you're saying is true, that there are cases where some women are beaten even in places with safety precautions, I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution, so even though bad stuff happens everywhere (even look at the police force, really nothing can be 100% perfect), it's still a major improvement.If a woman chooses to start prostituting, she has the ability to make this choice knowing the consequences, and she still makes the choice. Much like a stuntman or construction worker or fisherman, there is higher pay for higher risk, in any job, and that applies to prostitution. If she chooses this, it's her choice.(2) - You brought this up already halfway through your first point, legalizing something will not erase all crime involved. There is still an illegal alcohol market, even though alcohol is now legal. If prostitution was legal in North America, it may very well be different than other places. Sure, there could be some instances where violence is involved, but it is a lot different than prostitution on the street, where there is no organization, security, etc. And please keep in mind, it's the woman's choice to get into this. If she is choosing to get into this lifestyle, then, well it's her choice. Just because legalizing it probably won't eliminate all crime doesn't mean it won't eliminate a lot of crime.(3) - Legalized prostitution gives women the choice to get into what they want. Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans. If prostitution was legal, more willing people would get into this, instead of people taken against their will. It would most likely no longer be forced on innocent people.(4) - Prostitution is absolutely not that, and can be argued to be women's control over men. Men want sex? Well, women can give it, but they want something in return. This is how free trade works. Men want something, women want something, they both get what they want in the end. This has nothing to do with gender inequality, but simple trading of a service for money. I'm physically fit, and Linda wants me to build a brick wall for her. Is this exploiting males as nothing but slaves because of our strength? No, it's asking someone to do something because they have the ability to, and in exchange for their service, you give them something they want, which in a lot of cases is money.In no way do men control women in general, and more specifically, in this sense. If they did, they wouldn't have to pay for sex.Now for my arguments[1] Prostitution allows men to have sex who are really unable to find a sexual partner. Sex is a big part of life. Not only is it important to keep our species alive, but it's an amazing stress reliever, it keeps your immune system up, increases oxygen intake and healthy blood flow, as well as relieving pain {2}. Sex is an important part of life, and has dozens of benefits. Not being able to have sex for whatever reason, can easily be thrown out the window if you can pay for it. After all, if I pay for an aspirin, why can't I pay for sex? It feels a lot better than aspirin.[2] Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes {1}. It's kind of hard to elaborate on this point, but wouldn't you want to live in a world where a quarter more of the female population was safer? If someone has access to legal sex, even paying $20 for cheap... prostitutes... it would deter them from doing something illegal.[3] Porn is prostitution. People are paid to have sex, but they record it, and therefore it's legal. Rumours have gone around saying there are STDs riddled in porn, but in reality porn is probably safer than having sex with a girl you met and got to know for a month. There are extensive screenings and tests to ensure the safety of the actors' health. Of course STDs are in some areas of porn, HIV/AIDS is not {3}, and that's the main thing that needs to be taken seriously. STDs can be considered harmless, and can really be taken care of quickly. If prostitution is legalized, it will most likely be a lot like porn - the women are tested, the men having sex with the women may be tested, and in the end, nobody gets any type of infection, and on the off chance someone does, it can be taken care of easily.[4] Sex is natural. Paying for services is how society runs. Paying for massages is completely normal. So why is it that paying for sex is not? Entering into a sexual relationship with someone obviously has risks. Why is sex legal, but paying someone for it illegal? This is a direct violation of our human rights. The government has passed a law that doesn't allow us to have sex if we give someone money for it. Sure, it's a health concern, but like I've said several times, it's a known health concern - there is a possibility something bad could happen, and both people know this, just like when someone has sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend.If two people wish to have consenting sex, while knowing the health risks, they are taking a chance, sure, just like having sex in general, but it's suddenly illegal if someone pays the other?To sum up:Prostitution is a woman's choice. They choose to accept money in return for sex.It's nearly impossibly to eliminate 100% of violence, however the violence can decrease.Human trafficking would not be forced on innocent people, and more willing people would participate, as it's now legal.Prostitution is a simple trade system, and does not have anything to do with one gender being superior to the otherProstitution enables men who are incapable of finding a sexual partner to actually have sex.Upwards of 25% less rapes Health precautions will be taken into effect, and less serious diseases will spreadThe government can't control our bodiesProstitution should be legalized for many reasons. Thanks again! {1} http://www.independent.org... {2} http://www.herballove.com... {3} http://articles.latimes.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.8056818246841431}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Prostitution in the United States Content: Title says it all. I, Pro, am debating in favor of legalizing prostitution in the United States of America, while Con will be arguing againstsuch a proposal. I believe that legalizing it will be beneficial to some while it will bear no harm or affect on others. Regardless I believe that the pros outweigh the cons in this issue. I believe it should be legalized as long as the prostitutes should get regular STD tests etc., as they do in certain parts of Nevada. [1]: Meaning of legalize: To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law. [2]: Meaning of prostitution: One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts. I hope this topic is not overdone, but I don't really care either way as I see it as an interesting thing to debate. First round is acceptance only. Second round are arguments only. Third round are rebuttals only. Thank you to any readers and especially to whoever my opponent is. I look forward to a well-done, cordial, thought-provoking debate. Sources: [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "36d5d6ab-2019-04-18T16:42:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.8048163652420044}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in brothels Content: I have argued on various fronts about reasons prostitution should be legal. Health impact I have covered how it lower rape which affects people for the rest lives. I have shown how it lowers the spread of STDs which doesn't just affect those who use prostitutes but helps to make us all safer, and healthier as well as lowering the healthcare and financial burden the diseases cause. Legal aspect I have shown it is not a fair law in that it is legal to pay for sex if it's filmed. As well as showing the analogies between prostitution, massages, and trophy wives. I have shown that it has a long history of being an accepted profession, as well as the ineffectiveness of criminalizing it. Legalizing it would generate revenue and lower taxes on the rest of us. Moral aspect The government has no right to regulate a person's freedom when it comes to selling sex that deals with mutually consenting adults. Freedom is the ability to make make decisions that others don't agree with. We are free to do any number of things to other consenting adults that are immoral. (Gluttony and sloth) I have further shown that it is used by successful people who don't want to invest the time in relationships, breaking the stereotype that only \"losers\" go to prostitutes. In closing prostitution would be have a positive impact on the lives of the majority of the people in the areas it's decriminalized. The benefits extend well beyond the people engaged in prostitution both in the lower cases of rape/STDs and the lower of taxes. These facts are not even in question. The only real point of contention is if it is moral, and this is hotly debated, but comes down to freedom. Either you support freedom allowing someone to do something you don't agree with morally, or you don't support freedom and prevent people from doing what they do not see it as morally wrong. Personally I would rather stand on the side of freedom.", "qid": 28, "docid": "3f7340ce-2019-04-18T12:13:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.8047763109207153}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: If prostitution were legalized it could be run like a more conventional business. Test can be given to both the prostitute and the customer to check and see if they have any STDs. Also, prostitution could be run in an office building or lodge of some sort and eliminate the need for the women to work in dangerous places. And, you said that this is degrading. Not every prostitute finds her job degrading. Also, plenty of people would gladly push aside their morals for the kind of money that high-end prostitutes make. Who are we to tell people how to live their life morally on matters such as this?", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3d9e-2019-04-18T19:00:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.803459644317627}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal. Content: Thanks for the debate. Introduction: Prostitution should not be legal for various reasons. My opponent and I still have to go through 4 rounds of debate. I will not lay out my entire argument in the first round of debate, as I am sure most of it will get lost along the way. \"The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years (M.H. Silbert and A.M. Pines, 1982, \"Victimization of street prostitutes, Victimology: An International Journal, 7: 122-133) or 14 years (D.Kelly Weisberg, 1985, Children of the Night: A Study of Adolescent Prostitution, Lexington, Mass, Toronto). Most of these 13 or 14 year old girls were recruited or coerced into prostitution. Others were \"traditional wives\" without job skills who escaped from or were abandoned by abusive husbands and went into prostitution to support themselves and their children. (Denise Gamache and Evelina Giobbe, Prostitution: Oppression Disguised as Liberation, National Coalition against Domestic Violence, 1990)\" [1] 1. Take this source as my first reason prostitution should not be legalized. I am fully aware that you believe sexual intercourse with an underage person should not be allowed. If we use some deductive reasoning, how many teenagers smoke before they are the age of 18 (the legal age to smoke). What about alcohol? If prostitution is legalized, it is highly likely that underage females from very low income areas will try to capitalize on an opportunity to make some money. It is very possible that they would lie about their age and begin a career in prostitution. I feel that this source is a good place to start the debate. Rebuttal to my opponents argument points: \"Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings.\" -People already have the right to do this. No issue needs to be addressed there. \"Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such\" -Health risks are a small part of the issues associated with prostitution. I prefer to look into the dramatic increase in physical abuse and sexual assaults that would create a much larger burden on law enforcement agencies across the United States. I will jump into those statistics in later arguments. Further, we will also talk about the high rate of victims of child molestation jumping into prostitution. We will also talk about how many drug addicts (meth, crack, heroin), quickly lose money and revert to prostitution as a means to finance another criminal offense. \"Other arguments attempt to define prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal\" -Prostitution is very demeaning to women and is also immoral. However, I will address other issues associated with Prostitution. \"That argument is like saying that if someone doesn't like a movie because he/she thinks it demeaning, then he/she can make it illegal to see that movie based on subjective value judgement\" -First, this is not the greatest comparison in the world. Watching movies is absolutely nothing like prostitution. I will give my examples in upcoming arguments. \"You should not enforce subjective morality onto others\" -Are you suggesting we legalize all criminal behavior? My arguments will focus on the prostitutes as victims. When you encourage prostitution, a large percentage of females that will start prostitution will start at a very young age as my source identified earlier. How many people start smoking in their thirties? \"Very little data about smoking is regularly collected for kids under 12, but the peak years for first trying to smoke appear to be in the sixth and seventh grades, or between the ages of 11 and 13, with a considerable number starting even earlier. In 2011, 6.1 percent of eighth grade students reported having had their first cigarette by fifth grade (ages 10\"11), and 15.5 percent had tried smoking by eighth grade. More than half of twelfth graders who were current smokers had tried smoking by the end of ninth grade.\" [2] -As you can see in the source I provided, a large number of kids start smoking between the ages of 11 and 13. However the legal age to smoke tobacco is the age of 18. Prostitution carries a very similar path, and if we allow mere children to partake in prostitution so they can make money, we will fail young girls all across the United States. I await your response. [1] http://www.rapeis.org... [2] http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.8020148873329163}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: On to Contention 1: It is important to note that today's illegal prostitution rings have no laws regulating the protection of prostitutes. The PTSD, and STD's can be avoided by having legitimate brothels that protect the women. No beatings or such could take place in a protected environment, reducing significantly the chances of mental disorders. By legalizing Prostitution you are not bringing along the crime, corruption, or trafficking because there are know legitimate institutions. Employers hire their employees just like any other business and have interest in ensuring their continued health and productivity. Contention 2: This contention does not really prove anything. The same lazy student could simply try a life of crime or other \"easy\" jobs. Those who work hard and wish to succeed are always going to do better over over the pot-smoking lazy student who drops out. The drop-out may also turn to prostitution anyway- by legalizing it you are now better protecting that drop-out. Contention 3: This contention merely assumes that the government would be the owner of the brothels. If the brothels were privately-owned the business owner would pay for the monthly check-ups as part of their operating costs and import that in the price of their product. In that way the spread of STD's is still countered without a lot of extra cost. I contend that: Contention I: That prostitution is good for the economy. Prostitution is good for the economy for several reasons. First, it takes a previously illegal industry and legalizes it, opening the way for tax revenue which will help the government. It would provide low-skill people with a chance to work, and it will offer new business opportunity's for business owners. Contention II: Legalizing the Prostitution increases the Public Health. The prevalence among STD's in prostitutes today is a direct result of an illegal industry with no standards. Assuming the legalization of Prostitution one could argue that is would be in the Brothel's best interest to have their employees be healthy, both to offer a better product and ensure continue productivity. A client is very likely to pay more for a clean prostitute over one that is carrying an STD. In this respect the public health would be increased as STD's among this profession would be less common. Contention III: That the legalization of Prostitution cuts down on crime. Legalizing Prostitution cuts down on crime in several ways. Firstly prostitution would itself no longer be a crime, and prostitutes or their clients could no longer be arrested. Secondly, the secondary crime that is common with proposition such as drugs, abuse and the like would be dramatically decreased with legalization.", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3d22-2019-04-18T19:32:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.8014792203903198}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized (Guderian) Content: On to Contention 1: It is important to note that today's illegal prostitution rings have no laws regulating the protection of prostitutes. The PTSD, and STD's can be avoided by having legitimate brothels that protect the women. No beatings or such could take place in a protected environment, reducing significantly the chances of mental disorders. By legalizing Prostitution you are not bringing along the crime, corruption, or trafficking because there are know legitimate institutions. Employers hire their employees just like any other business and have interest in ensuring their continued health and productivity. Contention 2: This contention does not really prove anything. The same lazy student could simply try a life of crime or other \"easy\" jobs. Those who work hard and wish to succeed are always going to do better over over the pot-smoking lazy student who drops out. The drop-out may also turn to prostitution anyway- by legalizing it you are now better protecting that drop-out. Contention 3: This contention merely assumes that the government would be the owner of the brothels. If the brothels were privately-owned the business owner would pay for the monthly check-ups as part of their operating costs and import that in the price of their product. In that way the spread of STD's is still countered without a lot of extra cost. I contend that: Contention I: That prostitution is good for the economy. Prostitution is good for the economy for several reasons. First, it takes a previously illegal industry and legalizes it, opening the way for tax revenue which will help the government. It would provide low-skill people with a chance to work, and it will offer new business opportunity's for business owners. Contention II: Legalizing the Prostitution increases the Public Health. The prevalence among STD's in prostitutes today is a direct result of an illegal industry with no standards. Assuming the legalization of Prostitution one could argue that is would be in the Brothel's best interest to have their employees be healthy, both to offer a better product and ensure continue productivity. A client is very likely to pay more for a clean prostitute over one that is carrying an STD. In this respect the public health would be increased as STD's among this profession would be less common. Contention III: That the legalization of Prostitution cuts down on crime. Legalizing Prostitution cuts down on crime in several ways. Firstly prostitution would itself no longer be a crime, and prostitutes or their clients could no longer be arrested. Secondly, the secondary crime that is common with proposition such as drugs, abuse and the like would be dramatically decreased with legalization.", "qid": 28, "docid": "2d215538-2019-04-18T19:32:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.8014792203903198}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Prostitution Content: Thank you for accepting and I'll jump right into my points.1)Legalized prostitution can be monitored for safe sex. Condoms would be mandatory and prostitutes would be regularly tested for Sexually transmitted diseases. If they are shown to be positive, they would be treated and not be in service.2)It creates jobs which stimulates the economy. The government can implement a tax on this which also provides more money to pay off United States debts.3)Illegal prostitution use would decrease, lowering the amount of STD's contracted, crimes committed and unplanned pregnancies occuring. One of the requirements to be a prostitute could be for women to get tubectomies and men to get vasectomies. 4)Legal prostitution refers to the act being sponsored by the government, any prostitution occuring while governmental standards are not met would be illegal prostitution. This can create a rating system similar to that of restaurant ratings (indicating which prostitutes are safe and which aren't).5)The prostitutes can be protected by body guards, creating more openings for security as well as ensuring the possible harm to the prostitute is minimized.I await my opponents reply :)", "qid": 28, "docid": "3180697a-2019-04-18T18:21:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.8008868098258972}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation.", "qid": 28, "docid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.8005437850952148}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: So most of your rebuttal here is about how legalizing prostitution would be dangerous for women because pimps and brothels will appear because first of all those totally don't already exist and if you actually read my argument you would have realized that should prostitution become legal the prostitutes will have someone to rely on they will finally be able to call the cops if they've been abused. You also said that prostitutes make bad money? Have you looked at the numbers, In low end brothels prostitutes make upwards of 300 dollars a day? Some prostitutes even charge upwards of 1000 dollars for a customer for an hour or more. Finally you said that NO ONE wants to be a prostitute. . . . So you can speak for the world? No one wants to be a porn star?", "qid": 28, "docid": "94b6b4c-2019-04-18T11:10:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7998432517051697}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution. Content: I agree upon the definition's he had provided, so I will go on to state my case. As Con, I will be convincing the voter's that Prostitution should be illegal on many levels: Argument 1: Prostitution violate's one's rights / It's immoral. One may ask, \"How is prostituion violating one's right, isn't it their choice? \" In this case you're right. It is a person's choice to preform sexual favor's for another for money. But as a goverment, it's their duties to inform one's saftey as well as the rest of society. \"It violates the prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because clients\u2019 acts and practices of sexual 'entertainment' and pornography are acts of power and violence over the female body. \"Many can agree, the main reason as to why women become prostitute's is because they need money, they are unable to get a job, and there's no possible wayto earn money other than being a prostitute because it's easy money. This goes right along the lines of \" It violates the prohibitation of torture and of crual, inhuman or degrading treatment. \" Goverment should offer more organization's that help women who are postitutes. They should be teaching them business ethics, how to build a resume, interviewing tips and mentoring them along the way. This would get more women off the street's and get them to start working on a \"buisness\" not, and educational real job. Immoral: First off, i'd like the define some defintion's here Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Moral's: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical. Principle's: an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: I'd like to ask this question first: How is prostitution by any means is prostitution moral, how dose it have any principles? It dosent. Many women arent left without a choice, prostituition is the only way for them to make money, to be able to survive. \"A few years ago, prostitutes disappeared from the pages of medical journals; they returned as 'sex workers. ' Nor did they work in prostitution any more: they were employees in the 'sex industry. ' Presumably, orgasms are now a consumer product just like any other. As for pimps, the correct term is probably: 'brief sexual liaison coordinators. '. .. The idea of the state coercing its population into prostitution is, of course, repellent. Even the most liberal of liberals would probably agree with that. This means that there is after all a moral difference between prostitution and washing dishes in the local restaurant or stacking supermarket shelves. And that prostitution is both age-old and ineradicable does not make it any less degrading to all concerned. Anyone would know the difference between prostitution and washing dishes, or working in a store. Which has moral's? of course workin in a store would because you are wroking in a professional setting, learning buisness ethics and working in a sfe humane way. It's clear to see that, Prostitution has no moral's what so ever. Preofrmin sexual act's more money is Immoral, as the defintion provided above. Now, not only is it immoral to just the Women herself, but what about other's who are forced into it? That's right, I'm talking about Human Trafficing. \"Human Trafficing\"What is Human Trafficing? Trafficking in persons is a serious crime and a grave violation of human rights. Every year, thousands of men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers, in their own countries and abroad. Almost every country in the world is affected by trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims. UNODC, as guardian of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols thereto, assists States in their efforts to implement the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking in Persons Protocol). Allot of people want to say that trafficing dosen't happen in the U. S, but it actually dose. \"The United States of America is principally a transit and destination country for trafficking in persons. It is estimated that14,500 to 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked to the U. S. annually\" By making prostitution illegal, it makes human trafficcing okay. It will just make it much easier for dealer's to bring young men and women here to the U. S and have their bodies sold for sexaul pleasure's. The worst part is that most of them don't have a choice, they are forced into this trade. Making Prostitution illegal will decrease the chances of letting theese young men and women being transported here and being taken advantage of. How could anybody disagree with this. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking in the United States:There are 100,000 to 300,000 underage girls being sold for sex in America.9The average age of entry into prostitution is 12-14 years old.1050,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States each year.111 out of every 3 teens on the street will be lured toward prostitution within 48 hours of running away from home.12Minor victims were sold an average of 10-15 times a day, 6 days a week.121 out of 5 pornographic images is of a child.12The sale of child pornography has become a $3 billion dollar industry.12Over 100,000 websites offer child pornography.1255 percent of internet child pornography comes from the United States.12How could anyont think this is okay? The only way to stop this is to make prostitution ILLEGAL. The only possible way to stop this is to have stricter law's and making sure theese law's are inforced. Pack to Pro! Sources:. http://prostitution.procon.org... . http://prostitution.procon.org... . http://www.unodc.org... . http://www.humantrafficking.org... . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "c351e247-2019-04-18T15:06:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7994176149368286}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of prostitution in all 50 states of America Content: Prostitution is currently legal in Nevada. It is a way of employment for many woman (sometimes men?). Should it be legal everywhere? There's no doubt that it happens in all 50 states, but should it be legal? I personally do not think so. I think it demoralizes the people in our country and puts women in a position where they need to give up their most sacred and personal part of them self. I believe that we should (as a country) be discouraging frivolous sex and teaching our young people to value it. Now, prostitution is not to blame for the amount of teen pregnancies, but I will say that if we legalized it, we would be more comfortable with sex out of wedlock as a country. Young people would see and hear about sex even more than they already do and it could possibly incline them to participate in the act.", "qid": 28, "docid": "daa1bf82-2019-04-18T16:57:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7985680103302002}, {"content": "Title: prostitution Content: I accept. First of all the majority of 12 year old ar any age child prostitute is there involuntarily. Non voluntary prostitution would still be illegal. Also legal prostitution would only be legal for 18 and older. No minors. if it were legal it could be better regulated so as not to spread as much disease and make it safer so the women involved arent managed by dangerous pimps. We could add a law that persay says that it is illegal to be involved in prostitution if you have an STD. then we could just go after those people. Prostitution could be one off the check boxes when you go for a physical snd if the doctor sees it they can make you get regular tests. Also nobody said that you should sell your body for sex. Its a terrible idea actually. but it shouldnt be illegal or criminalized. Many women in prostitution actually have people to support and prostitution is a last option. I would want to help them find a better option but if thats what they go with im notnfoing to fine them or arrest them and put their family in an even worse position. Probably the most imprtant reason it should be legalized is that it lets customers get rid of sexual urges. These actually has been shown to correlate with lower rates of sexual assault and rape. I would rather have legal prositution in my town then women getting raped. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Also, it is your body and you do what you want with it. Nobody can tell you any different.", "qid": 28, "docid": "6b369348-2019-04-18T15:15:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7985166907310486}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I would first like to say a few things about what has to be done. As i am doing this for a class my coach only for now wants me to use a value so it would be nice if my opponent would do the same. That is all. Just use a value. That is the only thing that will change I negate the resolution resolved: Prostitution should be legalized. I would like to begin by offering the following definition: Prostitution-The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hires. - The 'Lectric Law Library's The value that we have chosen for this debate is Societal Welfare. Societal Welfare states that the most important things that we should be concerned about and keep out of harms way is health, safety, order, and economics. By legalizing Prostitution it harms every single one of those which we will go into detail in our contentions. They will be in the following order: 1- legalizing Prostitution brings many harms with it 2- Prostitution will raise the dropout rate 3- Legalizing Prostitution does not help the economy but will harm it. Contention 1- Legalizing Prostitution will bring harm to society in many ways. Such as in health, in 1994 \"American Journal of Public Health\" put out a study where 70% of the participants who were prostitutes had high levels of depressive symptoms. \"This data indicates that the high level of depressive symptoms observed for study participants appears to be a serious problem facing these women.\" As said by Margarita Alegria, Ph.D. By being a prostitute it can cause many mental illnesses such as PTSD [Posttraumatic Stress Disorder] and Dissociation. Melissa Farley, Ph.D., Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education, wrote \"Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart\" in the Oct. 2004 Violence against Women that stated: \"PTSD is normative among prostituted women\u2026.\" Farley, early that year found a PTSD regularity rate of 68% among those in prostitution in nine countries. Now not only does it do harm to the individual it also harms society in a sense that they have to institutionalize them. By trying to clean the street of crime and by trying to institutionalize them and get them through a rehabilitation if the government gives them that choice would cost to much as it is already costing to much to rid the streets of the crime that is now out there. Therefore driving the economy into more debt than filling the whole with dirty money. Also prostitution is associated with crime, corruption, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking. By legalizing this you are bringing along the full package so to speak. Contention 2- Prostitution will raise the dropout rate. In today's world the best way to make money is to make it fast and to make it big. Prostitution is an easy way to do this but it is the worst. Any person with an 6th grade level of knowledge knows that you don't need any type of training or any type of degree to be a prostitute. So out of pure laziness, since one doesn't see that education is nessacary to them anymore and they prefer large amounts of money on the spot they turn to prostitution. So by making it legalized it will official by a career choice that anyone could take therefore making education useless to some or all. Contention 3- As I mentioned in my first a contention that legalizing prostitution will not stimulate the economy but it will hurt it. If we do legalize it we would have to have some things to go along with it. For instance everyone likes a clean prostitute. No one would like to contract HIV or gonorrhea or any type of STD for that matter. So we would have to have the average consult for STD's with a medical professionals is $150 per visit with test costing extra. If every prostitute in the United States was tested monthly, which would do nothing to stop the spread of STD's, the government would have to pay roughly billions in medical examinations alone. You would also have to higher a large amount of DR to do this costing more. This will also lead to corruption. If one prostitute is not to have a clean record one can not perform the duty since the condition it has. Well since he or she is a prostitute he/she can easily offer themselves to have a clean record leaving that client with disease of that prostitute. So, in conclusion by legalizing prostitution you are harming society by raising dropout rates, hurting the economy and the stability of individuals, and make corruption where there is already so much.", "qid": 28, "docid": "be3c3d22-2019-04-18T19:32:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.798452615737915}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in brothels Content: The title is \"Prostitution should be legalized in brothels\" I am Pro and you are Con no more need be said. You don\"t get force my position on how I support my side, any more than I get to force yours. You get to choose HOW you prove that Prostitution should NOT be legalized in brothels. I contest your definition of Brothel and provide https://definitions.uslegal.com... as the definition. Condemns do exist, and have existed in many forms over the years, they cover the genital during sex to prevent transmission of fluids. From a company in Germany as proof of their existence. In 2003 Rhode Island, accidently decriminalized prostitution. The effects of this were \"caused both forcible rape offenses and gonorrhea incidence to decline for the overall population. Our synthetic control model finds 824 fewer reported rape offenses (31 percent decrease) and 1,035 fewer cases of female gonorrhea (39 percent decrease) from 2004 to 2009\" http://www.nber.org... This breaks down into two argument in favor of legalized prostitution. 1) Rape dropped by 824. The effects of which will affect the victim for the rest of their lives. https://mainweb-v.musc.edu... 2) Gonorrhea dropped by 1,035. STDs are a critical health concern affecting this country. https://www.health.ny.gov... 3) It is hypocrisy with prostitution being illegal, while porn is legal. Whatever argument can be for or against, one can be made for the other. http://www.cnn.com... 4) No one sees any problem with massages. No one sees any problem getting their hair, nails, or feet done. In all these cases, you are paying another human being to touch you. How is sex any different? 5) Freedom is being able to choose what you do with your body. Choosing to have sex with someone for money is no different.", "qid": 28, "docid": "3f7340ce-2019-04-18T12:13:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7984291315078735}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized and regulated Content: I sort of disagreed with the stance you posted on your profile regarding prostitution, so I wanted to discuss this with you. Yes, a discussion. Let's have the goal of this be not to win, but to come to a mutual understanding. My belief is that prostitution can be legalized as long as it is kept safe and regulated--not that it currently is. Sex work ought to be solely work--again, not that it currently is. There are problems with the seedy underground sex trade, yes, but the exploitation and unsafety parts are the issue, not the sex part. If the prostitution industry were legal, where it could be federally regulated by an authority, and if safety measures were taken, then there would be no issue with legalized prostitution. That's my opinion. Why do you have yours? What puts you off about the idea of a legalized sex trade? I'd love to hear.", "qid": 28, "docid": "2d75e907-2019-04-18T16:52:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7982106804847717}, {"content": "Title: prostitution must be banned Content: A pleasant afternoon Mr. Debater Sir..As we know we are now facing on the motion that Prostitution should be banned...and as the leader of the opposition I agree to your definition but I don't like your argument...As we can clearly see Mr. Debater Sir you don't even set the parameters of this debate...Sir as the Leader of the Opposition I would like to rebut your one and only argument Sir...First sir when you say that it is unlawful...NO sir actually it's not when we legalize prostitution on this country...sir we don't really need to ban prostitution because at the first place it's not legalized yet...Thank you sir and good day...", "qid": 28, "docid": "3d2c9c3b-2019-04-18T20:02:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7980703711509705}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing Prostitution Content: We should also address the morality of it. If prostitution is legalized, more and more young girls will have access to, for example, brothels, and use their bodies to get money from older men. The idea that they are the ones who give to men and get paid for it may appeal to younger audiences and cause an increase of prostitutes. What goes along with this is self-esteem issues. These young girls will begin to believe that their only potential is through sex and the better it is, the more they will get paid. This mentality is damaging.", "qid": 28, "docid": "b5591233-2019-04-18T12:26:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7978042960166931}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution Should be Legalized Content: Thank you. You have brought up good points. Arguments: Prostitution is basically personalized pornography[2]. Pornography is good for you[1], and perfectly legal, making the it seem unfair that prostitution is illegal. In fact, it would be legal if any of the parties filmed it and distributed the video. There are a few apparent contradictions with the law here. Prostitutes are also similar to promiscuous people, with the exception of the fee. It is pretty much unavoidable that there are going to be people who sleep with strangers and enjoy it, and it should be allowed if they want to make money off of it. If prostitution were government regulated, it could be the new lottery. What I mean is it would bring in thousands upon thousand of tax dollars each year[8], helping our US government pay off its huge debt[9]. The Declaration of Independence tries to give citizens the right to the pursuit of happiness[3]. This may be a stretch, but it still stands that if prostituting yourself makes you happy and is something you enjoy, you shouldn\"t be prevented from doing it. Rebuttals: \"It promotes children to be trafficked\" In fact, it would do quite the opposite. Children being trafficked, especially for sex, is terrible and unfortunately happens very often[4]. However, they're an easier target because children are not as smart or strong as adults and therefore more vulnerable. If prostitution were legal, there would be more willing adults in the business, causing the demand for child trafficking to dive[5]. It would also decrease human trafficking in general[6]. \"Most of the prostitutes are victims\" Right now that is true. But like I mentioned, if it were legal, there would be ore willing participants and thus a much lower demand for people to be forced into prostitution against their will. In a world without sex trafficking, prostitution would be a victimless crime[5]. \"Whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job\" There will always be risks, as there are with any profession. Making prostitution legal will decrease these risks. Nevada was the first state in the US to legalize prostitution. They have very smart laws set to keep their workers safe that could not be enforced if prostitution were considered a crime. The employees are given monthly STD tests, have a \"safety button\" in the case of a client getting too aggressive, and brothels can\"t seek to recruit new prostitutes[7]. Quotes[10]: 1 If nobody wants to sell sex, it is a crime to force anyone to do so. But when men or women do want to sell their bodies, they should have that full right without encountering punishment or discrimination. If the client behaves decently, the relationship between the sex buyer and the sex seller must be considered a purely private transaction. \" NILS JOHAN RINGDAL, Love For Sale 2 \"The obscenities of this country are not [prostitutes]. It is the poverty which is obscene, and the criminal irresponsibility of the leaders who make this poverty a deadening reality. The obscenities in this country are the places of the rich, the new hotels made at the expense of the people, the hospitals where the poor die when they get sick because they don't have the money either for medicines or services. It is only in this light that the real definition of obscenity should be made.\" R13; F. Sionil Jos\", Ermita: A Filipino Novel 3 The only way to stop this trafficking in and profiting from the use of women's bodies is for prostitution to be legalized. Legalization will open it up to regulation; and regulation means safety. JEANNETTE ANGELL, Callgirl 4 When prostitution is a crime, the message conveyed is that women who are sexual are \"bad,\" and therefore legitimate victims of sexual assault. Sex becomes a weapon to be used by men. MARGO ST. JAMES, San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 29, 1979 5 People tend to be put off by the idea of selling sex, but if you spend a winter's night with one of them and talk with her about her family and so on, you're likely to find she's just like any other woman. EIJI YOSHIKAWA, The Art of War Sources: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. From Google [3] http://www.archives.gov... [4] http://globalfundforchildren.org... [5] http://www.listland.com... [6] http://www.forbes.com... [7] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... [8] http://people.emich.edu... [9] http://www.usdebtclock.org... [10] http://www.goodreads.com... and http://www.notable-quotes.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7975659370422363}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in the US Content: This debate is for Four TroubleResolved - Prostitution should be legalized in the USThis is a shared BOPProstitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for moneyLegalized - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.US - United StatesRules1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. No K's of the topic7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions8. The BOP is shared9. First round is acceptance. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. If you find a way to accept the debate without me approving it, you will FF the debate. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire FF of the debate.", "qid": 28, "docid": "622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7971752285957336}, {"content": "Title: Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS. Content: As we\u2019ve mentioned in our previous point, prostitution will take place whether it is legal or not. We believe prostitution should be legal. By regulating brothels and the conditions for prostitution through regular health checks, condoms et cetera, we can make sure prostitutes are safe from HIV. In places where prostitution is illegal, it is merely driven underground; controlled by cartels and gangs. In this situation prostitutes live under no rights[[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/515.full]] Moreover they tend to be associated with drugs, they are hooked by dealers who force them into prostitution to fund thri habit, through multiple sexual partners and needle sharing there is significant risks of HIV.[[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_35/ai_53390350/]]. If a sex worker contracts AIDS, a man or woman client using them will be at risk of contracting the virus, they then run the risk of not knowing that they have it, infecting other sexual partners and the cycle continues. Also let us not forget future children who contract the disease while in the uterus. So it is in countries where prostitution is illegal where we can\u2019t keep sex workers safe from AIDS. In these countries prostitutes aren\u2019t even allowed to be prostitutes. They tend to enter the profession because they have no other way of earning money or they may be forced to do it. On the other hand, if prostitution is legal and regulations are put in place, sex workers will be safer from STI\u2019s and HIV/AIDS. Regular health checks will pick up any possible infections and there will be laws to protect the well-being of sex workers. What\u2019s more, these laws will not only protect sex workers, but their clients too. Making prostitution legal will improve the work conditions of people who have to go into prostitution for one reason or another and will protect society from a further spreading of HIV/AIDS. This is a signifcant benefit to greater society and individual workers and cl", "qid": 28, "docid": "e85fcaa7-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00014-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7962706089019775}, {"content": "Title: Time to legalize prostitution Content: First, Thank you for placing this up for debate. I accept. Second, how is there any good to the pro side of the debate? legalizing prostitution is not a good idea. If the country was to legalize prostitution there would be more bad than good. \"Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death.... It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week.\" Melissa Farley, PhD Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education \"Prostitution Is Sexual Violence\" in the Psychiatric Times http://prostitution.procon.org...", "qid": 28, "docid": "9b3bf6ac-2019-04-18T15:15:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7954084873199463}, {"content": "Title: Should prostitution be criminalised Content: Since my opponent wishes not to participate further I would like to finalize my argument by saying that Prostitution is but string in a spider'web of crime, they are all inter elated with one another. Drugs, Human Trafficking, Modern day slavery,Money laundery and such. My opponent did not clarify for us how is Prostitution benefit the society and one self. But simply had enough to assume that one should practice Prostitution out of sheer entertainment of liberty. Based on that, the government should act on his consent and give him/her those legal rights as a citizen. He focused on the personal rights and dismissed the greater good of all. He also did not entertain the possibility that these Prostitutes maybe aquired through an inhumane way. I wish I can thank my opponent for this debate, but as a matter of fact I can not. Hopefully some other day we will have a more dragging and engaging debate. Thank you.", "qid": 28, "docid": "185ae0c9-2019-04-18T16:46:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7953251600265503}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: Like I said, prostitution would create more burdens for society than anything else. It would lead to more unwanted children, a rise in STDS, and worst of all, more abortions. There are only two reasons I can think of why people like jayvon would want it legal. 1) To generate tax revenue. 2) For the claim \"I want to do it.\" 1. The tax revenue would be dwarfed by the costs to the medical system 2. Simply wanting to do it does not justify legalization. If I said I wanted to do meth, would meth become legal?", "qid": 28, "docid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.795185387134552}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Rebuttal I will rebut my opponent\u2019s arguments and also defend my point. Prostitution will still happen My opponent tends to discredit my argument by saying \u201cMy opponent's argument basically boils down to this: stealing still happens, so let's make that legal too. I'm not saying this is a reason to make it legal.\u201d Then what are you saying then? Even if you take that approach it still doesn\u2019t add up to it being legalized, you cannot escape validity of my argument. Why? You stated that \u201cThe reason I make this argument is because all the counter-arguments to prostitution rely on prostitution actually being reduced as a result of criminalization, which all the evidence indicates it isn't.\u201d I can also argue the same about stealing, because the idea is that stealing will be reduced as a result of it being criminalized, and it is evident that it isn\u2019t. And the fact is that stealing comes in different form but it is still stealing. The thing is that you are arguing from a different aspect. Safety and role of the state has nothing to do with prostitution being legalized. Why? The resolution state that Prostitution should be legalized. Now my opponent your role is to tell me why prostitution should be legalized and not what should come after it is. You made mention about your country, but the fact is, my opponent, there are about two hundred countries in the world, and New Zealand is only one. Therefore it cannot speak for the majority. While it may be so in your country it may not be the case in another. Another thing is, the reason why you can make reference to you own country is that it is regulated. And that my opponent, is a different aspect. Regulating prostitution is different from legalizing it. Safety It seems as if you are saying that prostitution should be legalized because prostitutes are not safe. But that is hardly the case, for whether it is legalized are not, prostitutes will never be safe due to the nature of the work. You stated that \u201cIf my opponent wants me to draw a distinction between other crimes and prostitution, I would be able to give several, such as the fact that prostitution does not have a victim and that no party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Having said that, my point is that prostitutes are better off when they are safer.\u201d While you make a good point about no party being dissatisfied, we cannot be fully sure of this in all cases. You have to be careful when you say outcome. What if one party contracted a STI? I can say that is an outcome, and no one will tend to be satisfied with such an outcome. The next thing is that you also make a good point that prostitutes are better off when they are safer, but my question is how to one measures the idea of being safe? Once you are vulnerable to your life being threaten in one way or another, you are not considered as safe. Some persons say safety is freedom from harm, and prostitutes are more vulnerable to being harm due to the nature of the work. Furthermore, there are many persons who are being raped and murdered besides prostitutes, regardless of what law is there, whether they catch the criminal or not. So my opponent it is safe to say that nobody is safe whether they are prostitutes are not. You made mention that a \"soft crime\" can actually prevent a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime.\u201d This is a very good point however is that really so? My opponent that\u2019s an opinion because in any case you are saying let prostitution be legalized with the HOPE of it preventing a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime. Reason being we cannot be sure that this will be the case. Role of State My opponent states \u201cThe state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists.\u201d But is my opponent aware that the pornography industry is also linked to human trafficking? Those persons who get entangled in human trafficking are sometimes the very persons you see in these pornography movies and films. You mention about money be added back to equation but I can also argue the same thing about stealing because persons also steals money and it can be added back to the equation. When you mention having a consistent and coherent moral code, moral in what sense? I want to know what you consider as being moral. The issue of moral varies from country to country. What you view as moral in New Zealand may not be what others view as moral in other countries. Some persons defined moral as related to human behavior especially the distinction between good and bad right or wrong. What if people have this view that prostitution is not moral because that is not the right way of going about having sex, in a sense that sex was not to be exploited or exchange for cash but rather for procreation through the art of pleasure. Being that said how is it that we measure what is right from what is wrong? Until that can be done, the state can do little or nothing to regulated prostitution in some cases. Because what the State determine as right or wrong may not be what the prostitutes themselves determine as right or wrong. For instance that state will say that \u201cpersons below the age of 18 cannot be practicing prostitution\u201d but others disagree with it and due to the nature of their situation they chose not to obey it. While my opponent makes a very good point (I honestly cannot deny it) in stating \u201cProstitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution.\u201d But he cannot deny the fact that stealing is also a private issue. If I work at a back or in an accounting department if I chose to steal that\u2019s my personal and private business, no one else needs to know that. However that doesn\u2019t makes it right does it. Being that it\u2019s private my opponent has nothing to do with it being legalized. If I decided to privately steal from a multi-billion dollar company why should the government even care? Human Trafficking Why does human trafficking happen? My opponent rose a very important question in the attempt to answer it however he failed. This is not an issue of whether or not prostitutes smuggle themselves but that person smuggle people and turn them into prostitutes because there is the potential make an enormous amount of money from it. And the reason is because prostitution is legal. You made a point in your earlier argument about how prostitution can be reduced. My opponent made mention about warning signs the police can come across in order to find out if human trafficking is going on somewhere. But there is another part to that argument, I can argue that when prostitution is illegal, once police identify that prostitution is occurring somewhere then investigation can be done to find out if human trafficking is behind it. The thing is when prostitution is legalized it is more difficult to detect if human trafficking is behind it or not because its legal so police has no right to question a prostitute about her work. My opponent states \u201cProstitution is only a tiny fraction of human trafficking that happens in the world\u201d However my opponent whether is tiny fraction or not the fact is my opponent is still a part of it. You made a very good point (again I cannot deny it) in stating \u201cBut even if this were somehow the prostitute's fault, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong.\u201d But there is another part to that statement. The solution is not to legalize prostitution because some people do it right. Because some people do not smuggle prostitutes is similar to legalize stealing because some steal from the rich and give to the poor.", "qid": 28, "docid": "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7947180271148682}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be Legalized and Regulated Content: Prostitution defined as someone selling their time as a service which includes sexual services for money should be made legal under the law as well as regulated in a way that would decrease the problems that we see today with illegal prostitution.", "qid": 28, "docid": "fc16d928-2019-04-18T18:05:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7941436767578125}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalised Content: Good luck to both of us! I'll like to begin by saying that prostitution should not be legalized. Firstly, my opponent gives reasons against this, the first being economic benefits. While it's true that revenue could come from such services is it really that significant of a difference? How would it be any different if any other service was legalized? For example, legalizing marijuana across the United States and taxing it would generate between $10 billion and $14 billion annually alone. . http://www.prohibitioncosts.org... Not only is this a significant amount, but it's also now a victimless crime. Secondly, my opponent moves on to discuss worker and societal benefits of prostitution. Legalizing prostitution could lead to problems in these areas such as STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abusive pimps, etc. Legalizing prostitution would also lead to empowering pimps. They would be able to unrestrictedly engage in sex trade activities with little regulation, many of whom do it against their will. Legalizing prostitution also means legalizing pimps. These same pimps may also be engaged in other activities such as the drug trade which is illegal. A prostitute working for a pimp may also be greatly restricted in where she can go, whom she can see, and even abuse her for disobeying. . http://www.prostitutionresearch.com... Another issue worth noting is the fact that in many cases, prostitution can led to the objectification of women. This is of particular concern to feminists, many of whom oppose prostitution on those grounds. . http://www.feministissues.com... Lastly, there is the issue of STD's. According to some studies the rates of STD's among women in prostitution is much higher, some as high as 85% coming into contact with some form of sexually transmitted disease. . http://www.uri.edu... Although a much smaller number of these cases are serious it would no doubt be uncomfortable walking around with these viruses. Another problem would be the risk of spreading them among other clients. Both the client and the prostitute would be at risk rather than just the prostitute. Now to my opponent. .. Good luck.", "qid": 28, "docid": "b24a50c9-2019-04-18T19:04:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7940645217895508}, {"content": "Title: The government should subsidize prostitution Content: As one can clearly see in the case of the Australian law, it is the law itself which creates barriers to entry, not the fact that prostitution is legal. This is what I was talking about that it was not completely legalized. It was legalized with conditions built in that are difficult to meet. The law itself requires that prostitution be done in a building designated for that purpose which meets a variety of other requirements. Clearly the barriers to entry are not a product of legalization but the law itself.I agree with Con that companionship is an important part of human life. I also agree that sex can be an expression of intimacy among companions. Prostitution cannot replace companionship. However, even when not in a relationship, humans still feel compelled toward sex. This is often satisfied through one night stands and the like. It is this basic need for sex that prostitution can and does address. In fact, a legal and regulated sex industry would often be safer than random hook ups at a bar. It is certainly less time consuming than hanging around bars hoping to hook up, and does not involve consuming alcohol and other detrimental behaviors. For this reason prostitution is a net gain for society as a whole and should not only be legal but also encouraged.Con contends that if prostitution were completely legal, it would be so prevalent that prostitutes would compete each other out of business. Of course, even a cursory knowledge of economics should dissuade anyone from believing this. Con curiously seems to claim that the increased availability of prostitutes would cause people to prefer relationships. I have already discussed earlier that sex as an expression of intimacy and sex as the fulfillment of a basic need are vastly different situations and prostitutes would not be put out of business by relationships. I also fail to see how, as Con claims, that prostitutes would choose to \"enslave themselves to pimps\" once legalized. This is something that happens because it is illegal.Con's source about the Netherlands refers to human trafficking, indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, but that still doesn't change the fact that sexual assualt in the netherlands is significantly lower than in the US which Con offered no evidence against.In an attempt to prove that prostitution is not a job, Con links to an article that seems to have nothing to do with his point. Indeed there are serious issues prostitutes face and it's only after normalizing and accepting prostitution that these issues will be able to be addressed properly. As long as prostitution is viewed by many as shameful, bad, or wrong, prostitutes will continue to be victimized. Once we all view it as just as viable a profession as working in a retail store, the \"shadiness\" will inevitably go away. Con also seems to believe that anyone who refuses to join a union is not in a legitimate profession, an absurd contention I won't waste any space arguing against because it's obviously incorrect.Con likens prostitution to modeling (as opposed to acting). I agree with him on this point, and also believe that modeling should be completely legal and viewed as a valid career path. Luckily it already is. We should afford this same courtesy to prostitutes. Con also says that a law will only complicate things while arguing in favor of a law to ban prostitution, a strange contradiction.In summary, if prostitution were not only legal but also normalized and fully embraced as a legitimate career choice, all of society would be better off. Let me repeat that simple legalization is not enough. It needs to be normalized and accepted. All of Con's points about the downside of prostitution are either because it is illegal, because the laws are designed badly, or simply because the profession is viewed as wrong or shameful even in places where it's legal. It is because of this last point that legalization is not enough. We need to normalize and encourage it as a legitimate career choice.", "qid": 28, "docid": "90a1c80d-2019-04-18T17:29:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7938539981842041}, {"content": "Title: Should prostitution be legalized in all states Content: I believe that prostitution should be legalized in all states. It can help the people who are currently in need of some money. Without the concern of moral, legalizing prostitution will create a new source of income, and much like the red line district, it is self employed. Not only it is self employed, we can leave it and join it anytime. It can help college student to pay off some fees such as book fee or just pocket changes. It can also help families that need some quick bucks. So Legalizing prostitution can help people who are in need of some money. In terms of moral, it is not really a bad thing considering that it is a people's choice now to prostitute themselves to gain some money. Not only that, they can now be free of pimps' control and it would be much safer for the prostitutes. Not only that, playboy mansion is a high class prostitution ring so it is already being accepted throughout most of the U.S. By legalizing prostitution not only help families and college students, it would make prostitutes more acceptable to the society", "qid": 28, "docid": "f4fc3e13-2019-04-18T18:28:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7936652302742004}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should not be legalized Content: All the problems you brought up are cause by the fact that prostitution is illegal. Legalizing prostitution would solve those problems. I will present my arguments in the next round,", "qid": 28, "docid": "7c83e847-2019-04-18T16:13:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7931344509124756}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Prostitution should not be legalized because it is immoral and, aside from that, harms the fabric of society. There is no established right, in any culture aside from libertarian academic circles, to do whatever a person wants with their body such as prostitution. The state can and should prevent activities like prostitution that are detrimental to normal relationships, lead to the spread of disease, and cause additional crime. In the United States, the roles and purposes of government are spelled out by the Constitution, which through the Tenth Amendment allows the states to regulate any activity not reserved for the federal government or protected through the Bill of Rights. Clearly, prostitution is not protected by the Constitution. The only remaining question is whether it is good public policy to legalize prostitution. The answer is no. I do not see any difference between what my opponent characterizes as \"subjective\" and \"objective\" immorality. If whether something is moral is determined by one's own \"personal moral code\", then why could \"rape, murder [and] stealing\" not be moral simply if a person considered it to be so?The distinction of whether an action directly harms others is not valid because other people can be harmed by actions which are not directly targeted at them. See speeding for example. It is illegal to speed because of the potential that SOMEONE could be injured in an accident. Speeding is not a direct infringement of a specific person's rights like murder or stealing, but it is illegal because of the aggregate negative effect that it has by causing increased traffic injuries and fatalities. The same is true about many other laws, including laws against prostitution. I did not say that theocracy is the best form of government. I used the fact that the Bible obviously opposes prostitution to refute my opponent's claim that anything which is consensual is moral, and that this principle is the \"universal moral rule.\" Of course, if the most influential faith in human history opposes something, it obviously is not universally held. That is not to say that there are not SOME people who believe as my opponent does. But it is not a universal, or even a majority, position. (Not that it would matter for the purposes of this debate.) Ultimately, it does not matter if you consider prostitution to be immoral (it is). But if you truly want a secular society where laws are based solely on their social impact, then prostitution should still be illegal. Many prostitutes *are* victims because they end up in a situation where it is the only thing they can do to make enough money to survive. Aside from that, prostitution has negative effects on society such as damage to relationships and spread of crime/diseases. Prostitution should remain illegal.", "qid": 28, "docid": "94b6883-2019-04-18T11:25:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7929120659828186}, {"content": "Title: Proposition Summary Content: At the beginning of this debate we showed that prostitution (and demand for unsafe sex) will still exist whether it is illegal or not, the question is whether or not making it legal will allow for better protection of prostitutes and better help to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The opp has never disputed that there will be prostitution either way, so it was up to them to show harms of legalising prostitution, which they never did. 3 questions: 1) What best allows for the Government to protect people and regulate? 2) Will regulations be effective? 3) Are there any real harms to legalising prostitution? On the first point, we showed you that if prostitution is illegal it is an underground affair, unsafe and controlled by gangs. It creates a stigma around the desperate women in prostitution, causing people to care about them even less, and stops anyone involved in the industry seeking any protection or help. The opp tried to say that we were contradicting ourselves, missing the point entirely: the way to lift the stigma is to legalise, then prostitutes will come forward. Stigma around prostitution doesn't just exist inherently, it is promoted by banning it. The opp tried to propose a counter-model providing education about HIV, however this model is not mutually exclusive and as we showed you, will actually work better if prostitution is legalised. It is contradictory to not allow education for prostitutes. On the second point, the opposition tried to say that illegal, unsafe and unregistered prostitution would still exist. We had three responses: 1) Because it is in the interests of legal prostitutes and brothels to report illegal practice, the industry will self-regulate. 2) It is actually no more expensive to provide the legal services, because most of the expenses will fall on the Government, which is providing the condoms etc. 3) Even if some illegal practice still exists, if there is any increase in safe practice and the use of safe methods, then that is a good thing. Finally, the opp tried to say an increase in prostitution would be bad. Firstly we told you that as long as the prostitution involves safe methods, that would be fine, and then that essentially means that the other team thinks people having sex is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing if people are having more sex with prostitutes, if it is safe. They then tried to say we would be placing more people in danger. They never showed how this would happen under our model, which insists upon safe practices. We are certainly not forcing any women into prostitution, who are not currently doing it. The opp's final point was to say that we would be sending a message that this is a legitimate way to make a living. Unfortunately they seemed to have missed posting some of the point, but basically we do think that prostitution is a legitimate way to make a living. It is the poor treatment and health risks that prostitutes face that is illegitimate. Our model helps with this.", "qid": 28, "docid": "e85fcaa7-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00022-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7926638126373291}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized Content: I will be presenting arguments from a prior debate of mine where my opponent forfeited. This is not plagiarism since it\u2018s all written by me. For an activity to be criminalized it must at the bare minimum infringe upon other peoples rights, either directly (rape, murder, theft, etc. ), or indirectly (pollution damaging peoples health for example). I maintain that prostitution involves neither and should therefor not be considered a crime. My first argument will be the fundamental one dealing with the legality of prostitution. The other two are supporting arguments demonstrating the positive practical benefits of legalizing prostitution.1. Prostitution is a victimless crimeGiven that the prostitute and the buyer are both consenting participants, there is no victim. If there is no victim, then how can there be a crime? Furthermore, the state has no business controlling what adults choose to do with their own bodies or for what reasons they choose to engage in sexual activities, as long as they are not infringing on other peoples rights. 2. Undermining the black market and increasing workplace safety for prostitutesToday, black markets, i. e. pimps and other criminals, meet the demand for prostitution and these \u201eemployers\u201c tend not to be overly concerned with the safety of their employes. If prostitution were legalized, then the black market would have to compete with legal brothels, which would presumably be regulated by the government. Prostitutes working at these brothels would enjoy the benefit of a much safer working environment and would therefor have a significant incentive to work there instead. Legalizing prostitution would also allow prostitutes to unionize, ensuring that their rights as working men and women would be respected.3. Decreasing the taxpayers' loadThe state spends significant amounts of money and resources combating prostitution. If prostitution were legalized, then the expenditures of the police and justice systems would decrease and the tax revenue would increase. I look forward to reading con's rebuttals and counterarguments.", "qid": 28, "docid": "94b676c-2019-04-18T16:56:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7924978733062744}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legalized in the US Content: Mikal said in a PM he's conceding the debate because some stuff came up. We'll probably try doing this another time when Mikal's got the time. For now, I'll accept the concession and also just say, after doing the research, I've convinced myself that prostitution should be illegal. I hope you guys are convinced too, because it's one of those issues that's easy to ignore if you haven't done the research. And it's something that's important, because it's easy to talk about in this \"academic\" setting, but prostitution is real for the women who are prostituted, and legalizing it has real effects on them.", "qid": 28, "docid": "622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00002-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7921567559242249}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Apologies for the delay - I have been busy with other stuff. Thanks for an interesting debate so far.A quick note on the resolutionMy opponent seems to assume that since I'm defending prostitution being legalised, I can't be defending that it should be regulated. This is a non-sequiter. In fact I'm defending the legalisation of prostitution in order that it might be regulated. If my opponent agrees a regulated industry is better than an unregulated one, he must also agree that this industry should be legal. Regulation is a positive outcome of following my model, which is both to legalise and to regulate, even though I need to defend only one of those two things in the debate. You need to legalise prostitution in order to regulate it. In fact, every single country in the world with legal prostitution also has regulations for prostitution as well as more general labor protections that are extended to prostitutes.Prostitution will still happenFor the first time in this debate, we've just heard my opponent contest that making prostitution legal does not mean more people do it. His argument is essentially that we can't all be as good as New Zealand. While I'm going to have to admit New Zealand is pretty damn awesome, I can assure you that our awesomeness derives from things other than prostitution. Our experiences with prostitution can therefore be said to be quite representative. To prove this point, my opponent needed to identify how we are (or were) different with respect to prostitution to other countries around the world.I think my opponent might still be confused about how this argument fits into my case. To ensure safety and the role of state being fulfilled, we could either stop prostitution or legalise it. My argument here is only that you can't stop prostitution - it will still happen.SafetyIf never being safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything. Every profession carries some degree of risk, be it mining, fishing, agriculture, banking, truck driving, serving in the army, or anything else. Governments have a certain obligation to help people minimise the risk where this is possible. They do so in every legal industry.Moving on to the argument that prostitution cannot be distinguished from crime. My opponent reasons that in prostitution one party may be dissatisfied. This is true, but it is not inherent to prostitution. The difference is that with prostitution, as with any willing transaction, you can generally assume that both parties were happy, whilst with crime you can generally assume the opposite.My opponent argues that nobody is safe. While this is true, prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because unlike everyone else, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them. The law is there to protect everyone - except, apparently, prostitutes. There are a number of other reasons why prostitutes are particularly vulnerable, which I have already described.Finally my opponent says there is no evidence that legalising soft crimes can prevent harder crimes. First, to make this point you need to engage with my evidence from round two, which was a fair amount of causal links. Second, there is empirical evidence for this as well. There is indirect evidence from alcohol prohibition (http://www.liberator.net...) and statistically based on prostitution data (http://www.kuro5hin.org...).Role of StateI am well aware pornography is linked to human trafficking. I chose it quite deliberately. Loads of industries are linked to trafficking. Even having a non-open border is strongly linked to human trafficking. My point is that a vague link to human trafficking is not sufficient to make prostitution illegal any more than pornography is illegal or all borders should be open. The point is that the government can't say sex and money are allowed to mix in one industry and not in another, because that's inconsistent.The point about money wasn't to say money is good and everything involving it should be legalised. It was to establish that both pornography and prostitution share the same basic elements, with the sole exception of physical contact (which ought really to increase, not reduce, the state's obligation if anything).I know that your government thinks pornography is OK. Perhaps there might be an argument for those countries where it is illegal, such as those with Sharia law, but for countries where the government has already accepted pornography is moral (which is almost all of them), they also need to accept prostitution is moral. People can, for instance, choose to disagree with the state about when they're ready to go into the pornography business. Such people are thrown in jail for good reason.If you steal from a bank - even if you do it in secret - it's the bank's business. Therefore it's not a privacy issue. The difference between a bank and a prostitute is that the bank is a public institution. Others are affected if that money is lost. If I'd stolen a trade secret from a bank told to me in private, then that might be a privacy issue in that privacy has been breached - competitors can come into the private space of the firm. Getting others out is different from getting the government out. The government needs to control others to prevent them from interfering with our private affairs - and prevent us from interfering with others - if we are all willing. This is the principle on which privacy law is founded.Human TraffickingMy opponent thinks you can make money through human trafficking. This can only possibly be economically true if there is excess demand for prostitutes. You can't reduce demand in the local economy, nor can you change supply overall, as proved by my first point. What you can do is increase local supply to meet local demand and therefore make trafficking more expensive. So the reason why you can make money off trafficking is that prostitution is illegal, not that it's legal. Either way trafficking should be kept illegal.If prostitution is illegal, police need to find and discover underground networks to trace back who did the smuggling. Traffickers themselves are caught much more rarely than people who are trafficked, and it's because they're able to keep their identity a secret as the prostitutes (who are usually more than willing to identify them) are all thrown into jail and not listened to. Once again, prostitutes are the victims here! They're not the criminals we should be catching. They should be testifying against these awful people instead. If a prostitute comes up to the police and says \"I think trafficking is going on here\", then the police has the co-operation of that prostitute, rather than the prostitute deliberately working against the police to escape conviction. As con has already proved, prostitutes don't like being trafficked, so they'll always help the police out. I should add, though, that police can already question anybody about their work if they think a crime is going on.My opponent admits the problem is much wider than prostitution. The obvious solution is to stop blaming the prostitutes and keeping their profession illegal, but instead tackling the bigger issue.The solution is absolutely to legalise something if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is. With stealing we accept that being a Robin Hood is something that makes you an outlaw, although there are situations in which it is actually legal to steal (taxes, for instance). We just ban it when it creates big harms. Prostitution can be good - and why make a good thing illegal when you can make just the bad part illegal?I look forward to our final round.", "qid": 28, "docid": "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7920724153518677}, {"content": "Title: It should be legal to murder prostitutes Content: \" The resolution of this debate is \"It should be legal to murder prostitutes.\" Murder is by definition illegal and to say that murder should be legal is impossible because of contradicting terms, so I shall be arguing off what I believe that the intent of this debate is, \"It should be legal to kill prostitutes.\" All murder is killing. Some killing is murder. Since my opponent affirms the resolution \"it should be legal to murder/kill prostitutes\", he affirms this in ALL cases. If he argues all killing of prostitutes should be legal, he therefore argues that murder should be legal because some killing is murder. There is no way around this. \"Since their are many types of roles that fit the description of prostitute I believe that if I can affirm at least one instance where killing prostitutes should be legal I have affirmed the resolution.\" The resolution is \"it should be legal to murder prostitutes\" not \"there is an instance where killing prostitutes should be legal.\" Also, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. It is I who can negate the resolution upon affirming one instance where it should not be legal to murder prostitutes. My opponent argues that \"it should be legal to murder prostitutes\", and therefore asserts that ALL murdering of prostitutes should be legal. \"Prostitution: A person who does, or offers to do, an activity for money, despite personal dislike or dishonour.\" Although this is a bit of a reach, I do not believe it will affect my argument, and therefore will not challenge the definition. \"Contract Killing: a form of assassination, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people.\" Again, my opponent mistakenly believes that if he can affirm one instance where killing/murdering prostitutes should be legal that he has upheld the resolution. HE is the one affirming the resolution, not me. And it follows that my opponents elaborate example involving professional hitmen is irrelevant and does not hold any weight in this argument. To conclude, I realize my opponent still has one more round left, so to be fair, I request that he does not make any new arguments or definitions unless they are in direct rebuttal of my argument. If my opponent makes any new arguments, they should be ignored by the voters. And I also urge the voters to take into consideration that my opponent is most likely a cold-blooded killer, and he probably hurts children for fun as well.", "qid": 28, "docid": "318b36b2-2019-04-18T19:09:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7918820977210999}, {"content": "Title: No to legalizing prostitution Content: Prostitution should not be legalized and here is why: Prostitutes nowadays might think this is what they want, but sooner or later they will be finding themselves at a place, where they do not want to be. Some people, mostly girls, wants to give up on their EDUCATION to become a prostitute, if it gets legalized, which everybody knows is not what they should. They should stay in school, get an education and stay on a path they can use for something. Some of the prostitutes out there does not even WANT TO be a prostitute, they are just doing it to earn money because they cannot get any better job. Do they world really want that? Do the world want prostitution to be legalized if the prostitutes might not be able to live a normal life after?", "qid": 28, "docid": "436cc21d-2019-04-18T13:44:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7918007373809814}, {"content": "Title: Legalize prostitution in the USA. Content: I don't agree that we should not legalize prostitution in the United States. 1. Legalizing prostitution will increase sex trafficking and promote inequality. 2. Legalizing prostitution does not protect the people that are in the sex industry.", "qid": 28, "docid": "ddcd2e78-2019-04-18T12:57:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7916505932807922}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution ought to be legalized Content: My opponent hit the nail right in the head with that question. My entire contention revolves around the fact that prostitutes would NOT have complete autonomy if prostitution's legalized. They will not, and that's hardly surprising. Do you, dear voter, have complete autonomy in the place you decided to work for? Do you not think they'll have to encounter douch-ie customers? Do you disagree with the fact that there would sometimes be gray areas in rape where she'd be forced to perform stuff she ISN'T comfortable with in order to increase her market value? Nobody has complete autonomy when they're working for money. You are sometimes (and this is actually many times) forced to make decisions that you're not okay with just because the unpleasantness is paid for by money. Unfortunately, in prostitution- that'd be rape. You can't wish this away. This IS the reality- and has been actually *experienced* in countries where its legal. This is not just a hypothetical I\u2019m drawing to strengthen my case. My opponent agrees that a woman's body will become commodified once money enters the equation. However, he goes on to state that women should have that right- the right to decide to be commodified. Well I don't, because *I* believe that one shouldn't have the ability to pay for rape. It does affect me because it affects them. Just because a woman wants money, does not mean that she should be raped. And allowing legalised prostitution is exactly that. In the study I shared in the previous round, more than 70% of the prostitutes said that they would change their jobs IF they had a choice. They are prostituting even though they dont to. I happen to believe that legally sanctioning this monstrority is not the way to go. There *should* be better avenues at getting money other than selling your body. If money is the reason they're getting into prostitution, it isn't all that consensual. If sex is the reason they want to get in, amazing. You can have sex at a club, a bar, craigslist, anything. If money is, you shouldn't *have* to consider an option where you can get raped. Get the government to provide legit job opportunities. My opponent mentions that it wouldn't hurt anyone. Well it would. It would hurt the prostitutes (as it does). It would hurt the prospects of justice. The law, regardless of what my opponent says, cannot legalize rape. That is the bottomline. Law is the expected standard a society should adhere to. It would definitely not eliminate prostitution, however it *would* give a recourse to correct the ills that result from prostitution. Just because illegalizing something isn't being 100% effective doesn't mean you legalize that. You don't legalize murder. As I already stated in my previous round, you do NOT have safer working environment- in fact EVEN in countries where it is legal- woman prefer to remain unlisted because that helps them reclaim their autonomy. About rape punishment, my opponent claims that the rape reporting would increase because he believes that the disincentive to report rapes would reduce. That does not take into account the fact that the line between rape and not rape gets blurred too. Rape is a sensitive issue, and teh fact that most of the women interviewed by the CAPW did not know that they were being raped even though they related how they were being forced to do stuff they didn't want to just supports this point. Apparently, they didn't realize that it is still rape even if you get raped. Legalising this is not the way to deal with it. A better (much much better) recourse is providing alternative job opportunities/ skill workshops that'd help them migrate to more pleasant options. To respond to the STD point, first te illegal sector increases because the entire prostitution sector is larger now, once it gets legalised. Consequently, so is the illegal sector, a part of this relatively larger pool that gives them the luxury of not being harrassed by thhe pimps. That was the experience in countries where it is legal, in any case- a contention i supported in the previous round. My opponent makes the point about how legalising prostitution reduces STD's even if aq quarter of the industry is legalized. A. That's not true because there is a larger pool of sex workers now, with a larger pool of illegal workers, making spread of STDs easier. B. Illegalizing prostitution effectively also addresses this. Provide better job opportunities, better workable skills, and you address the root of the problem. The economic cost point, I've already explained how legalising prostitution would increase the instance of rapes just because a. the line of rape and not-rape gets blurred, as has been the experience. And B. more prostitution = more rapes Also C. women gets commodified (my opponent agrees with this), which adds to the prevailing rape culture on a psychological level. This should not be legalized. It should be reguilated away, by giving actual valid choices to the prostitutes- so that they do not have to resort to getting raped for money. Legalizing it does not get us anything worthwhile- and is a bandaid solution to a more pervasive problem. To sum it up, no- women would not have complete autonomy if they have sex for money. Legalising prostitution would lead to increasing the pool of prostitutes, increasing rapes and STDs- something that has been empirically observed. If our objective is to reduce these, effective illegalization is the only option- which is a mix of punishment and alternative job opportunities. I feel a majority of th epopulation would be alright with paying tax dollars to rescue women from a profession they do not want to engage in.", "qid": 28, "docid": "105d8c2a-2019-04-18T15:59:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7916349768638611}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized Content: Prostitutions: the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment Legalized: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law Prostitution will still happen I will not deny the fact that prostitution will still happen, but that is no ground for it to be legalized. Now you state that \"The most important thing is to consider why people become prostitutes, and the typical answer is that they need money.\" I can argue that everyone needs money. (Need money in a sense that \"we cannot do without money\"). That is no ground to legalize prostitution because not everyone who \"needs money\" are prostituting. When you say prostitution is selling yourself that statement is rather ambiguous. What if should show my talents and abilities in order to be recognized as a worthy candidate for a job, that is also considered as selling myself. And I should argue based on that view your argument nullified. You made a statement about choice or to say \"few options\" but that is no ground to legalize. Let us consider the act of murder in comparison. Remember that murder by law is wrong. However people are still murdering each other for whatever reason. Let us consider the act of stealing. I may also argue by substituting the word \"thieves\" to you are argument which would then be: Thieves are the broke college students who need to make a little money to finish their degrees. Thieves are the homeless who can't find work. They're the hard working mothers whose day job doesn't earn them sufficient income to give their kids a good education. These people do not just magically disappear because you make stealing illegal. Based on that should we say that stealing should be legalized? And bear in mind that whether or not is legalize it is still wrong. So my opponent your argument about it would still happen is no ground to legalize prostitution because there are many laws out there and people are still breaking them. If you have a child and you tell that child not to go outside, will you allow him to go outside because he will do it anyway? Therefore that argument is nullified. You stated \"The main difference is that prostitutes would be more likely to honor local restrictions on how they can practice, but more importantly, where they can practice.\" There is no creditability to that statement which means I can argue otherwise. That argument is based on your own terms and there is no research to back up your statement. Safety You stated that \"The harm of having prostitutes work underground is that they cannot be monitored by the government.\" I can argue the same thing about thieves. Stealing cannot be monitor by the government so it is tend to be done underground. Whether prostitution is legal or not you will still have bad clients. My opponent if \"Prostitution is one of the world's most dangerous professions.\" Why then should it be legalized? I can argue that thieves are also blackmailed as well. My point is my opponent all that you stated is no ground to legalize prostitution of you argue based on those criteria then other acts that are deem by laws of wrong should also be legalized. No matter what the ground you will not stop or prevent harm against prostitutes and I will not change the way how people view or think about them. Being that there are less likely to commit the crime doesn\"t mean that they will not. How is it that prostitution considered as a \"profession\" and yet prostitutes don\"t know safe sex practices, then what is the sense? How can I be an accountant and cannot balance of accounts? Or a doctor but cannot prescribe medication? How can you argue that prostitution should be legalized and yet you are saying that they do not practice safe sex? I can also say that thieves are also the poor and vulnerable and the law is to protect them, but that doesn\"t rule out the fact that stealing is wrong, does it? Your argument about opening up to families and criminal record can also be applied to thieves yet there is no guarantee that if they open up to their families that it would lead to what you have stated and there is no research to back up that statement so I can rule out your statement as invalid. None of the things you state is a solid ground to say that prostitution should be legalized and if prostitution is legalized it will increase the risk of human trafficking as you already pointed out and that is very dangerous on your part. Legalizing prostitution will not stop violence against women therefore it must not be legalized. And yet it as failed [1] My argument: Prostitution increase the risk human trafficking It does matter what we think once we can reason logically and rationally we cannot deny this fact. If people are trafficking human beings and forcing them into prostitution, wouldn\"t it be likely to increase when it is legalized? If it is not legalized and they are not being caught what makes you think that they will be if it is legalized? In some countries human trafficking has increased tremendously and it\"s because of prostitution [2]. And if this is so, how is it that you want prostitution to be legalized. Studies have shown that where prostitution is legalized human trafficking has increased drastically [3]. And if one should consider the implication of human trafficking more specifically the effect it has on its victims its rather disturbing. Studies have shown that the majority of victims are under the age of 18 [4]. Think about the amount of families which have been affected by such an act. Studies also reveal that it leads to mental illnesses [5]. Is this what you are advocating my opponent? I suggest that you think carefully when you are advocating. Many children lives are being destroyed and are destroyed. Is that what you are advocating? Come on my opponent cogitate on the matter. Some of the implications are endless. 1 http://communities.washingtontimes.com... 2 http://communities.washingtontimes.com... 3. http://communities.washingtontimes.com... 4.) http://biussblog.blogspot.com... 5.) http://biussblog.blogspot.com...", "qid": 28, "docid": "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7911361455917358}, {"content": "Title: Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere Content: \"Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. \" I myself am for prostitution to be legalized but just not \"everywhere\" because if such a thing does happen there will be no licensing and \"anyone\" can choose to sell their bodies, like little kids. I am for making prostitution legal \"almost\" everywhere by states being able to legalize brothels, which could control who is allowed to sell their body and who is NOT allowed to sell their body such as children. It is better to have a license so it would be easier to tell if a brothel is running illegal prostitution with abducted woman and perhaps children. And if the legal brothels are forced to have regular health checkups, unlike the Netherlands, AIDs will be maintain and controlled from prostitution. \"Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager. \" I am guessing you did not comprehend what I wrote before, or I did not make it clearer. Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal \"everywhere\", but there still happens to be human trafficking going on and woman are still being abused and abducted to be forced in prostitution. It would be much better if they work in legal brothels that do not force them in prostitution and do not abuse them, because legal brothels are state owned. There can only be brothels in a county with a population of 400,000 or less. I would say they should increase this so it can apply to more areas and states should decide to allow brothels to be ran in their counties, as this will \"generate revenue\" for the state To make my view clear in where I stand in prostitution I will say this. .. . I do think prostitution should be made legal in more states other than Nevada. Prostitution should be made legal but only in specific areas such as legal brothels.", "qid": 28, "docid": "29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.79046231508255}, {"content": "Title: A Resolution to Legalize Prostitution Content: All of my points of contention were based on the idea that Prostitution would be legalized, hence the taxation, union idea, etc. They were not based on any current idea of what prostitution is or implies. However, they were all ideas that showed that if Prostitution were to be legalized, it would not negatively affect the country. To refute my opponent's current points, as far as the economic issues, yes there are better jobs out there, but you can not always get them. In some instances, prostitution may even be better paying than some minimum wage jobs. Now, if prostitution were to be legalized, these instances of abuse, would be reduced dramatically. I excluded the \"when crime, sexual exploitation,\" part of the argument because by definition, because it is illegal, it is a crime; and because all prostitution is of a sexual nature, it is willful sexual exploitation. The current economic crisis doesn't have an effect on the willingness of a woman or man to prostitute themselves. Prostitution has long been known as the worlds oldest profession, and while other jobs have grown and declined, prostitution has stayed steady. This fact shows that there is always a market for prostitution and is almost a guarantee as for a way to make money. Secondly, there is nothing unhealthy about the physical act of sex, perhaps minor exhaustion afterwards, but no serious health problems, excluding any people who may have heart conditions. There is however, the unhealthy aspect of the diseases that one may obtain by having unprotected sex. By legalizing prostitution, and Licensing/Regulating it, you would ensure that all licensed prostitutes would not have any sexually transmitted diseases, this would be done similar to when you get your drivers licence and you have to take an eye exam, when you get your prostitution license, you need a STD test, and pending that it all comes back negative, you would get your license. This test would be repeated on a regular basis, monthly for example, and their license would be reissued. A potential client would be able to ask for proof of this license and avoid the risk of any potential STD. Also, a prostitute is not looking for a relationship with one of their customers, nor is one of their customers looking for a relationship with them. Quite simply, when becoming a prostitute, you go into it knowing that you are not going to meet your true love. I doubt that the exchange between prostitute and client is anymore than \"what do you want me to do\" and \"it will cost you that much\". By legalizing prostitution, you greatly decrease the possibility of abuse, because it would be a legal profession, it would be under the protection of the law. Just as you can not assault your accountant, you can not assault a prostitute. \" Also, women cannot have high self esteem when they know others who have been abused and?or killed. This only leads to drugs and alcohol to \"ease\" the pain.\" In most cases, it is the other way around, women become prostitutes to fund their drug habit, and their lack of self esteem only fuels their drug habit. The high they get from the drugs makes them feel better temporarily. Lastly, comparing someone being an exotic dancer/stripper and a prostitute is comparing someone who flirts with men, and someone who sleeps/performs other sexual favors with them. They are two different categories of professions and can not be compared to each other under the same circumstance. \"Women unfortunately are seen as less than a man take this other scenario as an example...Boy gets home from school...Dad asks \"How was school?\" Boy says \"It was great!!! I asked Julie out and she said yes!!!\" Dad says \"Is she pretty son?\" Boy says \"Beautiful!!! dad\" Dad says \"That's my boy\" but what if this switched in this scenario.....Girl gets home from school Dad asks \"How was your day?\" Girl says \"well daddy...Johnny asked me out today...can I go out with him?\" Dad says \"No!\" Girl says \"But, daddy!!\" Dad says \"No, you're too young\" \" Men and Women have different roles in society, and no that does not mean I am saying men are superior to women, or a woman's role in society is only to have sex and produce children. But in the scenario you just produced, you did not give the ages of any hypothetical people involved; now if the first boy was 16 and the girl he asked out was 8, I think society as well as his father would have a problem with that. As for the other scenario, if the girl was 16 and the boy was the same age, most fathers, being reasonable and not of a faith that doesn't allow casual dating, would not have a problem with that. \"If this resolution passes...for those dads out there...in 16-18 years....that can be your daughter out there...as a prostitute. Why? Because it became legal.\" Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that everyone is going to immediately do it. There are not women lining up wanting to be prostitutes but are only not because of fear of legal ramifications. Most prostitutes grew up poor, with absent parents; They most likely started using drugs at an early age, and dropped out of school. Prostitution isn't a disease that can affect everyone, it is almost exclusively linked to the poor with the exception of those who have used drugs and their life has declined to the point that they prostitute themselves to fund their habit. I offer that based on my previous arguments that if prostitution would be legalized, there would be few if any negative side effects. 8 of the 16 counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution, and it is one of the leading industries of the state.", "qid": 28, "docid": "d1002c17-2019-04-18T19:25:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7903434038162231}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime. Content: Well must prostitutes use condoms will having sex. It reduces the risk of spreading sexual diseases and it allows the female to not become pregnant. If it would be legalized it would be strictly regulated. It would help raise millions of dollars in taxes annually, reduce sexual crimes, and help protect the public from sexually transmitted diseases. In Nevada where prostitution is legal they do testing on all the prostitutes yearly to make sure they dont have any diseases and legalizing it also helped Nevada reduce the amount of street prostitutes. To legalize prostitution states would have to be very strict but it could work out and help street prostitutes to be safer and healthier in their work of business.", "qid": 28, "docid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7899273633956909}, {"content": "Title: Prostitution is analogous to pornography. Content: This debate regards whether or not there is a legal incongruency in having prostitution be illegal why pornography is legal. This debate should both address whether or not there is an analogy between the two actions as well as the potential harms/benefits that come from one over the other. If you accept the debate, say \"yes\" in the first post, or something to that effect. Then, with round 2, the actual argumentation will begin.", "qid": 28, "docid": "67b5a531-2019-04-18T18:05:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7896141409873962}]}
{"query": "Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7798935770988464}, {"content": "Title: Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants. Content: A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, \"Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?\" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.", "qid": 29, "docid": "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00062-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7767295837402344}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of \"jumping the border\", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.", "qid": 29, "docid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7566995620727539}, {"content": "Title: Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S. Content: Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f44bcd7f-2019-04-18T11:45:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.750346839427948}, {"content": "Title: Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Content: What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.", "qid": 29, "docid": "9e36ecf4-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7493579983711243}, {"content": "Title: America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants. Content: Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7452992796897888}, {"content": "Title: Immigration Content: I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.", "qid": 29, "docid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7448500990867615}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Content: To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.", "qid": 29, "docid": "cac6bfdf-2019-04-18T12:31:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7428523302078247}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Wow...where do i begin? first, one of the sole purposes of a government is to protect ITS citizens. A government cannot allow anyone and everyone in who wants in without going through the proper channels. This means that if an immigrant wants to become a citizen, there is a means of doing so, in which they will then recieve all the rights of a natural born citizen. along with protection, it is necessary for a government to know who is coming into the country. Are you suggesting that we allow any and all to just walk across the border and call themselves a citizen? that would have been great for America during the cold war when soviet spies and sabatours could just walk right in and out to never be found again. This goes for terrorists today as well. Is it worth risking American's lives? Illegal immagrants are breaking the law...PERIOD. besides that fact, should not an American wanting a job take precedence over that of an illegal? Is it fair that illegals should be allowed to live in this country and reap all the benefits without paying taxes like everyone else? Also, an increase in illegal immigration is directly proportional to an increase in crime. Besides the negative effects of that fact alone, this leads to a strain on government resources - police, jails, etc. which are paid for by taxes, which are bad enough, but lead to a strain on funding for other needed things. And you think the US gov. is too tough? I say make it tougher, build a fence, do what is necessary to reduce illegal immigration.", "qid": 29, "docid": "1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7408370971679688}, {"content": "Title: Immigration reform is good for the country Content: I do think immagrents should come leagly but i dont think it should be very \"user frendly\" i think they should apply or even ahving bidings to enter they should action citizenship to Want to be American Citizens it would clear up a lot i see immagrents here all the time that come leagly and own shops and are super nice people but i dont think illegal immagents shpuld come and i dont think it should be much more easeyer", "qid": 29, "docid": "c2876a88-2019-04-18T17:23:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7403926849365234}, {"content": "Title: Deporting illegal immigrants would cripple the US economy Content: - Some argue that illegal immigrants should be deported, rather than provided legal licenses that further integrate them into society. The problem with this approach, however, is that it would withdraw from society the substantial contributions (economic and other) being made by illegal immigrants. The costs would be prohibitively high. Therefore, efforts to integrate illegal immigrants are necessary, including providing them with driver's licenses.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00066-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7387449741363525}, {"content": "Title: Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico) Content: Yes. I believe that we should deport illegal immigrants from the United States. For starters, many of the people that move illegal to the United States are unskilled and illiterate. Some illegal immigrants can also be dangerous criminals escaping from their country of origin to the United States. Though the process for gaining citizenship is rigorous, it should be enforced, as it improves the nation as a whole. Due to their lack of skill, many illegal immigrants are poor and cannot take up jobs to support themselves. In response to this, many are forced to go to food kitchens or use food stamps. The increase of food stamps and the food in food kitchens has resulted in the government raising the taxes of legal immigrants (aka. citizens), and families that have been living in and supporting the country for generations. I am not against immigrants moving to the United States, but they must be able to contribute to society. If we allow people to go around breaking the laws that has held this country together for generations, whats stopping people from breaking other laws. We take a firm stance against murder and other crimes, and we must do the same with our laws on immigration. Many of the immigrants are also children and are unable to contribute to America as a whole. These children must be sent back to the country that they came from. You may say that some immigrants are smart, and just don't have any money. Well, in that case they can apply for citizen ship. My own mother moved here (America) when she was 21, with no money. It took her 16 years to get her citizen ship, but it payed off. We cannot allow those who just come here illegally to stay and bring down our society.", "qid": 29, "docid": "9e36ecf4-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7362806797027588}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?", "qid": 29, "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.734260082244873}, {"content": "Title: Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants undermines legal immigration Content: - Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses will unfairly subvert the process that all other immigrants have to go through to become legal citizens of a country.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00047-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.731688916683197}, {"content": "Title: illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Content: As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org", "qid": 29, "docid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7306593060493469}, {"content": "Title: Arming more people and the rite people is the key to our future Content: I hate to play semantics but it seems as if Pro is saying the government should arm citizens..... If this is the case I am against it....... The government should let people arm themselves.", "qid": 29, "docid": "59186e5b-2019-04-18T17:57:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7301046848297119}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.", "qid": 29, "docid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7289502620697021}, {"content": "Title: giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship Content: This is an interesting resolution; one which I'm sure many Americans have though about at one time or another. When we begin to look at illegal immigration we can see and weight several things; and at the finish we realize this. It is by no means right to give something to those who would steal it. Now my opponent brings up something in his constructive that really frames the debate, that the United States was indeed founded on immigration, and those policies are still things we value today. We still hold true to the idea that any-one of any background can come to this country. Now that includes the citizens who choose to come illegally. If they truly desired a better life for themselves, there are proper means by which they can obtain this better life. That is though naturalization and legal immigration. However every single day, many people simple show grave disrespect for Our country's laws. Instead of looking to the proper means, instead of working hard for their citizenship (as many people do) They steal it for themselves. And while doing so take Jobs, away from those who need them; Cause a drain on social funds that could be used elsewhere; they don't pay taxes but reap the befits of Public education for their children, and the rest of society. They are criminals, just the same as one who would work hard to rob a bank, or steal jewelery. So I conclude with this, why in any scope of the word; by any definition is it ever right to reward those who break the law? it is through this question we conclude that it is wrong to give citizenship to those ho do not deserve it. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.", "qid": 29, "docid": "403d99e5-2019-04-18T18:53:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7280155420303345}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: I think you forgot the topic question. \"Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?\", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that \"illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us.\" Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7277776002883911}, {"content": "Title: Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants Content: A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research asked, \"Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?\" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier. 33 percent said it should.[21]", "qid": 29, "docid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00062-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7268499135971069}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1. The debate is whether The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United States. The issue is immigration in relation to United States citizenship. We participated in a debate for 3 rounds defending our premises on whether the substantial strengthening or not strengthening would explicitly explain a sound argument for pro and con. We are not debating the regulation immigrants or as in individual persons not belonging to the U.S, but rather the system in which declares the individual a citizen and allows them into the country. P2: As stated in premise 1 during the first round, Notario Fraud is one aspect of the immigration system that requires attention and revision. In my argument, the issue is not whether I argue for immigrants to enter or not enter the country. The issue is the substantial regulation, in which I argue, will uphold U.S laws, will minimize waste, and will increase education for those interpreting the law as well as increasing the confidence of immigrants who will have their first time experience with an unfamiliar government and unfamiliar laws. I argue to maintain, regulate and revise this legal process to provide a platform for immigrants who are faced with an adversary government, sometimes in an unfamiliar language. Those who study immigration law should gain legal certification and uphold U.S law as well serving those who wish to become legal citizens; they should be well informed, well educated, and make a conscious effort to provide legal aid for families. Fallacies committed: ad hominem debater (con) questions position instead of responding to the given premises and asks a meaningless question. The debater attempts to argue against (pro) based on an assumed ignorance of the topic for debate. P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigration to the United States does not imply a violent, nagging, persistence. It simply suggests research, a revision in legal language, in which U.S individuals who are properly accredited through federally recognized organization can communicate the proper legal information for individuals who seek citizenship. \"The reason most come to the U.S is because the immigration system is as is.\" This statement is unclear, what aspect of the immigration system assumes more control? Your argument assumes that all immigrants come to the United States for the same reason which weakens this argument. To make such a broad statement as argued by you in Round 1 \"Immigration creates jobs, because a lot of immigrants create their own businesses which allows for some employment opportunities .If the regulation of immigration is increased, this may cause for fewer immigrants to be let in, and for more immigrants to be deported.\" such as \"immigrants\" alludes to begging the question in your premise 3 for round 2. We cannot assume all immigrants create jobs and start businesses. Your argument \"Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the \"same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens\", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) does not relate and assumes the same for all immigrants who enter the country. A stronger regulation means a stronger system which prevents fraud and legal consequences for immigrants as well as criminal persecution for actors interpreting the immigrations laws. This argument contains a slippery slope, in which the arguer assumes as a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences such as the control of immigrants. Such regulation does not assume absolute control of the bodies of immigrants. It I don\"t understand how the first sentence of your premise 3 for round 2 relates to the idea that a stronger regulation would deter them. The last sentence again, appeals to consequence in which regulation will ultimately control immigrants and also assumes all immigrants seek citizenship for the same reasons. If we are not regulating and remaining current with the legal language in which we use to interpret the law to citizens the immigration system will become burdened with fraud and create corrupt theories which authorized citizens interpret and communicate with immigrants or potential U.S citizens. By creating a fair platform for immigrants, we decrease the risks of deportation, of criminalization, and can maintain the integrity of the legal system and those who come in contact with it. C: The U.S government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8b340e19-2019-04-18T16:15:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7230720520019531}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Debate OutlineThis is a debate about whether or not illegal immigrants should receive the same benefits legal immigrants and citizens would receive in a country. For example: insurance, employment, housing, Welfare, Social Security, foodstamps. Structure: The debate will consist of four rounds: Acceptance Thesis and Opening Argument Rebuttals and Arguments Rebuttals and Conclusions [no new arguments should be made] General rules: Throughout the debate, a set of rules are to abided by, by both contenders. Each time a rule is broken it shall be considered by all voting parties preceding the conclusion of the debate. Standard debate rules apply: no insulting, keep it appropriate, keep bias minimal. And with that said, I wish luck to the person that accepts this debate. Hopefully this will be more fun and insightful!", "qid": 29, "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7208265066146851}, {"content": "Title: should all illegal immigrants get amnesty Content: I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.", "qid": 29, "docid": "188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7205535769462585}, {"content": "Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US Content: So. My opponent on,y responded to two of my sub points so what I'll first do is rebut those attacks and then re affirm my other sub points and contentions. 1:A) he opens by saying potential is a lie. Okay so let's look at this logically, he is doing his own calculations and that's fine if they were anywhere near correct which they are not. However I can still work with his numbers, even if it costs $210 billion that's not on net. So on net it's still the 1.4 trillion dollar number from the COB study I linked in my original round southeast point still stands. My opponent then states that these people do not deserve a path to citizenship? He doesn't say why they don't deserve an earned path to citizenship I can't really respond to that. He said that we would lose these traditions and yet I'm waiting to hear how, and what traditions are going to be lost in the process. My opponent stated in his rebuttal that these people do not want to assimilate in our country, and thus should not be made citizens. We can see that this is actually not true, at all. In fact 92% of the undocumented do want to become US citizens! This shows a want to assimilate and progress our economy. My opponent is probably going to say something along the lines of \"well why aren't they applying for citizenship now?\" Well the main reason is because they are unable to pay the fees in order to become a legalized person while working towards citizenship. A path to citizenship will immensely help them, in fact Pew Hispanic Research Center estimates over 90% will take advantage of a path to citizenship at that point. Since much of my case went unaddressed I will close by simply saying we can simply put all economic benefits aside, we know that the United States government values morality over everything else. Now if people are not citizens they will be deported of caught. Even those who are just legalized can be deported under circumstances, and the threat of deportation, separation of families, human trafficking, and death for 11.7 million undocumented people is something that must be addressed throughout this debate. Thus I strongly urge a Pro ballot in the round. Thank you.", "qid": 29, "docid": "5609f55e-2019-04-18T16:48:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7189397811889648}, {"content": "Title: Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Content: Path to citizenship encourages illegal immigration", "qid": 29, "docid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00017-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7189255952835083}, {"content": "Title: Drivers licenses for Illegal immigrants in the US Content: Illegal immigrants in America should be integrated into society", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00038-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7174273729324341}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Thanks, Pro. == PRO CASE == R1) Causes 1. This is just a moral case for allowing illegal immigration; that is not what this debate is about. In fact, Pro is actually hurting his case by showing that the US has such superior living conditions that simply allowing them to be here is a substantial improvement on its own, regardless of whether or not they are receiving benefits. I could agree with every word Pro has said here and it still would not prove Pro's position. Reject this argument because it is inapplicable to the resolution at hand. 2. Regardless of how much strife illegal immigrants may have to go through, the state is first and foremost obligated to serve the best interests of its own citizens, and I have shown with my C2 that giving benefits to illegal immigrants puts a significant strain on the government budget and, by extension, the citizens. Moreover, the majority of academic studies on immigration conclude that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful to the well-being of America's poorest citizens by competing with them for the same jobs. Therefore, the government shouldn't do anything that makes it easier for illegal immigrants -- including the provision of federal benefits -- and instead take action to reduce their numbers. https://www.hamiltonproject.org... 3. I have no idea what point Pro was trying to make with his tirade about European colonization and Columbus Day. He's going to have to explain how that connects to the resolution for it to even be considered an argument. R2) Work 1. The part where Pro actually connects \"immigration is beneficial\" to the resolution is extremely ill-warranted. He provides absolutely no evidence that illegal immigrants \"need\" benefits more than native citizens do. Considering Pro's claims that immigrants benefit the economy by filling in high-demand jobs, we would expect that they would be making ample money to be financially self-sufficient. 2. I have provided actual academic studies demonstrating that illegal immigrants hurt the job security and wages of America's poorest. Pro has just noted a decrease in unemployment rate without making any attempt at linking it to immigration. Unemployment rate is affected by thousands of variables, so to just arbitrarily attribute it to increased illegal immigration is absurd. Prefer my evidence, obviously. == CON CASE == C1) Incoherent Pro's only response is that illegal immigrants can become citizens, and thus the government doesn't have to deport them. But that is NOT within the parameters of the resolution. If that is what Pro wanted to debate, he should have made the resolution something like \"The USFG should grant all illegal immigrants amnesty\". The resolution we are debating specifically states that *illegal* immigrants should be given benefits, implying that they would still be \"illegal\" when they are receiving benefits. Thus, my criticism stands -- Pro's plan cannot be implemented because of its paradoxical nature. Also, cross-apply (in advance) this counter to all other mentions Pro makes of making illegal immigrants citizens; the resolution is not about ammesty. C2) Cost 1. Pro essentially says that our debt is already so high that even 500 billion extra dollars makes little difference. That's nonsensical. We have to start paying off our debt eventually, and Pro's plan just makes it harder to do that any time soon. Pro's response is akin to a smoker who refuses to stop smoking because his lungs already seem to be beyond repair. It simply isn't tenable in the long run. 2. Pro is blatantly false in his claim that most Americans are illegal immigrants. Even the first settlers could not have been considered \"illegal immigrants\" because there was no state to \"immigrate\" into; Native Americans did not have the bureaucratic governments, citizens, or official immigration processes necessary for such classifications to exist. Pro's rebuttal fails. 3. Pro dismisses the notion of giving benefits attracting more illegal immigrants as being \"laughable\". However, I provided academic analyses demonstrating that it *does* happen. If anything, Pro's flippant dismissal of empirical evidence is \"laughable\". Pro says that if that were the case, having a welfare state would attract more legal immigrants... and he's right. It does. So, again, he has just hurt his own case. It is rather intuitive, really -- people respond to incentives. Providing benefits *does* attract illegal immigrants en masse. C3) Unjust Again, cross--apply the point that this debate is not about amnesty -- it's about providing federal benefits to immigrants who are currently classified as being here illegally. It is unfortunate that Pro has spent so much space on amnesty, because it is completely non-topical. == CONCLUSION == I don't feel like writing one. It's 3am again. Resolution negated.", "qid": 29, "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7172498106956482}, {"content": "Title: Immigration Content: I disagree with your point about \"If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. \" I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.", "qid": 29, "docid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7152080535888672}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans Content: Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?", "qid": 29, "docid": "f48be0a0-2019-04-18T12:05:27Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7132217884063721}, {"content": "Title: Controlled Immigration Content: Overall, my opponent is saying that the government should decide who gets in to a country and who doesn't. I'm saying that the people should decide. I'm saying that if I want to go and live in Bhutan or the Vatican City, I should be allowed to without having to go through immigration. Contrary to some people's belief, immigration isn't there to help people come in - it is there to keep people out. So while I agree with my opponent that immigration is often one's need, I disagree that some government official sitting in an office (playing Solitaire) will know about this need better than the person with the need. I also agree that the world needs greater cultural exchange - but surely this would happen if we didn't keep more and more people out? I agree that knowledge needs to be spread, but this spread cannot happen when governments have immigration restrictions. Prosperity does come from immigration, like my learned opponent states, but strangely, not from government imposed immigration restrictions. Therefore, to reiterate, I oppose controlled immigration in favor of open immigration. What I'd really like to know is why my opponent thinks that before a person comes to the states, they need to have a green card. Surely all of these great advantages my opponent propounds are not there only because not enough people can get to the United States - lack of green pieces of card is keeping them out. Which brings me, finally, to the first issue my opponent brought up - lack of immigration controls in present-day America. I contend this. According to the Collins Paperback English Dictionary, control is the power to direct something. Does the government of the United States have the power to direct immigration? Yes. They may legally make any law concerning immigration that falls within their jurisdiction. Do they have the ability to exercise these powers? Usually. Far more Mexicans are stopped at the border than run across it. Perhaps they cannot catch them all, but in general, I think it is a fair enough conclusion that there are American immigration controls. If my opponent continues to assert the opposite, maybe he should ask the American immigration service what they do all day? Given that my opponent offers no rebuttal to my constructive case, I will build on my arguments numbers one and two. My first argument was on the fundamental freedom of movement rights we all possess. Once again, the role of the government in a democratic state (which is pretty much every government in the world) is to ensure the rights of the electors, not restrict them. Governments, however, are placing many restrictions on immigration. In ancient times, before modern governmental structure, freedom of movement was a universal right. It can therefore only be detrimental to our development to restrict this movement in any way - we have lost something that we once had. Controls on immigration are a restriction on movement like any other. For this reason Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U. N. General Assembly, gives all the right to enter their \"own country. \" But who decides that constitutes a person's own country? Can a government really tell a person \"that is YOUR country, thus you are stuck there? \" No. That should be a decision for the potential immigrant, not big brother. The really strange thing about this example is that all the nations that signed and ratified this fundamental document now have immigration departments in their governments, controlling human rights like mad. Perhaps it is because of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12 of which adds a few caveats - national security, public order and so forth. Yet the problem is still the same - these are subjective judgements imposed by bureaucrats in ivory towers. I doubt they often recognise how much is at stake. As is written in U. N. General Comment 27, part one \"Liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a person. \" I believe the U. S. Constitution provides for freedom of movement also, with \"reasonable limits\" - but how can a test for the reasonableness of a fundamental right be determined? And so we move on to my second argument. The system is broke. Let's fix it. In round one, I gave you a clear model of how the system could be fixed right now. The system is not working when Africans starve and people invite me to lavish banquets. The system is not working when people from central Asia need medical care but cannot get it, while my doctor tells me off if I don't see him often enough. The system is not working when people are stuck in war torn or politically unstable countries and are left with no future despite their numerous qualifications, while I enjoy peace and security with a bright future despite only being a college student. These are the times when immigration is most needed . .. and, unfortunately, the most restricted. Africa, more than any other continent, has more travel restrictions by foreign countries than any other country. Why? Commercial interest, famine, resulting desease, resulting poverty. That is what happens when the power is not with the people - the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Look at the so-called boat people who come to Australia. They are turned away in their hundreds, despite being more needy than many of the migrants who come in, because they are less skilled. Well, of course they are, but why should your level of skill determine your civil rights? I put it to you that it should not. I put it to you that governments have no right to tell me where I can and cannot live. Therefore they have no right to control immigration. This is how it should be. This will fix the problem. As my third argument is quite a major one, I'll wait until my last round to expand on it. Now I'll hand back to my opponent so we can hear the rest of his case.", "qid": 29, "docid": "2862c133-2019-04-18T18:57:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7128641605377197}, {"content": "Title: Make Emigration Illegal Content: I'm assuming you mean immigration so tell me if I'm wrong. But immigration should be legal. When you make it illegal, America isn't America anymore. It's turned into a country like North Korea. If someone's country is being bombed like Venezuela or something, then their citizens should be able to come here for safety.", "qid": 29, "docid": "54ca684b-2019-04-18T12:25:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.711928129196167}, {"content": "Title: This is a gateway privilege that allows these people to integrate into American society. Content: These people do not deserve to use the services of the USA. They are not citizens, they are law-breakers and society has no obligation to make life easier or more comfortable for those who break the law. Regardless of their contributions to society or the economy, illegal immigrants have broken the law. The consequences of their breaches of the law should be remedied. If necessary, illegal immigrants should be punished in proportion to the harm that their act has caused. Under no circumstances should illegal acts allow these individuals to gain access to the status and legal privileges that citizenship confers.", "qid": 29, "docid": "2cf2c469-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00010-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.711895227432251}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship Content: Hi I would like to start of by stating thank you to who ever accepts this debate. I am fairly new to this website so I ask my opponent for a good clean debate. I hope this will be of benefit to me and my opponent & I know it will be really fun. I tried this debate before with another person but he/she never rebut my cases, so I ask someone to take this debate and give me a challenge. Thank you.Debate: Birthright Citizenship - Should the right of citizenship for all children born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, be removed?Definitions: Birthright Citizenship - refers to the citizenship granted to a person by virtue of the circumstances of his/her birth. Accordingly, any person born within the territory of the U.S. is granted citizenship by birth. A child born overseas to U.S. citizens also acquires a U.S. citizenship.Pro - I will choose Pro for this debate meaning I believe a child should be a citizen of the United States wether his parents are immigrants or not.Con - Will be chosen by my opponent for this debate. He will protect his case stating that a child should not become a United State citizen if his parents are illegal immigrants. Terms:1. For the sake of the well being of me and my opponent as well, I ask him/her to keep private matter to himself. If this debate has to do with his/her personal life I ask him/her to not bring it forward to this debate.2. I ask of him/her to think of this debate as only a debate and nothing else.3. I ask for my opponent to use great deal of grammar, as I will try as well and to use reliable sources. If I lose or win a debate I like to learn from them so I ask for my opponent who will accept this debate to take it serious and give it all he's/she's got as I will do the same.4. Have fun I want to enjoy myself as I am sure my opponent will love to enjoy him/her self as well.Outline:Round 1: Will be for acceptance and any questions or terms Con may have.Round 2 - 5: Will be presenting cases and rebuts. Good luck.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c33557a8-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7116652727127075}, {"content": "Title: Nationality Status for Srilankan Innocent Tamil People! Content: Then they should wither migrate to their homeland and become citizens, or move to another country which accepts new people and apply for citizenry in that country. I believe I have stated my point fairly clearly, and I wish you praise for using a language that is not your primary on a website full of strong, fluent speakers. This was a nice debate, and I enjoyed the \"Absurdity\" and deciphering, as a challenge, very much. Thank you for your time, and I hope you have good luck in all aspects of life. Adieu.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8472a7f8-2019-04-18T18:52:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7108157873153687}, {"content": "Title: Should immigrants be transported and not aloud into the country because they steal jobs and families Content: Well that's too bad. Vote con! For I have explained why immigrant's should be allowed in the country. My last arguments also have not been addressed. My name is Brian Johnson and this debate is over.", "qid": 29, "docid": "56cfc848-2019-04-18T14:03:41Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7107616662979126}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds \"Rich Chinese moms\" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...", "qid": 29, "docid": "1e41d536-2019-04-18T18:26:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7105890512466431}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Immigration policy is too harsh on the southern border Content: Let me begin by saying that it is a privilege to be allowed to become a citizen of this country - not a right. No government has to allow people in, and when the country in question is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the privilege of becoming a citizen has even greater worth. As we have already established, it is necessary to have a process of legalizing immigrants rather than allowing all in, so here are reasons why the legalization process is difficult. - the admitance test should be challenging. Im not at all saying it should be near impossible to pass, but it should require studying of the testable info. It is important that new citizens understand the history of this country and the basics of our government. Which is the basis for the next two points: -This allows them to better contribute to society and the political process. This is another reason for the tediousness of the process. When there is a pool of billions who want in, those who become citizens should prove that they can and will contribute to society. The best way of doing this is to teach them many vital aspects of the US. -Also, the more one knows about their new home, the more a \"part\" of it they feel, which leads to greater assimilation. Assimilation is vital to our country's survival (united we stand,devided we fall)- if new citizens dont become part of the American culture then it creates division and competition among groups (im not saying that immigrants should forget their native culture either). -I want those who apply for citizenship to be scrutinized. Not just anyone should be allowed in. As i previously stated, it is a privilege. I dont want other country's criminals and others that will contribute to problems in our country. Also, this step of the process is even more critical post 9/11 for obvious reasons. Yes, the process is long, tedious, and slow; and i concede that it is not perfect. But for many reasons it requires more than just a sign-in book to become a legal citizen. A few quick notes on other comments you made: I beleive that it should be mandatory for immigrants to speak and read english (at least enough to operate in society). Not being able to speak the country's primary language (basically im proposing english should be the national language) obviously leads to many problems. The proposed fence is a double fence meaning a two fences with a patrolled space between (in addition to the patrolled US side). The design and proper implementation of the fence would be very effective and would make a difference.", "qid": 29, "docid": "1c270f65-2019-04-18T20:01:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7105752229690552}, {"content": "Title: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Content: My opponent is trying to remove the 'illegal' out of 'illegal immigrant.' Legal immigrants can benefit this country, but all illegal immigrants are criminals, because they did not legally come into this country, thus should not be rewarded with citizenship. Instead, they should legally immigrate. The notion that illegal immigrants are not criminals, despite having broken the law is outrageous. Breaking the law is what makes someone a criminal. Criminal definition. crim\"i\"nal G2;krim\u0259nl noun 1. a person who has committed a crime. This is exactly what an illegal immigrant has done, so why should they be allowed to reside in this country, because they committed a crime? Pro has to provide irrefutable evidence to prove this topic, but has not done so, therefor not fulfilling BoP.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7097411155700684}, {"content": "Title: Immigration Content: Yes, their are some paths for foreigners (aliens), who are here legally, to get citizenship. However illegal immigrants (aliens), DON'T have a path to citizenship, because they are here illegally. If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. If they are already here, they should stay here.", "qid": 29, "docid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7096269726753235}, {"content": "Title: Strengthening US Immigration Regulations Content: I am not sure as to why my premise would be invalid. We are talking about legality of citizens. Because public schools cannot turn down illegal immigrants, I'm sure there are illegal immigrants who have dropped out, along with natural-born as well. There is still the issue of kids in college debt. I am not sure what point you are trying to make in your second premise. You, in more words or less, stated that we should lower the regulations on people becoming american citizens, should we change what the law on murder so we won't have to worry about the issue of murder anymore? Or lower the regulations on sexual harassment so that we can rid of that issue to? Crime is crime, no matter how big and how small and there are no victim-less crimes. If we deport illegal immigrants we are deporting poverty. If they are trying to come here to pursue larger goals in life how can they do that with very limited skills and education? If they came here legally, they could receive government aid such as medicare and medicaid to assist them in making their lives better for themselves and their family. However, that is not the case. They also are obtaining fake documents such as social security cards to work. http://www.nytimes.com... So, not only are they committing the crime of coming into the United States but they are also committing identity theft. They can also use there to illegally receive government aid. While they may be working 2 or 3 jobs, they're are not actually making a sufficient amount of money to be over the poverty line. If they are making the \"bare minium\", as you say they are. How much could that possibly be? Being in poverty means they are more likely to commit crimes. http://www.americanprogress.org... \"In some areas of the country, up to 12 % of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens.\" http://citizensforlaws.org... Not only that, 28 percent of the foreign-born workers over 25 haven't completed high school. Which means that the possibly of moving up on the ladder of success is very very little. There's barely any jobs you can get without a high school diploma, even less that a college degree where you can make enough money to support a family. If we take the number of median wage workers who are foreign born (not only illegal) is $511 a week that comes out to $24,528 a year. (Assuming that is gross) http://www.slate.com..., For a family of 4, the poverty line is about $23,850 for a family of four. http://useconomy.about.com... Assuming since those who were foreign born are here legally, those who are here illegally is substantially less. It is also selfish. If you bring your children to the united states illegally and you end p being deported, who is going to take care of your children? Themselves? Seems highly unplausible. It has happened before. Parents were deported back to their home countries, leaving their children behind back in America. Here's an example. http://www.cnn.com... In conclusion, we should regulate immigration of illegal immigrants in the United States, not only because it hurts our economy, it is a crime, punishable by law, just as any other crime is. It would make their lives easier to come into the United States legally and work for their living legally. If they are here legally, they can receive government aid. It is selfish to possibly leave your children behind. They are not as innocent of other crimes either, such as theft and murder and burglary because living in poverty there is a higher change you will commit a crime.", "qid": 29, "docid": "2d0f2532-2019-04-18T16:15:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7081705331802368}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States Content: This is where your whole argument is wrong. If we abolish birthright citizenship we can put a law in place that allows only babies of citizens to become citizens at birth. Also while illegal immigrants come her for opportunity, they can do that but they need to do it in the proper and legal manner. That are protocols and regulations that they need to follow in order for them to become citizens and with this it would cause our country to be more american, rather than many other countries illegal immigrants coming here and immediately becoming citizens because they have a baby. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed because it is outdated. Also when you say that changing the constitution is unjust, you are mistakenly wrong because changes are made all the times. These changes are called Amendments, these Amendments are there to fix mistakes and problems within the constitution. A new Amendment can be made in order to amend the 14th and help to fix the common misinterpretation that we have today. Thus i would like to finish my argument by giving an analogy. Say you are waiting in line at islands of adventure for the hulk, the line is the time average people have to wait and the ride itself is the gaining of citizenship. Now think if someone were to cut you right when you get to the front of the line and they did not have to wait at all. So now in regard to the debate does it seem fair for an illegal person to just be given immediate citizenship over a person who has waited up to 2 years? Do you think that is fair? How would you feel?", "qid": 29, "docid": "dd869c53-2019-04-18T18:29:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7070223093032837}, {"content": "Title: Birthright citizenship. Content: That said, I'll proceed with my opening statements and arguments. I am against birthright citizenship in general(there are a few, rare cases where I may consider it as a possibility, but for the vast majority of cases it is completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this country). Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. They come over to the USA when they're almost ready to have a child, and when the child is born, they've got a citizen to anchor them in the country. Even though the parents are not citizens, the child is, which creates an anchor for the illegal immigrant parents to stay. Birthright citizenship also puts a burden on the taxpayers, forcing them to pay the costs for the children to be born and, in most cases, raised, as the parents of the child are illegal immigrants and are, thus, the government is forced to comply with the needs of and supply for the child. These costs amount to a few billion dollars - all supplied by the taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the needs of the child, though, but they also have to pay for the well-being of the illegal immigrant parents. In total, illegal immigration costs $135 billion dollars - again, all supplied by the taxpayers. Of the total amount of illegal immigrants coming into the US per year, those with \"anchor babies\" that provide for birthright citizenship constitute about 10% of the entire flow, meaning they cost about 13.5 billion dollars a year. Believe me, this is unacceptable. On top of this, the repeal of birthright citizenship does not violate the constitution in any way. The constitution clearly conveys this, by stating that the government has the power to choose whom is in the jurisdiction of the United States and is, therefore, eligible to become a citizen. With this I conclude my opening statements and arguments. Sources: . http://www.nationalreview.com... . https://fairus.org... . http://www.nationalreview.com... . http://www.breitbart.com...", "qid": 29, "docid": "dee26282-2019-04-18T11:50:19Z-00008-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7068749666213989}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, \"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.\" America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7067269682884216}, {"content": "Title: Immigrants have the same rights as a citizen of the country Content: Immigrants should not be given the right to vote, remain within the country or receive the protection of a minimum wage if they are not at the very least naturalized[1] citizens of the country. Pro has argued that immigrants should be granted all three of these rights. An immigrant is \"a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.\" [2] Immigrants do not need to be naturalized citizens of the country in which they attempt to take up permanent residence.[3] To the extent that they are not naturalized, immigrants, as non-citizens, are not subject to the same social responsibilities of citizens, including taxation. This results in higher costs to the citizens of the nation being immigrated to. [3] Therefore, illegal immigrants (illegals) act as parasites of sorts, weakening the host society (the host) they invade and harming its citizens (the members) thereby. In addition to the detrimental aspects of illegal immigration, illegals, being non-citizens, have no duty to defend the host nor to support its social institutions. The social contract creating the rights Pro would have extend to the illegals is not only between the individual members of the host, but also between the members and the host itself. The rights and privileges of the host extend to its members because its members accept the responsibility of supporting the host. The illegals have no such covenant with the host, and are therefore rightly excluded from the scope of its protection. As with any contract, without consideration, there is no agreement. [5] Illegals have given nothing up for which the host would owe them an obligation of protection. Therefore, because illegals are engaged in parasitic, rather than symbiotic, balance with the host, the host may rationally exclude them from receiving its protection and desire their removal. Furthermore, illegals, having provided no consideration by which the rights due under the social contract would inure to them, have no claim against the host to provide such consideration under the social contract. Illegals being a subset of the set 'immigrants', my opponent's contention that \"anyone in a country ... should be given a minimum wage, the right to vote and the right to stay in that country\" is proven invalid. The resolution is negated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.bizjournals.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 29, "docid": "58603726-2019-04-18T19:19:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7066694498062134}, {"content": "Title: Voter I.D. laws are constitutional and needed Content: I believe I have been refuting your arguments well enough. You claim a distaste for the \"nation-state\". I don't see it as a problem. By your logic then, there would be no citizens, no immigrants, people could come and leave this country as they pleased, which is something we certainly don't need. You are against nationality. I don't see why you would be. Without it, we wouldn't have any laws. The citizens wouldn't belong to this country, they wouldn't have to pay taxes, abide by any laws, so obviously, the idea of a nation-state is perfectly fine.The study I linked to is still a study, albeit the site it is on isn't necessarily the greatest source, but it's a study nonetheless. And, unlike you, I prefer to separate immigrants (the legal ones) from illegal immigrants. The reason being, that people who immigrate here legally are less likely to commit crimes. Why would you sign all the papers, and be put \"on the grid\" so to speak, when all you're going to do is commit a crime in this country? On the other hand, what does an illegal have to lose? See what I'm saying? So obviously, an illegal immigrant is far more likely to commit a crime, especially a violent one, than a legal immigrant. Summing up what I've said, I don't see this problem as complicated as you do. I see it as, we have citizens, immigrants, and illegal immigrants. We also have a problem, of who has the right to vote in the elections of our country. Obviously, it is only logical to allow the citizen the right to vote. Why should an illegal immigrant be allowed to vote? Or even a legal immigrant? The citizen is the only one who should be allowed to vote, because the right to vote was entitled by our country to its citizens, and to no one else. And without the nation-state, where we have a citizen or a non citizen, then we will have no laws because no one will be entitled to follow them. Definition of law-[1]-\"A binding custom or practice of a community\". Without the \"community\", (a community of citizens), then there is no law. So I argue that my opponents argument against the laws of voter I.D., because of the \"nation-state\", is unsound, and that voter I.D.'s are something that this country needs to implement, and should have long ago. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": 29, "docid": "4d289846-2019-04-18T18:20:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7063592076301575}, {"content": "Title: should people be illagal Content: Are you on the side of that they should be illegal or not to be? Cause it sounds like you want people to be illegal..", "qid": 29, "docid": "8003f0ea-2019-04-18T16:55:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7062054872512817}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: its not about paying your way to earn citizenship. you argued that it wasnt easy to be granted citizenship and if people were so willing to pay taxes and become a citizen then why do we have people in our country living here illegally while we pay high taxes ? i dont doubt that these people work as hard but if they want to be here they should undergo the process to get citzenship before coming into our country before they come here for the free ride. and its 100% accurate that their are people here not willing to get their citizenship, just work for labor jobs to bring back money to their country. either undergo the process to ensure our countries saftey and provide security for actual citzens here or get them out of our country", "qid": 29, "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7060144543647766}, {"content": "Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: Yes. I mean that people who do not contribute and cannot provide for themselves shouldn't be allowed in and that anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported. If there is an important reason, such as a war, I think that countries with a larger landmass which are more likely to be nearer the source of the conflict should take in those immigrants. However, the number taken in and the length of their stay should be limited. I think this country used to be great but immigration on the whole has been a major contributory factor in a 'fall from grace'. This is not the only factor however.", "qid": 29, "docid": "574ab8cd-2019-04-18T15:13:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.705633282661438}, {"content": "Title: The United States government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the United Content: P1: The topic says regulation of immigrants TO the U.S, not IN the U.S. That does not mean regulation of United States citizenship. If that were the case, that would be the topic. P2: \"notario fraud will prevent an individual who wishes to do so\". If notario fraud prevents immigrants from wanting to come here, why would YOU (as pro) want to strengthen regulation against it? That would only make it happen less, which would allow for more immigrants to want to come. That's something that I should be arguing P3: Strengthening the regulation of immigrants TO the U.S. would not allow the \"same platforms for immigrants that we have for American citizens\", because there would be more control over them (who can come in, the conditions they are allowed in under, etc.) A stronger regulation would deter them from wanting the come. The reason most come to the U.S. is because the immigration system is as is. C: The U.S. government should not substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the U.S.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8b340e19-2019-04-18T16:15:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7044121026992798}, {"content": "Title: Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States Content: I'll divide this into 3 parts: 1) My Case2) Con's Syllogism3) Con's case 1) My CaseCon ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that: \"when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well\"The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word \"native-born citizen\" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause. \"US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US.\"Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship. Colonialism & CriminalsCon's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not. Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run. Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from \"Americans\" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms. 2) Con's syllogismCon makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success. 1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US successCon doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of \"US success.\" Extend. 2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that \"we agree on the basics\" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal. 3. People have a natural loyalty.... Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?4. More likely to include foreign interests Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with. Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them. Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable. \"The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn\u2019t exist.\" We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have \"personal connections.\" He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running. 5. Will not increase US success. Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it. 3) Con's case(a) \"[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country\"- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants. - I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included. (b) \"decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run\"- The government has no obligation to provide the \"best\" leadership. The voters do that. - The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions. (c) Grandma analogy: \"harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves.\" If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections. ConclusionCon's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of \"US success\" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8. I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...", "qid": 29, "docid": "b66a2d6c-2019-04-18T18:39:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.703668475151062}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship Content: I feel that you are right in a way but, if the immigrants work and abide by the laws and pay their taxes why should they not receive citizenship?", "qid": 29, "docid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.703522801399231}, {"content": "Title: Path to citizenship is about earning citizenship Content: Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Co-Founder and President of Migration Policy Institute (MPI): \"we should ask unauthorized immigrants to earn their new legal status. Unauthorized immigrants could begin the regularization process by registering with immigration officials and then be given, say, three years in which to qualify. The criteria for regularization should be forward-looking, easily proven, and consistent with what we as a society consider important. Steady employment, paying taxes, speaking English capably and having a clean criminal record are a good start. And the process should a pay for itself by collecting a substantial but reasonable fee from the immigrants who are regularized.\"[8] The difficult conditions of this path to citizenship, which gives illegal aliens no advantages over legal aliens, provides no incentive for illegal immigration over legal immigration.", "qid": 29, "docid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00044-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7032764554023743}, {"content": "Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: \"anybody who has entered the country illegally should be deported\" Wouldn't you want to deportation to be legal and be allowed to deport them by the law. You need to explain how these immigrants are destroying the UK. Going back to my point, why should a country be allowed to not allow anyone to enter the country. There isn't a reason that a great country such as the UK should support a large number of people because of the greatness of the country. The country should not be allowed to exclude people and only allow people born in the UK to live in the UK. People should be allowed to do as they please. If anything, your argument should be about reducing the world's population effectively and ethically instead of just blaming the large amount of immigrants, which is a by product of the world population increasing at too rapid of a rate.", "qid": 29, "docid": "574ab8cd-2019-04-18T15:13:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.702391505241394}, {"content": "Title: Amend the United States Constitution to allow naturalized US citizens to run for President Content: I see where your coming from. This sounds like a good idea, to let all citizens of America have the ability to become President, but there are reason why the President cannot be a naturalized citizen. Contention 1: Loyalty The Natural Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago found that Americans are the worlds most patriotic people. Gallup found that 1/3 of all Americans are extremely patriotic. These articles are not refering to naturalized citizens, or else they would have stated this. Why is loyalty an issue for becoming President? Well, it is a very important factor when relating to foreign affairs. Hippocampus. org says that out of all the duties of the President, Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-chief are some of them. What if a naturalized citizen, say from Mexico, runs as President and wins the race. And then, Mexico decides to declare war on another one of our allies, say a more important one to us. Who would the President side with? Would he or she decide to fight with the more important one, or with the Mexicans? If he or she sides with the Mexican Government, this action could be seen as biased. Now, whether or not it was, this could greatly reduce that President's leadership and America's hegemony over the world. With only naturally born citizens being allowed to run for President, this eliminates this problem all together, thus ensuring America remains the superpower it is today. You cannot simply trust that a person's loyalty can be changed by saying : \"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen\". Thats to great of a change for many to take this step, and many could easily say this simply to get into the U. S. It is not discrimination, its survival. This loyalty issue seems to be your biggest point. However hard you try, it is not easy to change loyalities so easily, especially when family and friends may live in the county that the person left. If they want to run for President, allow them to be 'annexed', just like what America did with Hawaii in the 1800's. If they want to become President, the first step would be to become a U. S. territory, similar to Puerto Rico. Then, after a few generations, most of the population of the territory would feel loyal to the U. S. simply because the fly the flag of the U. S. After this, these territories can become states, just like what Hawaii and Alasksa. Through this process, the people of the Earth can run for President of the United States, and America would not be at any threat. Not only would this give them more freedoms, but American Hegemony would be spread. This is the best option availible. By only allowing an individual, not a territory, to shift loyalities. It becomes increasingly difficult to discover where their true loyalties lie. . http://www-news.uchicago.edu... . http://www.presidentsusa.net... . http://www.gallup.com...", "qid": 29, "docid": "95e992d0-2019-04-18T18:52:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7010557651519775}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration In California Content: Our government certainly does not protect illegal immigrants' rights over its own citizens but if you have some examples that would be great. Every human being has innate rights, no matter their immigration status.They get rights because they are human. I assume that my opponent is referring to Sanctuary Cities that basically say to illegal immigrants: As long as you're not harming the society, then we're not going to hound for you and try to arrest/deport all of you. Listen, it's not about being Mexican. Mexicans are not the only people coming into the U.S. illegally. Many people come in on visas and then overstay their visa illegally. We get people from India and Nigeria and China. It's not just Mexico. What it's really about is that a majority of illegal immigrants contribute to society. They actually do pay taxes, they get jobs, and create jobs in their communties. Most of them don't come here just to sell drugs. The belief of sanctuary cities is that it's a waste of time/money to try and catch and deport every illegal immigrant. Most of them aren't harming society so using money to get all of them would require a lot of work and the only return is that we have one less illegal immigrant in the country. Which I would say is kind of a waste. I think that illegal immigrants should be treated on a case-by-case basis. We can't lump them all as bad people who we must get rid of RIGHT NOW. Obviously, the ones harming society must go but we have to realize at the end of the day, these are people. Some of them are families, some of them are breadwinners, some of them are children.", "qid": 29, "docid": "d082c316-2019-04-18T11:39:27Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7007756233215332}, {"content": "Title: Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States Content: First off, my opponent should know that his constant assault on character and sharing Pm's should count off for his conduct. I will personally be respectful and polite to my opponent despite his \"character\". I would like to thank my opponent for starting this argument since this is an excellent topic! ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION .I Well this one is simple, if your parents illegally immigrate here. Then why do you get the same rights as a person who's ancestors sacrificed sweat and blood to create this nation! I would like to ask my opponent if he thinks that fair? .II Now I do support the constitution.. To a point, on topics like immigration. It simply doesn't apply in this age, with illegal immigration from Mexico being an issue. CONCLUSION My main point is simple, illegal immigrants children getting rights for the cost of nothing! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 29, "docid": "1e41d536-2019-04-18T18:26:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7006974220275879}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: First of all, if the reason they cannot afford to become citizens is because they cannot take time off of their low paying jobs back from their home country to learn all the things that the citizenship test entails, they must get here quickly in order to get a job before they starve to death. Secondly they cannot become a citizen once here without a high risk of deportation which has serious consequences when they are returned to their home country. Sure there are some who are not willing to get citizenship but a large majority of illegal immigrants would like nothing more than the security against deportation of a citizenship in the United States. Finally, I fail to see how illegal immigrants are any more dangerous than the legal ones. I would say that the legal ones are often more dangerous than the illegals.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7003456354141235}, {"content": "Title: Arizona illegal immigration law Content: Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right.", "qid": 29, "docid": "31f5da82-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00015-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7002606391906738}, {"content": "Title: Illegal immigrant parents are to blame for having children abroad. Content: Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for bringing immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship.", "qid": 29, "docid": "ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00063-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7002259492874146}, {"content": "Title: should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship Content: i think that illegal immagrants should not be allowed citezship because they came to this country illegaly. they should have got a green card or a passport so they could come here legaly.", "qid": 29, "docid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7000393271446228}, {"content": "Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Content: Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters \" or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)", "qid": 29, "docid": "feca27b2-2019-04-18T16:55:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6999828815460205}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.", "qid": 29, "docid": "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.699507474899292}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: I thank CON for instigating this discussion. (As I understand my requirements) I shall be playing the role of PRO, and shall be attempting to accomplish the following: I must challenge the assertions made by CON, to ensure that his Burden of Proof is being met. It is not obviously a requirement of mine to propose any counter argument, (based on the R1 instigation) although I will do so I will defend the claim that CON's overall argument (from R1) is not VALID In addition, I will argue that many of the statements made by CON in R1 are moot (already being done), or are nonsensical. I want to clearly state that one of his positions is granted at the outset: (that there should be citizenship requirements that are respected by prospective applicants.) I will not defend the position that there should be no such requirements. I have accepted this debate in order to test the statements made in R1. If subsequent statements are made that retract the R1 argument, then this should be seen as a concession to myself. If I am in error in my understanding of my requirements in this contest, then I invite CON to detail my misunderstandings in the comments section, and I will (of course) respect any agreements made there. In the meantime, I will outline CON's R1 argument, which I will scrutinize: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to P2(A): Unless they have a \"working Visa\" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged)The conclusion is far too disjointed and obscure for me to discern from this. I see a number of possible unstated conclusions that may be drawn from the R1 opening, and so I do not want to play ventriloquist in attempting to articulate what the exact consequence of these premises might be. My position for this debate will therefore will be to defend the assertion that the R1 argument, as presented, has severe structural problems. I look forward to R2.", "qid": 29, "docid": "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6994141340255737}, {"content": "Title: THW give Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants Content: Hi, My debate will be focused on a recent issue, illegal immigrant amnesty. For this debate, I will be affirming. I will be arguing why we should grant illegal immigrants amnesty. The negating will answer why we should not. A few terms- 'THW'- This House would 'Amnesty' - Amnesty for illegal immigrants is defined as a governmental pardon for violating policies related to immigration. 'Illegal Immigration' The process of migrating to another nation without any form of valid documentation, and crossing the border anyway. Each round will have 6,000 words max. We will have 4 rounds, each 24 hours to respond. At the end, there will be a 3 day voting period. Open voting is allowed. I look forward to debating with you", "qid": 29, "docid": "675ae5e0-2019-04-18T12:16:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6989338397979736}, {"content": "Title: Deporting millions of illegal immigrants from America would result in a humanitarian crisis Content: Sending millions of illegal immigrants back to their home countries would result in a humanitarian crisis, particularly in Mexico. The best response, therefore, is to better integrate them into the fabric of society. Providing them with driver's licenses fits into this moral course of action.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00041-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6985799074172974}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigrants Content: Sadly, I seem to be speaking to an empty room. I will argue that the R1 argument by CON cannot be sustained as presented, and must be modified. This is a breakdown of the argument: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work.Here, the key error is the inclusion of the word \u201cillegal.\u201d CON seems to consider any immigrant to be \u201cillegal,\u201d which presumably includes those legal immigrants who come into the US on a work or student visa. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to It is difficult to understand how immigrants could be allowed sanctuary in their home country. The statement is paradoxical, and may not be true. P2(A): Unless they have a \"working Visa\" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely If they are in the US on a work Visa, then the person is not here illegally. P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries This conflicts with P1, where CON states that \u2018illegal\u2019 immigrants should be allowed into the country in order to work. P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged) Concluding analysis: CON makes an error when he groups all immigrants into the category of \u2018illegal immigrants.\u2019 The argument that was presented cannot be reconciled with itself; immigrants cannot be simultaneously allowed into the US in order to work, and still be rounded up and deported. Additionally, those with valid, legal clearance to enter and visit the United States can no longer be considered \u2018illegal.\u2019 Moreover, many of the positions in the R1 argument are already law, or represent only the opinion of CON.", "qid": 29, "docid": "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6984727382659912}, {"content": "Title: Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship Content: Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens? The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a \"bread on the table\" job from hardworking American citizens. Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don\"t reward them for their actions. This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens. Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it\"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs. When it\"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.", "qid": 29, "docid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.69825279712677}, {"content": "Title: Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the US Content: Statements against path to citizenship for illegal immigrants", "qid": 29, "docid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00019-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6981030106544495}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Is Bad Content: However, I never mentioned taking Illegal Immigrants out of the U.S. I was simply talking that we should stop letting them in. If you do want a solution to removing all Illegal Immigrants from the U.S., then the best solution is to just make them legit citizens.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c3e0c9c1-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6979911923408508}, {"content": "Title: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Content: Citizenship is something that should be earned.", "qid": 29, "docid": "ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00030-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.69798743724823}, {"content": "Title: Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants Content: Birthright citizenship exacerbates dilemmas around illegal immigration.", "qid": 29, "docid": "ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00009-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6972829103469849}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: These people are just as hardworking as the rest of us, more in some cases. That they should be denied citizenship and entrance to our country IS unfair but they would be willing to pay taxes for the security of citizenship. Sure they come for economic reasons, but the opportunity here allows them to earn the money they need. It is reasonable for these reasons, and it is no less safe than the drug lords who can afford to get here legally.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6971560120582581}, {"content": "Title: The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English Content: My opponent says that potential new citizens should learn english for their own sakes. He also concedes that the English requirement would be waived for children and for deaf people who know sign language. Perhaps then it would be enough to just encourage immigrants to learn English? Perhaps free lessons or volunteers could run conversation classes. There's no need for a language test on citizenship.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f17d1307-2019-04-18T15:47:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6967216730117798}, {"content": "Title: illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship Content: It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement \"They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. \" That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.", "qid": 29, "docid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6966809034347534}, {"content": "Title: Effort to regulate our countrys borders Content: The problem here is not in border regulation, which would only increase our taxes which are high enough already. What needs to happen here is for it to become easier to become a citizen of the United States. Immigration is the process of people coming to live in another country, and if they want to live here why shouldn't they? What makes someone who has immigrated here from another country different from those born here? These people do want to be citizens, they just can't be due to current immigration policy. If they were granted citizenship they would not be \"stealing\" jobs, they would just be the capitalist work force, since capitalism is a system in which he who offers the best product for the lowest price (in this case labor) wins. With more citizens and less immigration regulation, we have less government jobs which means lower taxes and more people to pay those taxes, which means even lower taxes than before.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6965324878692627}, {"content": "Title: Immigration into the UK should be reduced. Content: Immigration into the UK should be regulated. That is what you are getting at. The regulation of immigration will help the country. However, there is no reason why people should be not allowed to enter the country. It is a great country and depriving people of that ability would be unfair.", "qid": 29, "docid": "574ab8cd-2019-04-18T15:13:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6958917379379272}, {"content": "Title: the system Content: illegal immigrants should not be allowed the same benefits as persons that are legal", "qid": 29, "docid": "85c76713-2019-04-18T19:04:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6956809163093567}, {"content": "Title: In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported. Content: ac1. They came into this country Illegally, so my opponent, pro, wants them to be rewarded citizenship, because they broke the law. Jobs are lost by American-born citizens to the illegal immigrants, since they do not have to be payed minimum wage (because they are not legal in the first place). ac2. The cost to the citizens, taxpayers, and the government to keep them is extravagant and not worth it. No economic benefits are gained from keeping illegal immigrants. (Reasoning right below) #1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program. Taking money (if illegal then without paying taxes) from the government and the taxpayers, for an extended period of time, which could eventually cost more than deportation. #2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years. (even more money stolen from taxpayers.) #3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps. #4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left. #5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally. #6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants. #7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California\"s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse. Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving. As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded. This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths. At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people. #8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants. (even more money than deportation) #9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually. #10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States. #11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first \"unmanned\" border station along the Texas-Mexico border. #12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration. #13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities. Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs. #14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago\"s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city. #15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year\"exporting\" illegal drugs to the United States. #16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States. The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and outmanned. #17 According to the Justice Department\"s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006. By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286. #18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006. That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration. #19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade. http://www.infowars.com... c1. My opponent is obviously speaking only of legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants rarely pay taxes. Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a \"sanctuary city\" can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens? Yes, those questions sound absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law. And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get \"immigration reform\" through the House of Representatives. If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless. c2. BoP is still on pro.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6954120397567749}, {"content": "Title: english should be our official language Content: ok.. first of all: were not debating on illegal immigrants, were debating on whether or not the us should have English be our official language. so, i'm my argument i'm perfectly correct. in your first argument you said : \"The first step to reverse the evil of inclusivity is to establish the language by which we exclude people. Voting Pro on this topic allows the government to start excluding people from society.\" well your actually hurting your argument because why would we want to stop people from coming into the USA? i get the over-populazation bit, but really? \"evil\"? your second argument says that immigrants will not want to come to the us because they would feel excluded... thats exactly what i'm saying! if we have our official language people would feel excluded and not want to support the united states, therefor our allies like spain, germany, france, would all feel excluded and we don't want that kind of tension with in the united nations. Also, if illegal immigrants want to become legal they a required to learn english anyway so theres not point. so, in your response please try and stick to the subject.", "qid": 29, "docid": "3d0a3810-2019-04-18T18:51:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6952904462814331}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigration Content: Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country. - Illegal immigration can be summed up very simply... it's ILLEGAL! + So was a black man marrying a white woman, harboring a Japanese person, etc. Something illegal is not something bad all the time. - You wouldn't know first hand the type of effect that illegal immigration has on our economy. You may say that Georgia has tons of illegals, but I've been there and have seen that you're illegal immigrant problem is on a small scale as opposed to being from Texas and especially West Texas where illegal immigrants are seen everyday, everywhere. + Who cares who has more illegals? Georgia has a significant number and if I lived in Australia I would be abke to debate this debate still. - I completely agree that everyone should have an opportunity to work and to provide for their family. I also would say that it's a privilege to be an American citizen and not a God-given right. You're idea of legalizing illegal immigrants is immature and very selfish. + Can you please make arguments iunstead of insults? - What do you say to those that have followed our laws and our statutes to try to become a U.S. citizen? In some cases it takes years to become a U.S. citizen and for someone to enter our nation illegally and reap the benefits of our nation is wrong. I'm proud for those that work their hardest to become a U.S. citizen. They have to learn our culture, customs, and traditions and because of that they know that the American life is a life of integrity, honor, and value. Illegal immigrants enter into our nation to benefit themselves. + We have to think logically. Some things are not fair. And things always modernize. What about the slaves who were not freed? Should we enslave all blacks because the formers had to endure hardship? - I believe that to be a \"true\" American you must contribute something to this nation. + Tell that to the welfare line. - That's not what they have on their minds. + Illegals are typically very hardworking people. - Illegals do not pay taxes. + If we legalise them, they will pay taxes by law. - They freeload off of hardworking Americans. + This is just a rude stereotype and not a fact. Most illegals work very hartd for their families. - When you turn 16 you might understand this. + Im not insulting you. I wish you would grant the same thing to me. - I'm ready to hear your argument about how they do work that Americans won't do. It's not true. + How are illegals not starving? If all illegals dont work and are inelligible for welfare how are they not all dead? PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND GET SOME PROOF FOR YOUR STEREOTYPICAL ARGUMENTS IF ILLEGALS ARE LEGALIZED THEY WILL PAY TAXES AND LOWER SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD. ALSO THESE PEOPLE DESERVE TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THEIR KIDS CAN HAVE OPPURTUNITES AND TEY CAN EAT EVERYDAY. THESE ARE HARDWORKING AMERICANS.", "qid": 29, "docid": "68a8a87-2019-04-18T19:59:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6951406598091125}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States. Content: Rebuttal:1. The point of my argument is not that the benefits should or should not exist. I am simply saying that the \"immense benefits\" are not a necessary aspect of \"citizenship\"--and they are irrelevant to the resolution at hand. If the problem is, indeed, that there is too much incentive for immigrants to get citizenship because of benefits, then an entirely different debate can be had about what benefits ought to come with citizenship. But, as my opponent has seemingly failed to acknowledge, this is, indeed, an entirely different debate. We are strictly talking about \"citizenship\" in the context of the definition I provided (which was not contested by my opponent.) Any additional benefits that are attached to citizenship are simply not germane. 2. \"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [emphasis mine]\"I have stated that \"aliens\" is meant to modify/elaborate on \"foreigners.\" And \"who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers\" modifies both of them. I think it is clear for anyone with a basic knowledge of grammar that the stated exception only applied to those who were the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers; this is not talking about all foreign people. The interpretation my opponent is putting across defies fundamental grammar and logic, and I can't imagine why she didn't simply drop the argument.3. My opponent originally put forward a plan of action, which assumed that the current system is a problem--and I rightfully argued that she has prove that the system is problematic before taking that further step. Now, she is trying to insert arguments for her solution last second (e.g., \"Everyone would get a fair turn in line for a naturalization test and once a parent becomes legal (fairly) then their children could become citizens and enjoy citizenship\"), which is pretty unfair. Anyway, her new arguments here are vague, inadequate (by failing to account for a transitional period, for example), and easily outweighed by my counter-arguments (from this round and past rounds.) ---Counter-Arguments:1. I never denied that such a factor can be \"considered.\" But my opponent's source fails to contradict the idea that it is rare for illegal immigrant parents to be kept here just because of their children, when their status is put under consideration by immigration officers. Anyway, the argument my opponent posed isn't necessarily relevant, unless we assume that Obama's policy ought to be upheld. One could easily take my side by opposing Obama's policy, while upholding the statute of birthright citizenship. In other words, Obama's recent policy does not mean that birthright citizenship ought to be abolished; it could just mean that Obama's policy (regarding considering parental citizenship based on child status) itself ought to be abolished. So this argument doesn't really support my opponent's stance.2. Opponent dropped.---Conclusion: Birthright citizenship shouldn't be abolished. My opponent didn't come remotely close to meeting her burden of proof; the status quo holds. Vote Con.Thanks.", "qid": 29, "docid": "d34c6ed8-2019-04-18T17:12:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.694567859172821}, {"content": "Title: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship to the undocumented currently living in US Content: DO NOT GIVE A REBUTTAL YET. I would love to have a full debate so only accept if you will participate in each rounds. Comments are welcome and much appreciated. This was also Public Forum topic in December. Pro As the inscription on the statue of liberty reads, \"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. \" Because I believe in the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty we must stand in affirmation of today's resolution. Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. I support this stance with the following contentions. 1) A path to citizenship yields many benefits A) Potential for major GDP growth In August of this year the White House released a study reporting that providing a path to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would create a 1.4 trillion dollar GDP boost if the undocumented acquire legal status in a one year period while working towards acquiring citizenship. This is through the undocumented paying federal taxes that they are currently not paying. . http://www.whitehouse.gov... B) Job creation In a separate study done by Robert Lynch, a professor and chairman of the Department of Economics at Washington University, a path to citizenship will lead to the creation of over 200,000 US jobs in the United States annually. We will see these jobs being created because helping these people acquire citizenship will allow them to start up their own businesses. . http://www.americanprogress.org... C) A path to citizenship reduces identity theft According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 75 percent of working-age of the undocumented use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. The study also showed that illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of undocumented in their respective total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado). As this evidence shows, the undocumented, when unable to obtain their unique identity, will resort to taking other peoples identity. 2) Often times the living conditions in the U. S. are much better than immigrants home countries A) Human Rights Seyla Benhabib, Chair of Political Sciences at Yale University, wrote in her book \"The Rights of Others\" that \"if conditions are so bad in a person\"s native country that they become willing to risk their legality in order to survive their right to survival, in moral terms, holds as much weight as a country's right to secure its borders against migrants. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as signed into law in 1948 upholds that basic principle, that Benhabib highlights, in Article 14 stating \"All persons have the right to seek asylum in another state. \" Benhabib, \"The Rights of Others\" 2007 B) Providing opportunity for undocumented children Current laws do allow for undocumented children to attend school grades K-12 however most undocumented children do not receive a secondary education unlike their classmates who (75%) go on to attend college. By creating a path to citizenship we are allowing these children, who mind you were brought to this country at a young age, to live to their full potential thus creating future potential business innovations and future jobs. . http://p.washingtontimes.com... 3) A path to citizenship provides solvency to illegal immigration A) A path to citizenship is the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration. Short of removing all border restrictions completely it is impossible to eliminate the presence of all undocumented people from living in our country. However a path to citizenship does offer some temporary solvency while still having long term economic benefits. About 1.3 million undocumented immigrants began their process to a path to citizenship by 1989, just three years after the reform. This is roughly 41% of the undocumented immigrants where living in the United States at the time. . http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... B) The undocumented want citizenship In a survey done by the Pew Hispanic Research center 87% of illegal immigrants said they would like to become US citizens. The overwhelming majority not only shows a want to assimilate but a desire to become part of the country and progress our economy as well. . http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org... It is for these reasons we must stand in affirmation of the resolution resolved and I urge a Pro ballot in today's debate. Thank You.", "qid": 29, "docid": "5609f55e-2019-04-18T16:48:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6945472359657288}, {"content": "Title: Open Borders for Living/Travelling Content: If we open our borders, then terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens. Illegal Immigrants will come in here with no intent of becoming citizens and live off welfare and food stamps. You say that we should be able to go wherever we want. You are proposing that we allow drug dealers to come into this country and trade drugs. National Security will be threanted because Terrorists and spies will come in here and kill innocent children and take military secrets. In our Bill of rights, no where does it say that we can go wherever we want. I will wait for your response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 29, "docid": "c4fa1b7-2019-04-18T16:33:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6943677067756653}, {"content": "Title: Governments of resource-rich nations should impose high taxes on mining and extraction Content: Government's Obligation to Benefit Citizens", "qid": 29, "docid": "5b858825-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00010-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6941117644309998}, {"content": "Title: Everyone living in the US should have the right to vote, not just citizens. Content: No because again, if they do not like the current outcome of the election they can go back to their own countries. The outcome of the presidential elections or even small elections like who will be the county sheriff should be left up to those who are the citizens of this country. If you want to vote in this country you should make the commitment of becoming a citizen. Until then you can enjoy the country but not make desicions.Not only that but the susceptibility of fraud and turning the tables could be very present. Those from different countries could come to this country to vote. By the way we need to stop encouraging immigration. This country needs to become an isolationist nation with little immigration because these people, specifically from latin america, are taking our jobs and sucking up on welfare benefits. Having things like the ability to vote whenever they want will increase this problem", "qid": 29, "docid": "aba65d2c-2019-04-18T13:42:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6931360960006714}, {"content": "Title: The United States Federal Government should implement an open door policy. Content: *note: For some reason I thought I had one more day on the time limit of last round, so here is the argument that would have been posted there. First off, you began your argument with, \"I never said that the taxation of these immigrants would have high returns. \" To that I would have to say that you simply just nullified your own argument regarding that immigrants would contribute a significant amount of income to the nation. Also, you seemed to put a heavy emphasis on how the government would make more money, such as when you said, \"Increased Government Revenue. Now this is a rather simple concept to grasp, more citizens means more tax revenue, simple yes? Now you may be wondering \"Why should I care if the government is making more money? \". You should care. One, it gives the government more leverage on taxing, for example, lets say in the next 30 years there is a high influx of immigrants (50 million), the government can lower taxes on everyone for it will still be able to keep the revenue it already has, meaning less taxes for everyone, which for most people, is a good thing. Or if the government decides its time to start paying back that debt, if we had more citizens this would allow a higher tax revenue, this new found money can be used to pay of debt. Not only that but depending on the number of immigrants we could increase the budgets of some government agencies. So in summary, more immigrants=more citizens which equals to a higher tax revenue. \" So what I get out of this is that you admit that my points regarding immigrants not directly contributing to a larger treasury are all valid, and you concede to them. Now referring to the story that you told about your family, with you as a primary source, all I have to say to that is that this is anecdotal information, and therefore holds no ground. If I were to find one immigrant that I knew of that was a murderer, and generalized that because they were a murderer all other immigrants are murderers as well, you would rightly say that this is wildly inaccurate, so therefore I make the same claim against your anecdote. I don\"t deny that your family works hard, or that there are other immigrants that have made a good life for themselves, but your generalization of immigrants based upon your own family simply cannot be taken in as fact. Regarding my opponent stating that my argument towards the different cultures didn\"t fit with the topics of government and economy, I would simply disagree. Because these people are not of similar cultures, things become much more expensive. They will have a much harder time finding work, as well, there will be increased expenses for government in order to help and protect these people, by doing things such as adding translations, special regulations, and increased diversity training and rules. As well there are many hidden costs in the form of police discrimination and misrepresentation of these minorities. Along with the carrying capacity argument that I made, all I have to say is that it was misinterpreted. I\"m not referring to the carrying capacity of the United States economy, I was referring to the carrying capacity of the welfare system. How much more money can the United States really spend in order to support a massive influx of people? Now onto what my opponent was saying about social security being a time bomb. This bomb is going to explode eventually, of that there is no doubt, so we are left with a choice, do we let it go off naturally with minimal problems, or do we prolong this dangerous ponzi scheme until we simply cannot continue it, in which case it collapses anyways, but this explosion will lead to a crash bigger than any other crash any nation has ever seen. This is something that no one wants to see, so let\"s end this Ponzi Scheme now, before it gets too big, and it becomes too late. Then you attempted to refute my economic argument regarding how immigrants would have adverse effects on the economy. First off let me say that the type of economics you describe in your argument tend to sound particularly Keynesian, a school of economic thought that one could argue has caused a multitude of problems with modern economies, such as massive government spending and never before seen levels of debt. Keynesianism puts an extreme emphasis on spending as a means to grow the economy, but it ignores other, just as important, aspects of the economy, such as savings. Spending isn\"t all that matters in an economy, as well with recent trade unions such as NAFTA, money is much more liquid across borders. The individuals that would come to America can still buy American goods within their own nation, free trade has allowed for this to happen. Now we must also take into account your statement about jobs not being static, which is true, however government regulation has made it much harder to create new employment opportunities. Regulation such as the minimum wage makes it increasingly difficult to enter into the job force, which puts an increasing amount of stress on the welfare system. To sum up, we have to deal with this low birthrate problem in a different way than simply letting even more people in, which would just lead to an inevitable crash when the new block reaches retirement age. The incoming individuals will incur a net loss of the nation's economic welfare due to their inability to be used as a significant source of tax revenue, their inevitable use of the nation\"s scarce resources through an inefficient welfare system, and the increased costs of the immigrants adapting to already established systems that are held dear by the inhabitant population. Overall an Open-Door Policy would be detrimental due to the existence of the welfare system. *Fixed links and new sources . http://www.reuters.com... . http://ec.europa.eu... . http://www.nationaljournal.com... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://openborders.info... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.themoneyillusion.com... . http://www.economist.com... . http://www.rense.com...", "qid": 29, "docid": "90fa8a9-2019-04-18T14:18:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6925563812255859}, {"content": "Title: It is not feasible to deport millions of illegal immigrants from the United States Content: It is not possible to deport between 10 and 12 million illegal immigrants. Therefore, integration is the best option. Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses is in line with this course of action.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00040-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6921762228012085}, {"content": "Title: Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents. Content: Cons objections to my proposal are based upon a situation in which the U . S. government is taken over by racist politicians appointing corrupt judges who strip the citizenship and deport those who fail to meet their ethnic preferences. Should that situation come to pass, this entire debate would be moot. In such a dystopian nation all laws and constitutional protections would lose their force. I'm assuming a more likely governing climate, similar to the past 50+ years. I would distinguish between the child of a parent who comes to the US for the express purpose of birthing here so as to gain citizenship before returning to their home country; and that of a child whose mother births here after seeking asylum from horrendous conditions. Those are very different situations and should be treated differently. The more undeserved citizenships we grant the less that will ultimately be available for the truly needy.", "qid": 29, "docid": "fceeb70-2019-04-18T14:27:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6921238899230957}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Illegal Immigrations To Still Get Benefits Content: Fair warning: I wrote this at 3am, so expect some incoherency. C1) Incoherent Pro's plan does not make any sense. How is it possible for the *government* to directly hand out benefits to *illegal* immigrants while they're still classified as illegally residing in the US? The government, as the upholder of the law, would be obligated to round up and deport every single illegal immigrant that showed up to its administrative offices to collect benefits. Pro's plan is impossible to implement, and thus it doesn't even warrant consideration. C2) Cost One exhaustive study by the Heritage foundation finds that if all illegal immigrants were to be given amnesty, it would cost the state an additional $106 billion dollars per year [1] due to the discrepancy between how much the now-legal immigrants will pay in taxes and how much money in benefits they eat up. However, the key difference between Pro's plan and amnesty is that under Pro's plan, immigrants remain illegal and thus do not have to pay any taxes; this means that the true cost of providing illegal immigrants with benefits is even higher than $106 billion, perhaps closer to $200 billion. Now further consider the fact that the very act of providing benefits to illegal immigrants attracts even *more* illegal immigrants in even *greater* numbers. America has better work conditions, higher wages, and greater job availability than almost every country in the Western Hemisphere; that itself is already plenty of motivation to try surmounting the obstacles blocking entry into the US. By going even further and paying the illegal immigrants federal benefits, the US would basically become a guaranteed ticket to financial security for the average lower-class Mexican worker. We can look to academic analyses of the effects of amnesty to see that generous immigration policies such as Pro's plan do, indeed, lead to substantial increases in illegal immigration [2]. The point of all this is that providing illegal immigrants benefits, all things taken together, could easily cost close to half a trillion dollars. Considering that the current amount of money spent on such benefits is about $900 billion [1], this is an *enormous* increase in government expenditures, which will inevitably translate to a higher tax burden on the American populace, more federal debt, and funds being diverted from important areas like education to make ends meet. The monetary costs of providing benefits to illegal immigrants would be hugely detrimental. C3) Unjust By giving illegal immigrants governmental benefits, the state is basically rewarding them for breaking the law, and at the considerable expense of all the state's legal residents. In other words, the policy Pro is advocating is completely and utterly unjust -- a travesty against the American population, whose well-being is supposed to be the government's *priority*. For that reason alone, we should reject the policy proposed in the resolution I'll leave it at that for now. The resolution is negated. Back to Pro. [1] . http://www.heritage.org... [2] . http://www.nationalreview.com...", "qid": 29, "docid": "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6917397975921631}, {"content": "Title: Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents. Content: I have no objection to a liberal policy that grants U.S. citizenship to every deserving applicant. My objection is to the automatic nature of the current system. It has led to, among other things, businesses offering tour packages to pregnant foreigners for the express purpose of giving birth on US soil. See http://articles.latimes.com.... It has also led to the practice of undocumented people coming into the US in order to have children who eventually, using compassion based applications, bring the rest of their family members into the country. I\"m not totally opposed to that either, only that every nation needs to have some measure of control of whom it allows into the country to receive the benefits of citizenship as well as the responsibilities. Otherwise we run the risk of eventually repeating the current Greek experience where a government is totally overwhelmed by a flood of refugees. As to the examples you provided, I would support laws offering citizenship to every high school graduate who has not been convicted of major crimes. I want a system that welcomes people but, that should be a system, not an open unguarded door.", "qid": 29, "docid": "fceeb70-2019-04-18T14:27:23Z-00007-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6917075514793396}, {"content": "Title: why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! Content: citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way", "qid": 29, "docid": "3fc36285-2019-04-18T18:54:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6916393041610718}, {"content": "Title: why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?! Content: i agree with you on citizenship. but until citizenship is abolished, everyone has to follow the rules. that includes immigrants.", "qid": 29, "docid": "3fc36285-2019-04-18T18:54:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6914157867431641}, {"content": "Title: Immigration Issue Content: Opposition would like to submit 'immigration' as point which cannot be ignored in the present context of the debate as foreign nationals who come without legal work permit and stay in the country and work there, hamoer the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment. And then they want voting rights to have a better say in the community! Clearly if we follow the proposition's proposal, the already increasing problem of immigration which has literally plagued the developed and semi-developed countries would then become a full fledged problem. If we grant them a path to citizenship and hence ensuring that right to vote is also guaranteed, following problems are bound to arise: a) it grants amnesty to criminals b) it disrespects all the legal immigrants who are still waiting for a legitimate citizenship c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic Therefore giving right to vote whether it be local election or national elections to foreign nationals specially in case of immigrants is disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have actually earned their citizenship rather than illegal immigrants who seek a short cut to land of opportunity. By providing them right to vote it will hamper national interest as they will misuse their votes and create a state of political turmoil in the country.", "qid": 29, "docid": "aa33af9f-2019-04-19T12:45:08Z-00027-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6913493871688843}, {"content": "Title: Should Trump Support \"Dreamers\" Content: First off I would like to say there are probably a lot of illegals that are hardworking good people that are here trying to make a better life, but we should not negate the fact that illegals are lawbreakers, why should we as a nation of laws give privileges to criminals. Trump should prohibit the dreamer act because it encourages illegals to enter are country knowing that they have an opportunity to seize citizenship, America already has an immigration problem we don't to add fuel to the fire. To your point that deporting these illegals is futile and expensive the truth is if they are deported for breaking the law they have a chance to enter the country the legal way, many of these illegals are not here on good merit but take the opportunity to take advantage of social security and the welfare system, illegals themselves cost the U.S billions of dollars, we even have to pay for refugees that have entered the country. We already allow 10,000 refugees into America where do we say enough is enough, We shouldn't award those who break the law, if their serious about assimilating into are society then they should take the necessary steps to become a citizen. Finally how can you determine what illegals are good and those who are bad, many illegals might have not been caught for other crimes unrelated to entering illegally. You can't just build bridges you have to secure the country and the natural born citizens should benefit not those who break the law.", "qid": 29, "docid": "f0d9d48e-2019-04-18T12:20:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6906141042709351}, {"content": "Title: Denying illegal immigrants driver's licenses does not address the problem of illegal immigration Content: - The illegal immigrant problem in the United States cannot be resolved by mass deportation. The only other course of action is to integrate these populations. Offering them driver's licenses is an important part in this step.", "qid": 29, "docid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00059-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6902726888656616}, {"content": "Title: Border Defence Content: I will now respond to them. < . http://www.immigralaw.com...... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate. >> That is why people illegally immigrate. However, for reasons posted above and below this, that is not right. < > I believe in your value of criterion but not in how you're tying it to illegal immigrants. All people are not equal. I merely said that people should all have equal chances. Then I said \"I will go into more points over this later\". After that I said \"However by letting people into the U. S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. \" This by default means that the immigrants gain more rights and your value of criterion is not met. Also your statement about what I have to do in this case is correct. As I already mentioned above, law-abiding and tax paying citizens deserve better treatment than those who don't. A felon does not deserve the same treatment with certain things as an ordinary citizen who doesn't break the law. < > I merely said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and if you support them then you support them not paying taxes. As in Q (you) is to P (illegal immigrants) which is to X (non-tax paying). Because Q affects P which affects X you are affecting X through P. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, it's great that you think they should, but that's not what happens. < > You're still conceding to my point. Hypothetically, let's say that what you said is true. It doesn't matter, as long as some illegal immigrants have jobs, then some legal U. S. citizens won't have them. As in Q (illegal immigrants with jobs) affects P (jobs available) which affects X (number of jobs available). So as stated before, Q affects X through P. < . http://www.progressiveu.org......). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, \"a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy,\" still stands. >> The site is biased. It is card-stacked information but true. However, my main reason was to use that site to sum up my opinion on illegal immigrants and the economy. My opinion doesn't have any back-up source and neither does my opponent's point (illegal immigrants leaving would devestate the economy) because neither of our scenario's has ever happened. For me it is basic math. The economy gives money to workers in paychecks and the workers put the money back into the economy by buying stocks, food, housing, etc. It also makes money off of taxing incomes. First, illegal immigrants do not pay income tax. This right there takes money away from the U. S. economy. Second, illegal immigrants will often send their money back home to their families in a different country. As in money from our economy goes to the illegal immigrants, and then to their families which then put it into their own economy's. This does not help our economy, it actually hurts it. As in P (illegal immigrants) send Q (money from U. S. economy) to X (family) who use the money in Y (their own economy). No where in this does our economy benefit, our economy actually gets hurt. Above I mentioned \"You are correct in saying no people deserve to have more rights than others. However by letting people into the U. S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. They don't have to pay income taxes and all public services like garbage collection and education are paid for them with legal U. S. citizen tax dollars. I consider not paying taxes a privelege. So I ask my opponent why it's fair for someone to come here illegally and pay no taxes, while being supported by the taxes of legal citizens. \" You did nothing to refute this argument, thereby forfeiting it for that round. Now to elaborate on my points that I had mentioned. I just meant them to sum up what I had already mentioned in the previous round. However as my opponent asked I will elaborate. 1) Higher unemployment As I have already stated above this is simple math. Jobs do not just pop out of thin air. If we let 5 million people into the country, we have to have the number of jobs that is enough to support those people. Do 5 million jobs just pop up out of thin air? No. There are some jobs they can get that will be open but in other circumstances they will take the jobs of legal tax-paying citizens. This is not right or should it ever be. 2) Economy weakens If our economy gives money to illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes (one way economy makes money off of us) and then sends more of that money to family back home in a different economy we lose money. The other economy gains money and we lose it. 3) Government protecting it's own people A government's job is to protect it's own people first. This argument is simply a matter of fairness. If you're starving and cold on the streets it's not right that your government should be helping people in other countries with the same problems before you. Whose government are you if you protect other people over your own? I lookw forward to my opponent's next response as I'm sure it will be a well-planned and organized one.", "qid": 29, "docid": "6e99636f-2019-04-18T19:34:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6902256011962891}, {"content": "Title: Immigration and Amesty Content: It is unfair that immigrants get to stay in the United States because their children were born here. Although their children are technically citizens, illegal immigrants should not be able to stay in the Nation and send their kids to public school paid for by the taxes of citizens. \"Although almost three-quarters of the children of illegal immigrants were born in the United States and are therefore citizens, had their parents not entered the U.S. illegally these children likely wouldn't be in U.S. public schools and wouldn't require taxpayer funding. Thus, it's fair to say that their education cost stems from their parents' illegal entry into this country\" (Izumi). A lot of the tax problems in the school system stem from the fact that parents are not paying for their children's' education and rely on citizens to pay for them. The costs for schools to function and to maintain is increasing. Many new schools need to be built and there is no money in the system. \"Capital costs for school construction may have increased at a higher rate because of the influx of children of illegal immigrants\" (Izumi). The need for new schools is because there are illegal immigrants coming to the nation and there is not room for them, and there is a shortage of money because these immigrants are not paying money to support the schools that they are sending their children to. Izumi, Lance T. \"Educating Illegal Immigrants Costly.\" Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 18 Aug 2010: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 28 Oct 2013.", "qid": 29, "docid": "d0461c26-2019-04-18T17:04:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.689810037612915}, {"content": "Title: Should citizens be involved in law enforcements Content: Citizens should be involved in law enforcements. It unites the country and allows them to achieve things that would be unachieveable alone", "qid": 29, "docid": "a687b79a-2019-04-18T13:35:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6891872882843018}, {"content": "Title: Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not. Content: \"Illegal immigrants have not immigrated legally, usually don't acquire citizenship, and live in the shadows. If an illegal immigrant gets in a car crash, they will be driving away and you have to pay for it.\" I showed a study that showed that immigrants if anything reduced the crime rate, do you have a source that shows what you claim? \"Illegal immigrants of some kinds are not used to paying taxes. If they didn't pay taxes in Mexico, will they pay them here? Illegals, as I said, live in the shadows, and pay much less, if any taxes.\" My point was that much tax is unavoidable so it's meaningless if they choose to pay it or not and much of that money they don't pay goes to fuel the economy anyway and so will end up as tax. \"False, if we have open borders (Which we pretty much do right now), they can come across with no consequences and continue their crimes in America.\" No this debate was over the migrants not the larger consequences of having an insecure border with a developing nation. Therefore this is irrelevant. \"Sure, we do have that obligation. And yes, we should accept legal immigrants. However, ILLEGAL immigrants entering the country is unacceptable. They need to go through the process and become legal. Otherwise, you're basically asking for criminals to be in our country.\" The legal process is exceptionally difficult, I suggest you look at what it actually takes to get a US visa [1] let alone a permanent one. Most people have no choice but to live in mexico in poverty or violate US law in order to seek a better life. \"Illegal immigrants generally don't learn English. This means that we have millions of new people who speak Spanish and not English, meaning they cannot communicate with a lot of the population. Illegals (and some legals, but that's beside the point) don't bother learning English. This could lead to American culture being damaged as a whole, since they choose not to assimilate into our culture.\" Culture is not a static entity to be protected but rather it is a fluid entity that takes in new circumstances and adapts to them. However I would point out that the US integrated large numbers of Spanish speakers before. In the 1840s the US annexed most of northern Mexico (basically what now makes up the south west US) in the Mexican American war. Today the descendants of those who lived in the annexed land are fully integrated with american culture and I would be shocked if any still spoke Spanish fluently. In fact most were integrated by the end of the civil war just 20 years later and I doubt this has had a negative (or even significant) impact on US culture. [1] http://london.usembassy.gov...", "qid": 29, "docid": "a6458ad5-2019-04-18T14:29:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6886072158813477}, {"content": "Title: Those currently residing in the United States illegally ought to be granted amnesty. Content: Ok I'll make this short as it's my last round. If we just granted illegal imagrints amnesty there would be no point to a law against people entering this country. In fact, anyone could just walk into the country because then there would be no rule against them entering. And that is where the problem of terroists will get HUGE. And yes, our society is very messed up and our laws need polishing but the solution is not just excusing all the law-breakers. It may be easier but it's not right! That will just encourage more law-breaking which will not help at all. Would you excuse a murderer just because it is easier and cheaper? Well, in todays world that is what happens sometimes but that is besides the point. Releasing a bunch of murderers from punishment will not teach them a lesson so they are much more likely to commit the crime again. And though a murderer and a person entering a country illegally are very different crimes it does not escape the fact that they broke the law, and therefore, need to be punished. If these people want to live in a new country they need to learn the laws that not only bind them but also protect them. Also, they would then need to change the law which will cost tax-payers thousands as the government debates over it. Which I'm pretty sure would NOT please a lot of people. In fact, the only people that would be for anmestry are the illegally living people because I don't think society will appreciate watching other people break the law then get off scot-free. And though we will never come close to catching all the people that illegally enter, the cops do catch some. And changing the law will not help matters at all. So, laws are laws and there should be no exceptions to this. :D", "qid": 29, "docid": "3305846b-2019-04-18T18:01:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6885878443717957}]}
{"query": "Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, \"shall-issue\" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.", "qid": 30, "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8506598472595215}, {"content": "Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think \"everybody\" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.", "qid": 30, "docid": "fd5562c6-2019-04-18T15:49:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7962273955345154}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an \"assault weapons\" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00005-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7880184650421143}, {"content": "Title: Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Content: To start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have \"unrestricted carry\" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's \"right of the people to keep and bear arms,\" and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...", "qid": 30, "docid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7846256494522095}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected. Content: I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, \"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the \"supreme law of the land.\"", "qid": 30, "docid": "8cca124b-2019-04-18T19:59:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7789828181266785}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.", "qid": 30, "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.774666428565979}, {"content": "Title: America should require gun ownership and all citizens should be part of a national militia. Content: I believe all citizens (who can legally own a firearm) should be required to own a firearm. I believe every citizen should be able of carry a handgun (with current chcl restrictions) without a permit. I believe all citizens between ages 20 and 50 should be required to train in a militaristic capacity (physical fit tests, fire arms qualifications, etc) and required to participate in atleast one firearm training/competition per month to keep skills sharp. The citizen militia should not be deployable like the armed service, but required to function like the national guard in times of need and tragedy.", "qid": 30, "docid": "d74a3bb0-2019-04-18T16:16:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7706202268600464}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7703863382339478}, {"content": "Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: ok i somewhat agree that it should be a privelege. but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes. If you do not have a liscence you should not be able to own any more than a simple small calliber hand gun. not every thing should need a liscence. If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime. when i started this debate i expected someone who would say that no regular citizens should own guns. arguing against you makes things more complicated.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5d889dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7667121887207031}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: I will be arguing that your everyday citizen should be allowed to access guns. I will NOT be arguing against all gun control, such as background checks, age requirements and the requirement of permits. My opponent will be arguing that your everyday citizen should not be allowed to access guns.", "qid": 30, "docid": "dfe50792-2019-04-18T18:46:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7660295963287354}, {"content": "Title: Conceal to carry Content: I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.", "qid": 30, "docid": "f35758f7-2019-04-18T12:59:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.764985978603363}, {"content": "Title: Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates Content: My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.", "qid": 30, "docid": "711f3f19-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.764016330242157}, {"content": "Title: Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses Content: First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: \u2022 The holder being at least 21 years of age \u2022 No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years \u2022 No domestic violence conviction \u2022 Being a legal citizen of the United States \u2022 Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) \u2022 Not delinquent in child support payments \u2022 Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun \u2022 Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them \u2022 Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.", "qid": 30, "docid": "386a0c00-2019-04-18T20:02:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.761925220489502}, {"content": "Title: Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm. Content: I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.", "qid": 30, "docid": "c633bfbe-2019-04-18T16:54:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7615528106689453}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: First off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: \"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. \" I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the \"members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. \" The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating \"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. \" My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, \"with correct instruction\". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. \"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: \"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. \" As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. \"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. \" (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.", "qid": 30, "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7610363960266113}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Welcome to the debate. I will be arguing in favor of concealed carry by law abiding citizens. I welcome you to use the first round for an opening argument. You may argue against an individual carrying or that it is detrimental to society as a whole. As always, verifiable facts with sources will be weighed more favorably than made up hypothetical anecdotes.", "qid": 30, "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00008-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7591745853424072}, {"content": "Title: Think about it. The second amendment is no longer applicable to modern life. Content: Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your reasoning, why should said individual carry the gun at home or on their person anyway, people don't need to have the right to KEEP firearms. You don't need to own a firearm to take part in recreational activities. The firearm could be secured in the clubhouse, and the part about bearing arms generally refers to bearing arms against people, not deer, pieces of paper and clay disks. Your argument is invalid. I look forward to your rebuttal!", "qid": 30, "docid": "f22c90b3-2019-04-18T17:43:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7587814331054688}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. \"Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. \" Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7582489848136902}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.", "qid": 30, "docid": "717c0448-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7578191757202148}, {"content": "Title: People should have the right to own a gun Content: It is my position that people should have the right to own a gun if they can pass a background check. If you disagree then please present your side and keep things civil.", "qid": 30, "docid": "24c7bab-2019-04-18T11:18:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7572472095489502}, {"content": "Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: I have to say, as a Brit, I have always been baffled why any society would happily permit ordinary citizens to carry firearms and why so many Americans seem so attached to them. Therefore, I found my opponent's contributions most enlightening, thank you, Magpie. As it happens, I was discussing this very issue with a couple of lawyers in a pub opposite The Royal Courts of Justice last night. Neither of them could conceive of a compelling reason why gun ownership should be permitted within the general populace of our own country. One explained that he had always wanted to visit the United States but had never done so for fear of being shot (which is possibly an unjustified fear) and the other reminded me of a case that came before the courts a few years ago. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, some British farmers, after thorough vetting and subject to strict conditions, may obtain a firearms licence from the police. One such farmer, Tony Martin, used his gun to shoot two teenagers who were trespassing on his property and whom he suspected had come to burgle his farmhouse. One of the youths was killed and the other was wounded. Mr. Martin claimed he was acting in self-defence but he was arrested, charged and duly convicted of murder. Passing three life sentences on the farmer, the judge said: \"The law is that every citizen is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent crime. Burglary is a crime and a householder in his own home may think he is being reasonable but he may not be reasonable and that can have tragic consequences.\" http://www.guardian.co.uk... It appears to me that this story is pertinent to my opponent's points 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17. If someone in their own home faces an intruder, he is entitled to protect himself, his family and his property. My opponent and I both agree that self-defence is a basic human right, not just a legal one. The question is, how one exercises that right. Firstly, the fear of being a victim of a crime does not, in itself, entitle one to take pre-emptive action against a suspected criminal \u2013 that is not self-defence. If, however, you do become a victim of crime, any action that is taken to defend oneself must be reasonable and proportionate. Let's say a couple of young walkers had strayed off the public footpath onto Tony Martin's land (which is easy done when farmers plough across them). They would be trespassing which is a crime. However, they would pose no obvious threat to the farmer or his property so if he shot and killed them, he would surely be guilty of murder. But what if these ramblers appeared in the farmyard? Clearly, they had not merely strayed from the path; they had deliberately made their way there over a large area of private land. Still, would Mr. Martin be entitled to shoot them dead? They may be burglars in disguise or they may have just come seeking permission to camp on his land or to enquire if he had any fresh eggs or vegetables for sale. I contend that if he did shoot the hikers, Mr. Martin would be guilty of murder. However, what if the two young visitors were not wearing hiking boots and carrying rucksacks but instead dressed like ordinary teenagers, perhaps wearing sneakers and hooded tops? He may be suspicious as to the motive of their visit and he may, possibly rightly, suspect that they had come to commit a crime. But that would be a matter for his own personal judgement and it would not entitle him, morally or legally, to pre-empt a crime by shooting them. To do so would be, and in Mr. Martin's case, was, considered murder. Now, to address in brief my opponent's remaining points. 1 \u2013 The Assize of Arms of 1183 was mentioned merely to put America's current gun laws in their historical context and to illustrate their archaic background. 2 \u2013 In civilised countries basic human rights are enshrined in, and protected by, law. The right to life and the right to defend oneself are both human rights. However, in the act of self-defence one human does not have the automatic right to deprive another human of their right to life. 3 \u2013 Again, this point was made to illustrate how irrelevant the existing gun laws are in modern America. 5 \u2013 Agreed, if I couldn't reason with the enraged father he could strangle me to death. However, \u2013 scenario number 5 - in a country where firearms are freely available, he would probably just bring a gun with him and shoot me. The net result is the same. (Note to self, remember to get some condoms on the way home!) 6 \u2013 The RTL may be fundamental, so is the right to have consensual sex, at the age of 18 in some countries and as young as 12 in others. These rights may be fundamental to all humans, but they have conditions attached to them. 11 & 16 \u2013 The reality is that gun crime would decrease in the US if guns were restricted. \"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense.\" - Kellermann AL. \"Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.\" Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67. 17 \u2013 A murder is still a murder; nobody in the anti-gun lobby would defend the actions of a thug that beat an old lady to death with a cricket bat rather than shooting her with a gun. This final point also applies to my opponent's disabled war veteran / mindless thugs / swimming pool story. I have a couple of observations on this tragic tale, however. Given that the old soldier was outside in a wheelchair, he would unlikely to have been able to make it back into the house to fetch his gun without being intercepted by the thugs, who would have suspected he wanted to call the police. If, however, he was in the habit of carrying a loaded gun with him in his wheelchair, he would be very unlikely to shoot all the thugs without them returning fire and killing him \u2013 he still ends up dead. Also, if he had opened fire and the thugs hadn't been armed and he shot them all just for swimming in his pool, this would be murder. The correct course of action would have been to grant them permission to swim in his pool and, after a while, slip indoors, call the police and let them sort it out. Finally (phew! this was a long one\u2026) I had no idea that gangs of crazed paedophiles overran American orphanages on such a regular basis as to require them to keep an arsenal of weapons! These mentally deranged kiddy-fiddlers must be a determined lot as I assume that they would have already got through the security fencing and overpowered the security guards and their dogs. In this case, yes, I would break open the gun cabinet and fire a warning shot, which, if they were unarmed, I'm sure they would heed.", "qid": 30, "docid": "614dae8b-2019-04-18T19:38:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7567020654678345}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: Hoping for a good debate. I believe that people should have the rights to have guns if they meet the qualifications. I know a lot about this matter so be prepared for a strong argument.", "qid": 30, "docid": "dfe521d9-2019-04-18T12:32:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7561788558959961}, {"content": "Title: Gun Bans Content: My position is that people should have the right to bear arms. Whoever disagrees with me can present their case. Let the debate begin.", "qid": 30, "docid": "c346f248-2019-04-18T18:14:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7553701400756836}, {"content": "Title: CCW owners should be allowed to carry guns at Colleges/Universities Content: I believe students with CCW permits should be allowed to carry gunsMy opponent must prove it isn't a good idea.Good Luck.", "qid": 30, "docid": "35e7fa17-2019-04-18T14:50:38Z-00005-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7547193765640259}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between Content: I'm am for gun rights. All law abiding citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. There have at least 1million cases per year where guns have been used to defend oneself.", "qid": 30, "docid": "483de43a-2019-04-18T14:10:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7543298602104187}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to conceal-carry in public, As well as protection against a tyrannical government. Feel free to try and change my mind. *BE COMMITTED TO THE DEBATE, NO FORFEITS PLEASE! *", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403cb8-2019-04-18T11:17:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7537667751312256}, {"content": "Title: The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm. Content: Structure: Round 1: Accepting the debate/clarifying any points. Round 2: Opening argument (no rebuttals) Round 3: Responding and Questioning Round 4: Responding and summary. By the 'right to possess a firearm' I am specifically referring to the right to bear arms in a private sphere as provided by the second amendment in the USA. My arguments against this 'right' will deal with both specifically the USA as well as a more general take on the problems posed by private ownership of weapons. I know this debate has been had before, but as I am fairly new on the website and to the debating community I hope someone will give me the chance to share my take on the issue!", "qid": 30, "docid": "8dfe56c7-2019-04-18T18:49:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7535403966903687}, {"content": "Title: Gun Free Zone on College Campus Content: I do not think that \"everybody\" should be disarmed and I doubt you will find anyone willing to make that argument. My argument is that while I support a persons right to carry a gun, but I also believe that a school should have the right to decide whether or not they want firearms on their property. I think that just like people should have the right to carry firearms, people and properties should have the right to decide it they want guns on there property. In my opinion the fact that a person has the constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm does not negate the fact that people have the right to say they don't want firearms on their property. Also, the fact that a public university is \"public\" property doesn't mean that it has to abide to the same laws as the public places you mentioned. I too will get more into stats and facts in later rounds but for now i just want to keep it short. I look forward to arguing with you.", "qid": 30, "docid": "fd5562c6-2019-04-18T15:49:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7534611225128174}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control - Less Regulation Content: I believe that Gun Control is an infringement on your rights as an American citizen. I believe that the liberal argument that, \"since they are newer the rules don't apply\" is false. I believe that most of the Anti-Gun Control people are uneducated and try to use as little facts as possible. I believe that Concealed Carriers do stop crimes and although that may not be stated outright as a right of the people, it is a good law and it should not be taken. Finally, I believe that there IS is such a thing as a \"safe gun.\"", "qid": 30, "docid": "2b6ef17b-2019-04-18T13:08:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7534286975860596}, {"content": "Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: Many thanks to my opponent for replying in such a comprehensive and somewhat amusing manner! My opponent wrote: \"A right is endemic to the individual. Govt. can - and often does - suppress a right, but it cannot erase it\" and \"I and I, alone, can determine when and how and in what circumstance it will become necessary to defend myself.\" This is a classic argument put forward by gun lobbies around the world, especially in states where gun ownership is restricted. They believe they have a \"fundamental right\" to carry firearms for the purpose of self-defence. However, in countries where carrying guns is illegal, the majority of the population (at least if it is a democracy) do not believe that this is a fundamental right \u2013 if they did, they would vote in an administration that promised in it's manifesto to make carrying firearms legal. In a democratic society, one cannot pick and choose the laws one abides by. For example, a paedophile may believe that he has the fundamental right to have consensual sex with a fourteen year-old old girl. However, this would be illegal in the UK and the US and he would face prosecution if he were caught. He could, though, go and live in a country such as Spain where the age of consent is only thirteen and have sex with adolescent girls perfectly legally. Similarly, a British citizen who believes that carrying a gun for the purpose of self-defence is a fundamental right could go and live in the US and take pot shots at trespassers to his heart's content! Nevertheless, everybody does, indeed, have the right to self-defence and that is enshrined in the laws of all civilised nations. However, that right is mitigated in the sense that the amount of force employed should be proportionate to the threat. My opponent gave two examples where he had used firearms to defend himself. As it turned out, no harm was done to the intruder but it could have been very different. True, burglary is a criminal offence and burglars should be punished. However burglary does not carry the death penalty, and even if it did, it would be for the judicial system to decide the offender's fate \u2013 not the victim of the crime. Carrying guns just escalates the level of violence in society. I will give you an example of what I mean from my own personal experience. On a recent visit to the US, I was involved in an argument with a man over a girl in a beach bar. As the confrontation became more heated it became clear to me that we were not going to settle the matter amicably and I mentally prepared myself for a fistfight. However, the other bloke suddenly pulled a gun on me! As I wasn't armed, there was no way for me to defend myself and I was, therefore, obliged to forfeit my right to self-defence and the other bloke walked off with the blond stunner in question \u2013 which isn't fair, but at least nobody was killed as they may have been if I had been carrying a gun myself. My opponent continued: \"Hitler voiced an argument, very similar to yours. The German people tu(r)ned in their guns. Gun deaths did go down - slightly. Alas OVEN deaths went up - slightly.\" This is another old chestnut from the gun lobby - if Jews, gypsies and the disabled had been armed, they may have been able to resist being imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. True, these unfortunate people may have been able to offer some resistance to Hitler's Storm Troopers, but the Nazi paramilitary's superior firepower would have meant that the \"Untermensch\" would just have been killed in their homes rather than in concentration camps. The only advantage I can see to this is that the resulting saving in gas would be good for the environment! My opponent's then wrote: \"The availability of cancer surgery makes an American cancer victim thousands of times more likely to die from cancer surgery than a cancer victim in the mountains of Chile, where surgery is unavailable. I therefore affirm that the right to live in a country relatively free from cancer surgery related deaths outranks the right of a citizen to receive cancer surgery.\" Please forgive me if I have failed to follow the reasoning behind this, but I think my opponent is making the point that life is full of risks and that a cancer sufferer may die from the surgery that was intended to save his life. I suppose this is true. Similarly a cancer patient in Santiago being transferred to hospital by ambulance for surgery could be killed in a road accident en-route because the driver had spent all morning in the bar supping pipe\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdo! That is why society has rules, such as not driving under the influence of alcohol, which we all should abide by. That said, drinking and driving is legal in some countries and so is carrying firearms for self-defence, but neither are fundamental rights. My opponent's final argument that most gun deaths occur as the result of criminal activity and that citizens should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves from these villains. I do not deny for a moment that shootouts are more commonly associated with warring gangs than squabbling neighbours in leafy suburbs. However, if the availability of guns were restricted, the number of shootings would decrease. Here in the UK, anyone found carrying a gun receives a mandatory five-year prison sentence. If the gun is loaded, the sentence will be considerably higher. Even carrying a knife is illegal and is likely to land you in jail. Crime still exists, of course, and some criminals still carry weapons, but they are the hardened minority \u2013 for the average crook, the risk of being caught in possession of a firearm just isn't worth the biscuit.", "qid": 30, "docid": "614dae8b-2019-04-18T19:38:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7530342936515808}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: \"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. \" By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated \"with correct instruction\", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) \"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. \" Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.", "qid": 30, "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7527168989181519}, {"content": "Title: We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed Content: My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. \"We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed\". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.", "qid": 30, "docid": "874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7526537179946899}, {"content": "Title: Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence Content: Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)", "qid": 30, "docid": "691acc63-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00017-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7526243925094604}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry vs open carry gun laws Content: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.", "qid": 30, "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00019-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7525338530540466}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry arms Content: Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent\"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent\"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con\"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson \"fired one shot\" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had \"obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007,\" a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, \"judges have no discretion to reject petitions\" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent\"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as \"criminals never know who is armed.\" There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a \"shall-issue\" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott\"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott\"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott\"s study indicated the effect of \"right-to-carry laws\" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott\"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don\"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is \"the least effective fire-arm for self-defense\" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent\"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are \"better\" or \"more responsible.\" Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...", "qid": 30, "docid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7510213851928711}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: I am welcome to any challenger who wishes to argue that citizens should be able to carry or own firearms. I will be arguing, in short, that the private ownership of guns should not be allowed and thus the challenger should argue that such ownership should be permitted.", "qid": 30, "docid": "dfe51e94-2019-04-18T13:22:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7505472898483276}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights in the United States Content: Some of you may have seen my previous argument, from which I accept my defeat. However, that will not faze my advocation for gun rights. I am a part of the National Rifle Association, however, I find information and evaluate it based on consistency from source to source and also reliability. This is a foreshadowing due to the fact I may have several sources for a single statement. I will lay down a few definitions: Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim. Military weapon - weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.) Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on. Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that: - I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm. - I support instant background checks and any other similar methods. - I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon. - I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but if, and only if, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon. I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website. I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon: - Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use. - Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" - Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc. - People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil. These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.", "qid": 30, "docid": "9fd7f84b-2019-04-18T18:57:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7495970726013184}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to begin by clarifying three issues within this debate, no matter how important they are. (1) If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.\" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96.) Posted by my opponent. At first notice this suggests that it is a statistic of the nation of the United States. But to clarify, it only deals with Florida, \"* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. \" http://www.justfacts.com... Notice that it also seems that my opponent has altered the statistic, stating from 1987 to 1999. But when the actual evidence is looked at from its source you can see that it says 1987 to 1994. My opponent states that it could have possible been a human error, but we can't know for sure. (2) \"Also what my opponent either doesn't know who has not acknowledged yet is that by me arguing for conceal and carry in all 50 states I am really only arguing for conceal and carry to be legal in Illinois and Wisconsin, because those are the only two states in the entire United States that do not have some form of conceal carry.\" My opponent must be referring to the map shown below in the link. http://www.wmsa.net... However, this map states that there are 65.7% of the US population lives in \"Right To Carry\" (Vermont, Alaska & 37 \"Shall Issue\") states, 28.1% in \"Right Restricted\" (9 \"May Issue\") states, and 6.3% in \"Right Denied\" (2) states. This means that 11 states may or can't issue right to carry laws. That means he is also arguing for these 11 states. I believe that my opponent has also not given examples of why these specific states would benefit. I have provided enough evidence to at least discredit my opponents source about Florida and shown that it can also be used both ways. (3) \"If a trained police officer barges into a room, knowing exactly where the \"test subjects\" where seating there would be little anyone could do. How do I know this, well if you watch the case study you see that the trained police officer goes into room gun drawn and goes after no one else but the \"test subject\". It would also be very hard to defend yourself if you where wearing baggy pants and do not have you firearm in a holster like logic would presume for just such situation, I forgot to mention the over sized white tee-shirt you are wearing.\" My opponent has correctly identified the experiment I have cited. However, the test subject was not the first fired at; in fact, he had ample time to unholster his weapon and fire the weapon. The attacker was trained (for safety reasons of course) and fired first at the lecturer of the class, then took a while to spot the person in the crowd with the weapon. As for clothing, you can't expect every kid in the room with a concealed weapon to wear his shirt tucked in and have \"non-baggy\" pants. As for a side note, a couple of the test subjects actually missed the attacker when shooting and hit one of the people running out the door behind him. This shows that, just like a police officer, you need years of training to become accurate enough to shoot at someone that is standing in front of a crowd of people. So, after clarifying this aspect, it is safe to assume that this experiment accurately portrayed what would happen if concealed carry was allowed in colleges. =General Refutations to my Opponents Arguements= ((1)) My opponent mentions that I have not provided any evidence showing that teenage drivers are the leading factor of car accidents. Well here, \"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. \" Along with more evidence to support this claim. http://www.rmiia.org... ((2)) As for the controversy over Florida. I did not specifically say that the statistic does not help your case. I implied that it could also be turned around and used for mine. He states that if everyone had Florida's same laws on concealed weapons, what would suggest that Homicide rates would continue to increase throughout the nation. However, my opponent has said that the laws of all states regarding concealed carry vary greatly. He condradicts himself and tries to create a theory that all states will have the same law, and therefore homicide rates will decrease, but as he has already stated, \"but it is very hard to tell difference between the to due to the fact that everystate has different firearm laws\" As a side note, I believe my spelling and grammar constitutes a point for me. Had to state that somewhere. ((3)) I have also shown that my opponent may have altered evidence, to which he replied, \"\"As for my \"falsified facts\", I would like to suggest the human error of typo\"\". This is a very vague rebuttal to something to which he simply could of said, \"I made a mistake\". Instead he wishes to suggest that he did it, but does not take a stand. ((4)) I brought up my opinion of why concealed carry was wrong. My opinion no needed facts. I had expected to hear some of my opponents opinion. Instead he insists on copying and pasting evidence from other sites and draws blatant conclusions on them. He states, \"My opponent states that it is the job of the government to protect our rights, but what about our lives?\" I believe the natural rights of every citizen still stands to be the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So to answer your question, I meant all three of these when mentioning rights of citizens of a government. I would like to ask some rhetorical questions which will hopefully have an impact on the readers judging decision. ;) Is it not one of the foundations of our government to uphold and protect it's citizens rights? Is it not the job of the State police and County police to serve and protect us as a people? Don't these State police and County police have years of experience which allow them to become one of our protectors? Why should we then, pass on the job of a professional policeman, to each citizen's of the United States? Why allow the use of a life or death weapon, to be placed within a human's hands which is capable of destroying lives? The answer is, we shouldn't. Because I have provided thoughtful insight and evidence to support my side of the resolution, I urge a negative vote.", "qid": 30, "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.74918133020401}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed-carry in public, And the right to protect myself against intruders and a tyrannical government. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403cd7-2019-04-18T11:17:39Z-00008-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7491493821144104}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: \"My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well.One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data.\"1. I am a new member to this site (joined today). Thus, I am not familiar with my opponent, nor his parents.2. My opponent should not be lax in wording resolutions in a way that people unfamiliar with his debate history do not understand them.\"My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states:\"Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime\"\"You can see my logic in my round 2 post, where I compared \"concealed carry handgun laws\" to \"lightbulb changing laws\". Obviously, in the absence of concealed carry laws, we are free to concealed carry. So what happens when we introduce \"concealed carry handgun laws\"? Either nothing changes, or these laws place some kind of restriction on concealed carry. Throughout, my opponent has not even defined \"concealed carry handgun laws\" while I have, with the only logical definition presented thus far.\"As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution.\"It is clear that my opponent is arguing for the resolution, but he is not PRO \"conceal handguns reducing crime\". He is PRO \"conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime\". Concealed handguns are a far cry from laws regarding concealed handguns, and so he is clearly arguing a different resolution.\"I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source:Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.If I was arguing that it raised crime the book \"more guns less crime\" woudl not be a source.\"Unfortunately, he introduced this source after the first round, at a time when it is too late to be clarifying his true stance. In fact, I introduced my sources before he introduced his, which (by this \"whoever clarifies what they're really arguing first wins\" logic) means that I should win. But that's not how debate works. We need to know the bounds of the resolution before the instigator makes them up in the second round by using a certain source.\"Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime.\"Yes, my opponent is logically arguing the PRO side of the resolution. I am not that stupid (nor am I new to debate, I have debated team policy debate in high school for several years). However, my opponent says \"I am arguing that it [concealed carry handgun laws] decreases crime\" without defining \"it\" in the first place. He fails to define concealed carry handgun laws, expects me to know what they are, and then rejects my reasonable definition in favor of his non-existant definition.\"he states: \"Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate.\"No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule oneOne of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/\"My arguments are not semantics. I am merely stating that good definitions are neccessary for good debate, and that my opponent has failed to provide good definitions and has rejected the good definition that I provided.Wrapping up, my opponent does not acknowledge that definitions are crucial to debate. Instead, he issues an incredibly vague and ambiguous resolution and clarifies his position in the second round, leaving me in the dark all the while. Vote against vague resolutions, vote against bad debate, and vote against the instigator.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7483067512512207}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Content: Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.", "qid": 30, "docid": "717c0448-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7481448650360107}, {"content": "Title: States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens Content: First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, \"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.\" Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.", "qid": 30, "docid": "90cc69d8-2019-04-18T19:09:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7479637861251831}, {"content": "Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: I will be arguing that self-defense is a basic human right, and that government and other power structures have no place ordering everyone to limit use of guns in a free society. I would like to see no government-issued permits for concealed or open carry, and no state-imposed limit on private use of guns ( apart from criminal prosecution if you commit a crime with them. ) Governments should be subservient to their people, and people should be free to achieve their potential by their own means, as long as they don't interfere in other people's business. You will be arguing against this, go. Bear in mind that government registration and confiscation of guns has preceded most mass slaughters in the last century.", "qid": 30, "docid": "1dfc3384-2019-04-18T18:40:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7477250099182129}, {"content": "Title: U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms Content: In this debate, my opponent and I will argue the accuracy of the resolution (The people of the United States have and ought to have the right to bear and keep arms) as it relates to U.S. law. Rules:1.) The first round for Con is: acceptance and a positive argument.2.) As I am the holder of the burden of proof, it stands to reason that Con will not make any positive arguments (one that builds Con\u2019s case, rather than countering mine) in the last round, as I would have no chance to answer them.Important definitions:1.) Right to bear and keep arms: an enumerated right of a U.S. citizen for the personal ownership and use of a firearm. Of course, this is exactly what Con and I will dispute, but for now, this definition will simply give clarity to the meaning of the resolution and the intended result of my argument as Pro (I.e. to prove this definition). 2.) Firearm: A weapon (in this debate, it will be restricted to handguns, long guns, and automatic rifles) capable of firing a lethal projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. [1]Sources:(1) www.thefreedictionary.com", "qid": 30, "docid": "469b0937-2019-04-18T17:59:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.747589647769928}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. public should not be able to obtain firearms Content: As citizens of the United States we are guaranteed the right to carry firearms from the second amendment. I don't think this right will ever be changed. However I recognize that this is a should debate so I will debate the resolution.I predict My opponent will make many flawed statements throughout this debate. Those statements I will underline and refute.Ccitizens of the U.S. can now relatively easily obtain firearms for whatever purpose they wish.This is not true. To legally obtain a firearm one must register there weapon and posses a licence to carry weapons. So as we see not all Americans can easily obtain firearms as pro suggests.I think we can all give up our guns to get rid of the negative affects that guns have on our society.I ask my opponent to please list the negative effects that guns have on our society. I also ask him to think if these problems with society would still exist even without the guns.1. If the public did not have firearms then pepper spray or a close quarters weapon would do fine as self protection.If police men used only pepper spray or close quarter weapons then they would not be much effective and would die more frequently. These type of weapons are not going to stop terrorists nor are they going to equip law enforcement with the weapons needed to take down someone sniping citizens. These weapons also may not protect a person if they are getting robbed. Lastly we want to reduce our risk of harm as much as possible. Far ranged weapons reduce our risk of harm because we are not close enough to have a physical confrontation. If citizens were only equipped with pepper spray and knives there risk of harm would increase and people would not be so willing to defend themselves because of the increased risk of harm.2. If the public did not have firearms, public shootings that kill innocent people and greatly affect many others would not be possible.My first response to this is of course we we did not have guns we couldn't shoot people. But does the removal of guns remove the possibility of innocent people being killed? No even if citizens could not legally posses guns there would still be those who purchase illegal guns. The citizens would have no way to protect themselves against these people. Also guns don't kill people people kill people. that means there are more ways to kill people than with just guns. If someone wants to kill people they don't need a gun. SO my point here is that even if we ban guns that action is not going to stop a killer from killing people because guns are not the only weapon capable of killing people. 3. Many countries such as South Korea already do not allow their public to have firearms. Therefore the public relies on close quarter weapons and martial arts to protect themselves.Let's not forget that there is a black market here. Lets not also forget that the police are equipped with guns. In most situations martial arts does not protect a person from a robber with a gun.4. Gang wars would not be nearly as life costlyGangs are most of the time going to use weapons. be it close range weapons to beat their victims or guns. Lets realize that most gang members get their guns illegally so they can't be traced. So what is a gun ban going to do? Nothing but increase the amount of guns purchased illegally and increase the amount of money in the sellers pocket.5. If the public did not have firearms the assassination of the President would be impossible.This is one of the most flawed statements made by pro so far. If I can prove that assassination of a president is possible without a gun this point fails miserably. A assassin can simply use a bow and arrow, a Molotov cocktail,a bomb etc... this point fails.I understand that pros intentions are good but changing our second amendment rights and banning guns are not going to stop people from killing others at all. A gun ban is not going to make our communities safer. At most this will give robbers more of a motive to steal since they may not have to deal with a treat of a gun. Banning guns is not a logical way to stop crime. The defense rests.", "qid": 30, "docid": "25a3ac03-2019-04-18T17:58:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7475208044052124}, {"content": "Title: Citizens should be able to own guns. Content: I will be arguing that the average citizen should be allowed to obtain guns for self defense (and other purposes), but NOT that there should be no gun laws at all (i. e. age limits and background checks). I please ask that whoever accepts will not forfeit immediately. My opponent will be arguing that the average citizen should not be allowed to obtain guns.", "qid": 30, "docid": "57039c9b-2019-04-18T18:44:40Z-00007-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.745500922203064}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: Let me show a few things. \"He [pro] defined \"concealed carry, or CCW\" but neglected to discuss the \"law\" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be \"any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry.\" I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate.\" ~ My opponent This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. As paradigm lost said: \"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued.\" [1] With this information, any voter would vote pro. Vote PRO, extend arguments. [1] http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 30, "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7451635599136353}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind Content: I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in concealed-carry. Now present your arguments.", "qid": 30, "docid": "81403ffd-2019-04-18T11:16:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7451403141021729}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control Content: COUNTER-REBUTTALS (Number corresponds to Op's Rebuts in num order) 1) People do have the right to protect themselves, I will concede this point. That right ends where another person's rights begin, however. Constitutional rights have limits on them; the classic example being that I cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, because it may cause a panic and get people hurt. The same is true in regards to the right to bear arms. If certain firearms serve no purpose other than to cause harm, or provide unnecessary firepower, then it is a sound and logical choice to ban them since they have the potential to cause great malice without serving a practical and benign need to the everyday citizen. Your rights end here, because it is a danger to the public health to have such weapons at large in society. You also alluded to home defense, and I will address this. The presence of a weapon in the home, instead of increasing home safety, actually leads to a higher chance of someone in your home being the victim of gun violence; whether it be from domestic violence, a curious yet unfortunate child, or the escalation of force a criminal might use if you pull a gun on him. Again, this is why weapons handling and the bearing of arms is best left to the professionals in law enforcement agencies and the military. [1] 2) I do not doubt the US constitution on this issue, I only doubt the interpretation that certain elements of society make of the second amendment. If we were to interpret the second amendment in the most literal sense, we as citizens would be allowed to own and operate any piece of military equipment we could afford. Recoilless rifles, grenades, heavy machine-guns, mortars, etc. The list of destructive weapons that would be allowed to enter society goes on, but it's a moot point because fortunately we're smart enough as a society to not take the wording in the constitution literally. We recognize that there are some legitimate circumstances where private citizens have the right to own firearms. Now in regards to the second part of your statement, I would like to reiterate that my position in this debate is that I want more gun control, not that I want to ban firearms outright. So we must establish that gun control does not equal gun prohibition, and that I am not arguing for gun prohibition. The three categories I listed are legitimate purposes for firearms ownership, and I will explain why. -Personal Defense: Firstly I'd like to point out that not everyone should be entitled to own a handgun for self-defense. In most situations ownership of a handgun will actually bring more harm than good to your household, however, there are certain situations where handgun ownership for the purpose of self-defense is practical and has sound reasoning. One example that comes to mind is a shop owner, who must personally carry over $10,000 in cash from his safe to the bank once a month. This man should be allowed to carry a handgun while he performs this task, because he is putting himself at a great risk when he carries so much money on his person. [1] -Hunting: Hunters often play a vital part in keeping the population of certain species of animals at an acceptable level. Thus hunters should be able to continue playing their part in conservationism. Furthermore, hunting firearms are designed for hunting animals and not killing people, therefore the rate of fire on these weapons are slower than military grade weapons and the bulky size of many of these rifles make them impractical for close quarters fighting. [4] -Showmanship Shooting and Other Sports: The weapons used in showmanship shooting are very similar to hunting firearms, and to the people that participate in these sports, this is their livelihood. Since these weapons pose little danger to the public health, and the trade is a livelihood to many showmanship shooters, this is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. 4) Even those with a rudimentary knowledge of firearms know that there is a huge difference between an assault rifle and a handgun. The 9mm rounds used in handguns are not capable of piercing the protective body armor that police officers wear, and handguns are not capable of sustaining the same rate of fire as an assault rifle, nor do they have as many rounds per magazine. Assault rifles are weapons designed specifically for combat, the ammunition is designed specifically to destroy vital organs and end life. Handguns are designed as personal defense weapons, and can be concealed on an everyday person for purposes of self-protection in cases where it is warranted. To say that a handgun has the same potential of causing human death as an assault rifle is absurd. Furthermore, I will reiterate once again that the centerpiece of my argument is that we need more gun control and not gun prohibition. 5) We can easily do this, because it follows simple market principal. If you lower the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms, then the demand for them goes up and they eventually become unaffordable to criminals. As I stated in my opening arguments, it is painfully easy to obtain illegal firearms. Criminals can simply go to gun shows and exploit a law, which allows gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks. Barring that they can purchase weapons directly from people with federal firearm licenses illegally. By simply changing the law and regulating gun shows and strengthening the ATF so they can inspect federal firearm license holders more efficiently, we can drastically reduce the supply of illegal firearms. [2][3] REBUTTALS 1)Rights As I stated in the counter-rebuttals, your rights end where another person's begins. The only reason gun control legislation can pass is because the courts and the constitution recognize this crucial fact. If we give you the ability to easily obtain an assault rifle to defend your home with, we're also providing that same easy access to the people that are willing to turn around and sell these guns to criminals for a profit. Not controlling the proliferation of dangerous weapons into public is a danger to the public, because these weapons will be used by criminals to commit crimes. If these dangerous weapons provided some benign use to the public, then it would be a risk worth taking, but they are not and so it is only logical to prohibit their sale. 2)Responsibility It is good to see that my opponent agrees that gun control is a necessity to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminal element of our society. Unfortunately he seems to consider knives and rocks to be as deadly a weapon as firearms. Crime will never cease, there will always be crime. It is crime that involves gun violence that is the main issue here, for that is what we seek to curtail by enacting further gun control legislation. 3)Freedom My opponent suggests that regulating firearms will lead us down the path to communism. This is absurd. The constitution does not give you the right to endanger the lives of others, and that's what we'd be doing if we had no gun control. Imagine a nation where the Bloods and the Crips do drive-by shootings with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on their Cadillacs. This is the America without gun control, and the America my opponent seems to want. Oh wait, it's okay because we can just give even bigger guns to private citizens and let them shoot it out. Then we'll have to give the police even bigger weapons I suppose, perhaps we'll just settle for replacing their police cruisers with tanks. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://gunvictimsaction.org... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.huntinginvirginia.net...", "qid": 30, "docid": "9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7448065280914307}, {"content": "Title: The Right to Own , Keep, and Bear Arms Content: The Right to Own, Keep, and Bear Arms is an individual right, and one that law abiding citizens should be free to exercise without fear of the government restricting this right. That the right to self defense is a basic human right, and should not be infringed upon. That his right actually makes society safer, not more dangerous, to live in. The first round will just be for acceptance, the following three will be for the actual debate. I accept any challenger, but please keep this a respectful debate.", "qid": 30, "docid": "645a4cbe-2019-04-18T18:25:30Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7445088028907776}, {"content": "Title: 18 year olds with concealed handguns Content: Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?", "qid": 30, "docid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7438392639160156}, {"content": "Title: Right to bear arms confers right to carry openly. Content: If the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court officially ruled in 2008, then it is a fairly logical extension of that right that one should be able to exercise it openly. Making concealment a condition of that right hardly makes it a right at all. Free speech rights allow an individual to openly scream absurdities through a megaphone in Times Square. A right to bear arms, analogously, should also preserve the right to openly express that right.", "qid": 30, "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00051-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7437924146652222}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights in the United States (remade) Content: Some of you may have seen my previous argument, from which I accept my defeat. However, that will not faze my advocation for gun rights. I am a part of the National Rifle Association, however, I find information and evaluate it based on consistency from source to source and also reliability. This is a foreshadowing due to the fact I may have several sources for a single statement. This is a repost from the previous exact argument with some idiot who didn't even debate right... I will lay down a few definitions: Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim. Military weapon - fully-automatic or burst-fire weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.) Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon Civilian - someone who is not part of law enforcement or regular military I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on. Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that: - I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm. - I support instant background checks and any other similar methods. - I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon. - I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but IF, AND ONLY IF, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon, since it's pretty much integrated into American culture and various cultures throughout the world. - Basically, I want to keep gun laws how they are according to above where necessary. Gun laws vary state to state, and where gun crime is low, I believe there is no need to implement these laws. I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website. I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon: - Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use. - Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" - Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc. - People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil. These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.", "qid": 30, "docid": "9a430eba-2019-04-18T18:57:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7436966300010681}, {"content": "Title: Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. Content: Resolved- All legally and clinically sane citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. First of all, let me thank my opponent for accepting this debate, if in fact he does accept it. The right to keep and bear arms is a right given by birth, not only a right protected by the laws of many countries. This isn't an issue about regulation, the amount of firearms allowed, munitions used, whether or not the firearm is auto/semi-auto, etc.- this is simply an issue of the right to keep and bear arms. No man- armed or disarmed- has the right to keep from another this right, which in some cases is essential to self defense, acquisition of food through hunting, and/or sport. When criminality is taken into consideration, criminal elements are those who do not abide by the law. Lawfully acquired and stored weapons have little to do with this criminal element, and those who commit crimes with legally acquired weapons are nonetheless criminals. Because of this there is not question as to whether or not laws should be enforced, rather whether or not non-criminals should be afforded the same ease to acquire weapons that criminal enterprises afford other criminals. If the right to bear arms is not respected by the government, and law abiding citizens are disarmed, there is a legal disparity between criminal elements and law abiding citizens- not to say that armed citizens are a deterrent to crime, rather they should have the right to defend themselves from these criminals if a situation should arise. As gun rights advocate Jeff Snyder states, we cannot condition the liberties of regular citizens according to the actions and desires of criminals. There is a fundamental error in the school of thought that tries to save society from itself by identifying a problem, and rather than treating the personality of those causing the problem, the instrument is attacked. You cannot get rid of crime by getting rid of guns, and you cannot treat maladies and ethics issues in society by attempting to control the minds of the citizens by restricting access to some and allowing access to others (in this case). The \"individual rights vs collective rights\" argument is irrelevant when you consider the above paragraph and other statements I have made, so I will not argue that route. I don't believe this is a right afforded to us by law, rather a right that should NOT be taken from us by law- however, it is only a recent argument that the right afforded to Americans under the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a collective right. Through part of the 20th century, and throughout the 19th and 18th century before then, any mention of the Second Amendment was viewed as an individual right. Not one Court or commentator argued that this was a collective right, rather than an individual one until the 20th century. Thomas Jefferson stated that the right to bear arms is necessary for the citizenry to protect itself from the \"tyranny in government\". Now, I know these are different times, and people have different views of the world, and it would be considered undemocratic and even terroristic for a disgruntled minority to rise up against the majority supported government, but were the government in a position of unchecked and unregulated power, and the majority of the people, towns, and states in opposition to the Federal government this right would be essential to carrying out a proper uprising as nations have done in the past when their governments have become oppressive. Were a legal means of access to firearms not available, these people would have to resort to molotov cocktails, stone throwing, and criminal elements who in fact are armed\u2026 say like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These groups are fundamentally opposed by the people in philosophy- especially Hezbollah in Lebanon- but because these groups are armed, equipped, and organized they have the power of opposition. I will close with the following statements. One from the Declaration of Independence, and one from Abraham Lincoln respectively: \"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, \u2014 That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it\" \"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.\"", "qid": 30, "docid": "e1e36173-2019-04-18T19:41:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7432053089141846}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: Unfortunately, it is clear that we agree. Furthermore, it is obvious that this disagreement stems from a misinterpretation of the term \"concealed carry handgun laws\", which I defined in round 1, contrary to the definition that my opponent never provided, but was apparently assuming. For clafification, the definition that I provided, and which was not responded to, was that a concealed carry handgun law is \"any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry. \" My reasoning for assuming my definition are as follows:Without any \"concealed carry handgun law\", there would be no laws regarding concealed carry. And just as there are no laws regarding changing lightbulbs, everybody would be free to concealed carry (or change lightbulbs, whatever floats your boat) in absence of a \"concealed carry law\". Upon introducing such a law, the only way to go is downhill - in other words, if we can concealed carry with no limitations when there is no law, it follows that any \"concealed carry handgun laws\" would result in the opposite of that - restrictions on concealed carry. In light of this reasoning, it is more sensible to label the PRO side as arguing the position that concealed carry laws (which restrict concealed carry) reduce violent crime, and to label the CON side as arguing the position that these laws increase violent crime. Thus, our mutual agreement should result in a CON vote. Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate. Not only did it result in a debate with no clash, but by choosing a resolution that was vague and undefined, my opponent could choose to agree with whichever side I picked. In other words, since the resolution is so vague, had I argued that concealed carry restrictions decrease crime, he could have easily said \"I agree with that! \" This ambiguity is harmful to debate, and is another reason to vote CON. In conclusion, I have established that the vagueness of the resolution and definitions provided (or not provided) by the instigator essentially render fruitful debate impossible. Additionally, if you define \"concealed carry handgun laws\" as I have, for the reasons I provided, our mutual agreement is agreement with the CON side. I therefore urge a CON ballot.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7423832416534424}, {"content": "Title: Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare Content: Gun ownership is not a right. Citizens should be allowed to have guns for hunting, sports and if they feel they really need it, personal protection. But criminals and the mentally challenged should not have guns. We need a better and universal background check system. Owners should be licensed and guns should be registered. Gun owners should be responsible for crimes committed with their weapons. Individual citizens do not need assault weapons and they should be banned for public sale. I would even go as far as making assault weapons illegal as in can be confiscated. As far as healthcare, if you are a US citizen you should be covered for healthcare. How this is best achieved is an open question. My position is a single payer system but I can see where this may be difficult to achieve in America. Obamacare was a good start but needs fixed.", "qid": 30, "docid": "3979a4cc-2019-04-18T11:50:17Z-00009-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.742219865322113}, {"content": "Title: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. Content: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms.", "qid": 30, "docid": "87c1783-2019-04-18T19:06:16Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.742207407951355}, {"content": "Title: Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege. Content: My argument is based simply on the difference between the right to have something, and the right to do something. Now, my opponents primary argument is based on the flawed assumption that, if we own or have paid for something, we have a right to use it as we wish. This is quite clearly flawed, as one can see from a simple examination of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now the traditional interpretation of that amendment is that American citizens are legally allowed to purchase and retain firearms. However, this has not prevented laws from restricting the use of those firearms, when that use is dangerous. I, as an American citizens, am therefore allowed to own a gun, but not to shoot a person with that gun, when not in self-defense. There is thus a clear legal distinction between ownership and use, which comes into play when the use of an object could be dangerous to other citizens. Therefore, at the point where a particular person driving would be a danger to all of those around them, they do not have the right or privilege to drive on public roads, because to do so would be a public danger. Driving on public roads is therefore a privilege, because it is contingent on the exercise of that privilege not being dangerous. The moment it is deemed to be dangerous, that privilege is revoked. Such a thing could not occur if driving was a right. I await your response.", "qid": 30, "docid": "8d7658ef-2019-04-18T19:18:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7420879602432251}, {"content": "Title: A handgun is uniquely valuable in self defense in one's home Content: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled, \"Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as 'functional firearms', by which they mean ones that could be 'readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary' for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.\"[3]", "qid": 30, "docid": "f89bdc44-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00085-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7414453625679016}, {"content": "Title: More gun control Content: Please only make a brief introduction of your position. Just to make things clear on where I stand. I am against new gun control proposals. I believe that the right to own weapons is one of the most Important rights a man can have. Without the right to personal security all other rights are in jeopardy. Please, No foul language.", "qid": 30, "docid": "da0cf2c6-2019-04-18T11:11:18Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7411810755729675}, {"content": "Title: The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed. Content: We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word \"infringed\". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 30, "docid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7407916784286499}, {"content": "Title: Open Topic Content: You haven't been debating for a year on this site... Your profile only says 4 months. Anyways, challenge accepted.The topic will be \"Gun Rights should be restricted\", so Pro has to argue that access to firearms must be reduced, while I argue that firearms remain available for people over the age of 18.I also want to make a few rules, since everyone in the site does so.1) BoP will be shared. Lyksina has to argue that firearms be reduced in availability, and I have to argue that guns should remain accessable to most people.2) No kritiks, semantics, or trolling of any sort.3) Running out of time to post counts as a loss. (There are 48 hours for posting arguments)With that set, let's begin!", "qid": 30, "docid": "e89006b1-2019-04-18T12:50:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7401739358901978}, {"content": "Title: is gun rights fair Content: yes, you are right and thank you. Ok yes, people do have the right to defend themselves. because lots of times it comes down to tht point a citizen protecting himself. I will say this I am a boyscout NRA certified. but does that necessarily give me the right to walk around town with a gun in my pants. I hear they are even thinking about letting guns in school. Look at what happened at Virginia teck. I felt so bad for the kids. he was old enough to have a gun, but what even makes me more sick is his plan on getting the gun. the constitution is right is giving us the right to defend ourselves, but so sad to what happens if we abuse it. now can you please do me a favor and define what gun rights should mean in a reasonable sense.", "qid": 30, "docid": "ee099714-2019-04-18T19:45:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7400540113449097}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not . Content: First; my apologies for my crassness in the comment section. I wasn't expecting a reply. I can't offer a stark, 180 degree standpoint, but I can offer an alternative view. Gun rights are a useful tool to have, and while it should be scrutinized and regulated, it shouldn't be restricted to the common man. The right to self-defence endangers nobody, and most who buy guns understand that they while they do have the right to have them, they don't have the right to use them irresponsibly. Keeping a weapon in your house for home defence (assuming it is properly stored and you know how to use it) is a perfectly valid excuse, especially if you live in high-crime area. People have the right to defend themselves.", "qid": 30, "docid": "73f57b94-2019-04-18T16:59:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7399468421936035}, {"content": "Title: All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights. Content: I will be arguing that all law-abiding citizens should be able to obtain a gun license. Con will be arguing that citizens should not have access to guns unless their job requires it. Burden of proof is shared.", "qid": 30, "docid": "1e59290-2019-04-18T14:16:42Z-00009-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7399300336837769}, {"content": "Title: Citizens ought to possess handguns. Content: First of all, I have a question about the way you worded the resolution. The word \"ought\" means \"to be under a moral obligation to do or be\". So what the resolution says is that citizens are morally obligated to possess handguns. Did you mean it to be like \"Citizens ought to be able to possess handguns\" or was that intended? I was just wondering. As to the debate itself, you make the assumption that just because someone has a gun, they, or someone close to them, will abuse it. Just because someone owns a gun does not necessarily mean that they will be prompted to take greater risks than they otherwise would. There are regulations that are preventative of the harms that you talk about. People who buy firearms are required to have a clean criminal record, as well as take a course in firearm safety. And if someone is bent upon causing another person harm or death, they do not need a gun to do so. There are other ways of hurting or killing people than with a handgun. If we were to apply your reasoning, owning household items such as electrical cord, cooking knives, and baseball bats are morally repugnant because they could be potential weapons. Also, many people who own handguns do so only as a measure of self-defense, in case a situation would arise in which they would need to defend themselves or their family from attack. Is denying them that protection just?", "qid": 30, "docid": "9989f087-2019-04-18T20:02:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7391711473464966}, {"content": "Title: To be against the right to possess a fire arm is to be, unwittingly, against self defense. Content: Brian: Thank you for this great debate. Brian's enumerated abbreviated points and my responses: 1. The right to arms originated in the Assize... 2. the right to arms for defence was drafted\u2026 3. \u2026 it is unlikely, \u2026American citizens need arms to fight an invading army. 4. the only reason a citizen would use a firearm: to kill or maim another civilian... 5. Say, you impregnate a girl and her father\u2026 grabs you by the throat- 6. My opponent maintains the right to bear arms as fundamental\u2026 7. They believe they have a \"fundamental right\" 8. A Brit who wants to carry a gun could go to USA and shoot trespassers. 9. everybody does have the right to self-defence... proportionate to the threat. 10. True, burglars should be punished, but doesn't carry the death penalty...if it did, the judicial system must decide the offender's fate \u2013 not the victim. 11. Carrying guns just escalates violence. 12. I wasn't armed, so I couldn't defend myself but nobody was killed. They might have been if I had a gun. 13. True, these people may have been able to resist Hitler's Troopers, but the Nazi superior power would have meant that they would have been killed in their homes. not in ovens. 14. I have failed to follow \u2018analogy\u2018. 15. \u2026 drinking-driving as well as carrying guns is legal in some countries but are not rights. 16. \u2026 if guns were restricted, shootings would decrease. 17. \u2026in the UK, carrying a gun gets five-years in prison. My responses enumerated by point: 1. This is unrelated to the RTL and the assoc. right to defense. 2. Rights are not drafted (given). Rights are owned. Regardless of govt. you/I would still have a right to life. You confuse the constitution\u2018s 2nd amendment. with the right to defense. The amendment merely documents the right. 3. This is irrelevant to defense and strays from the issue. 4. As I said, a gun is for worst case scenarios. I would have been raped at age 14, had I not had and used a gun. In my 2nd situation merely having a gun was sufficient. Guns, like knives, can be used to maim and kill, but it is not fact, that this is their only use. In discouraging hostile governments. from attacking their armed neighbors and criminals from harming innocent citizens, guns actually save lives. 5. Brian omitted option-4 in his scenario. The father could have killed him. Having a gun does not require its use. His attempt at peaceful solution was good. Brian's problem is that enraged father may reject reason, in which case Brian is dead. 6. Brian is wrong on 2 counts. 1. The basic right is a RTL. 2. The higher rate of gun deaths in the U.S.A. is part of the reason that we, must be armed. 7. I don't advocate violating laws. 8. UK citizens, by law, may not carry arms. Laws are not my issue. The reason for such laws is the issue. I believe that the reason for those laws is protection of criminals. Victims do not benefit from anti self protection laws. Even is the criminal is unarmed, he still has the advantage. He selects the victim, circumstances, and venue, to favor success. So, even without a weapon he will prevail. If we arm ourselves, even those who are unarmed, benefit from others who are. The criminals don't know. 9. This is Brian's most telling response. He recognizes the right to self defense, proportional to the threat. But, we cannot know what kind of threat we must be prepared for. Carrying a snowball may discourage a child from throwing one at you, but a bouquet of flowers will do little to dissuade a thug bent on serious bodily harm. 10. This point shows their belief is that preventing the criminal from harming us, violates the criminal's civil rights. That self defense as a preemption of the law. When I confronted an intruder, who obviously by his own foul rhetoric, was there to rape me. I shot him point blank in his face. He was likely very injured. Should I be ashamed? In the second case I brandished a gun and the intruder fled, when I withdrew my gun from the drawer. In checking the bedrooms, he was probably looking for someone to rape. In both cases they made a conscious decision to enter my house. A conscious decision that the biscuit was worth the risk. 12, My opponent regards options to be negatives. This is Marxian thinking. He can't conceive of having a gun but choosing to not use it. He asserts that only not having a gun, kept him from a shootout. For those of like mind, I advise they not exercise their right arms. 13.This is, perhaps, the most poignant example of my theory. How stupid of the Jews, etc. to RESIST. Perhaps, they'd have died, but it would have been as heros instead of sheep. 14. The point of my analogy is the ridiculous notion that GUN DEATHS are more onerous than other deaths. DEATHS = DEATHS, regardless of cause. 15. Gun ownership is in itself not a FUNDAMENTAL right. The fundamental right is SELF DEFENSE being part of our RIGHT TO LIFE. The gun is a means to exercise that right. 11. & 16. This completely ignores the reality in the U.S.A. The states with the most guns per unit population , have far fewer gun deaths. The cities where guns are outlawed or extremely limited have the highest. 17. It's good that criminals go to jail in the U.K. for arming themselves - illegally. The problem is on the other side of the issue. The victim can be beaten to death in her own home, and the anti-gunners are proud of their civility. This case actually happened: An ex-marine sitting in his wheel chair - absent his legs - was enjoying a nice afternoon, basking in the sun. His home is in Wash. D.C. where gun ownership was virtually unlawful - except for criminals, of course. Three thugs decided to climb the fence and swim in his pool. When the paraplegic marine protested, the thugs decided to beat him. They then shot him and dumped him into the pool. He drowned. His brother, a writer, wrote a column deriding guns. To me this is a strange reaction. The thugs could just as well have killed him without the gun, but if the marine had had a gun the results could well have been different. Of course, the anti-gunners would have wept for the unsuccessful thugs. My final direct question to Brian: In the hypothetical situation where an orphanage, in your charge, is being attacked by crazed pedophiles, would you break open the gun vault to allow the staff to fend off the mob? Just a simple, no spin, yes or no will suffice. The answer to this question will reveal a visceral fear of guns, a bias in favor of the criminal over the victim, or an unrealistic expectation that criminals and other thugs will respond, favorably, to reason. Or, it may just prove my point that \"TO BE AGAINST THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM IS TO BE UNWITTINGLY (OR CONCIOUSLY) AGAINST SELF DEFENSE! Thanks for the stimulating debate, Brian. Looking for the opportunity to do it again.", "qid": 30, "docid": "614dae8b-2019-04-18T19:38:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.738980233669281}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals \"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either \"often\" or \"regularly\" worried that they \"[m]ight get shot at by the victim\"; and 57% agreed with the statement, \"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.\" James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].\" --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. \"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), \"More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.\" That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, \"more than 240,000.\" So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes \"represents a small percentage of those with permits.\" More like \"tiny.\" By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit.\" http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...", "qid": 30, "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00006-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7379088997840881}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights in general Content: We will debating about the idea that civilians should be given to right to have licensed guns. I am pro gun rights as they help in self-defense, arm non-government security officials and help in crises such as revolutions and war. Self-defense Guns can be used for self-defense. Suppose if a robber enters your house and asks for the cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shooting his hand with the weapon while calling the police. On the other hand, without guns it is risky to use sticks and knives, as we are prone to damage ourselves and our attack would be slower and less damaging. Non-government security One example would be plainclothes bodyguards. A high-profile target such as a politician or a journalist could have a normal person become a bodyguard with a licensed gun, and as there will be no records of the bodyguard it will be harder to estimate the strength of the security around the target. Crises One thing about guns is that we can use it for target practice. Suppose if I get a licensed gun and then weekly practice shooting, I would be good at it and can apply for law enforcement agencies or keep it for a difficult time. If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fire back. Or in the situation of all-out war, you would be a better soldier than other ordinary citizens. Even if you are not a good shot, you would at least know how to reload and hold a gun, or know the gun recoil and therefore keep a firm grip.", "qid": 30, "docid": "442c5f72-2019-04-18T13:10:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7373359799385071}, {"content": "Title: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Content: With every right comes it's proper restrictions. People can't always get what they have a right to and sometime they are not due their rights. Therefore, I had to be opposed to: Resolved: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For purposes of sticking to the resolution, I will offer (in contentions) people who \"shall\" have their rights infringed for good reasons. I. Minors We all know minors who can and can't handle \"Arms\", however, in todays society, we can't be giving EXTREMELY dangerous weaponry to people that may not know how to use them. This includes ALL ages including 2, 3, 7, 9, 17, or even 13 year olds. II. Felons What more do I have to say... Why give a dangerous weapon, a serious responsibility, someone who has already PROVEN that they are not capable of handling such responsibilities. Bearing arms isn't a right, it SHOULD be a privilege. A right, is something that you should ALWAYS have. FURTHERMORE, as proposed by the resolution, you have to see that if a felon commits a crime with a gun, then it should obviously be taken away. BUT, the resolution says that the guns are \"to KEEP\"... When such atrocity has been committed, the gun MUST be taken away. III. People on planes, in buildings, and in school. Not only do you have to worry about WHO can have a gun, but more importantly WHERE. People on planes, in buildings, and in school should NOT be allowed guns. If they were, the safety of ALL would be at risk. ================================================================= IV. Not all \"Arms\" are appropriate for the average citizen. Simply put, there could be the most responsible person in the world, and yet, there are \"Arms\" that even THEY should not have. \"Arms\" is defined simply as weapons, so what falls under that category includes normal weaponry such as rifles, shotguns, and pistols. But what ALSO falls under that category includes tanks, machine guns, C4, dynamite, and even types of atomic bombs. The constitution DOES say arms but when you take the rule of law word for word, you must adapt to the proper and safe interpretations of the law. In other words ladies and gentleman, \"Arms\" need to have restrictions toward certain people, and certain places. The law can't take the constitution seriously if it puts the people of America at risk for their good health (and lives)... Because of all of this, I urge a CON vote. Thank You!", "qid": 30, "docid": "7904b371-2019-04-18T19:41:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7371721863746643}, {"content": "Title: No one has the right to own guns except memberes of the police and military Content: \"Protection of self, of one's loved ones, of one's home and community is the root of the American tradition of gun ownership,\" said the NRA in explaining why private citizens should continue to be allowed to own guns. It is true that all of the important things in one's life need to be protected. If we want to continue to defend ourselves then don't adopt the proposition stating that no one has the right to own guns except members of the police and military. I'm representing the negative side in this debate. I will provide you with facts that will prove that the status quo is working for our country, and guns should stay available for private citizens. The reasons that citizens of the United States should keep being able to own guns are, for protection and defense, for hunting and other recreational activities, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, it is in the constitution, and many people work in the gun industry. Our first reason is protection and defense. Private citizens have a constitutional right to live without fear in their own home. Studies show that having a handgun present at home stop many burglaries. In our own state, there was a tragic incident this summer. It happened in Cheshire where three innocent citizens were murdered. It is not guaranteed that if there was a handgun at this household that this wouldn't have happened. But, if there was, these people may have had another chance. Also, a recent poll showed that 71% of adults who own handguns only own them for protection. That's almost \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd of gun owners who only keep a gun at their house for protection and self-defense. United States citizens living in urban areas of our country need handguns badly. As it is, 82% of American adults believe crime is a serious problem. According to the NRA, privately owned firearms are used to stop crime attack between 2 and 2.5 million times every year. In the majority of these cases, no shot is fired. The Journal of the Medicine Association of Georgia says that as many as 75 lives are protected for every life lost by a gun. Protection and self defense are just one of the many reasons why it should remain legal for private citizens to own guns. Our second reason is for hunting and other recreational purposes. Hunting has and will continue to be an American culture. Most people consider hunting and target shooting a sport. If guns were banned then it wouldn't be fair to the many United States citizens who participate in these activities. Hunting has been an American tradition since around the time of the Ice Age. Hunting was how the Native Americans survived. It is estimated that about 30,113,994 people in our country hunt. Taking away guns would not only take away sport but American tradition. Our third reason is that banning guns wouldn't stop crime and violence. If guns were banned, it would be hard for the government to enforce that everyone gets rid of their gun. Therefore, criminals would still have hidden guns. Also, someone who is willing to commit a crime won't follow any new laws. If guns were banned, then murderers and criminals would use the next most convenient weapon. Instead of guns, knives, axes, clubs or other weapons would be used. Also, new weapons may be created. As you can see, if guns were to be banned, crime and murder rates wouldn't necessarily decrease. Our fourth reason is that we have a Constitutional right to own guns. Our founding fathers decided on ten important amendments, and the second amendment has to do with owning guns. The second amendment says, \"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" This clearly states that private citizens living in our country have a right to bear arms. The constitution has been around since 1789. If these laws have been working for around 218 years then they are good laws for our country. This is another reason why guns should not be banned. Our fifth and final reason is many people work in the gun industry. As it is tons of Americans have been losing their jobs over the last several years. If guns were banned than all the people who's work has to do with guns would immediately lose their jobs. Our country cannot afford for more jobs to be lost this way. This is one more reason of why guns should not be banned. In conclusion, we believe that the status quo is working for our country and guns shouldn't be banned. Our reasons for keeping guns available for private citizens are, for protection and self-defense, for recreational activities and hunting, guns being banned wouldn't stop crime and violence, this right is in the Constitution, and many citizens work in the gun industry. As you can see by the information above, guns should not be banned from private citizens. We will sum all of this information up with a true, significant quote we have all heard a few times in our life, \"Guns don't kill people; people kill people.\"", "qid": 30, "docid": "95dbed37-2019-04-18T19:47:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.736619234085083}, {"content": "Title: Our gun rights Content: Thanks! This is my first debate on this site, so I'm happy to receive some positive feedback. I think it's relatively easy to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals while still allowing responsible gun ownership. The biggest problem in the USA with regard to guns themselves is ease of access: it's ridiculously easy to get a license and purchase a firearm. Background checks do not unnecessarily infringe upon a citizen's right to privacy, and should be universal. A federal gun registry and mandatory inventories would also go a long way with relatively little impact on law-abiding gun owners and dealers. One of the biggest difficulties law enforcement have in the US is their inability to find out where a weapon came from, and thereby locate - and shut down - points of criminal access to firearms. However, I would argue that it's not just criminal access to firearms that's the problem, its the general proliferation of, and cavalier attitude toward, guns. Several people are injured or killed each year by young children who somehow gained access to their parents' weapons. In addition, both citizens and law enforcement are too quick to resort to firearms. The US has staggeringly high rates of deadly use of force by police and by citizens in self-defense (not to mention \"self-defense\" cases such as Trayvon Martin's case), and yet this hasn't made society any safer - quiet the opposite. A societal shift in attitude is required. Violence should be the last resort, but that's not the way it's treated. I could discuss the 2nd amendment for hours (wasn't it originally designed to help prevent the escape of delinquent and freed slaves?), but I won't because I know very little about the American constitution. What I would ask you is this: why are Americans (generally) so touchy about the 2nd amendment in particular? Nobody really seems to mind the violent crackdown on free speech (as long as they disagree with the views of those being cracked down upon), and there hasn't been much of a fuss about the erosion of rights to privacy, habeas corpus, and right to political and religious freedom in response to the terror \"threat.\" The US still can't seem to figure out what it thinks about universal human rights (especially with regard to gender, sexuality, race, and religion), and continues trying to reverse the legal precedent that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life. Basically what saying is that there seems to be an undue obsession with the right to bear arms, far disproportionate to other rights, even those which are generally considered more important, such as the right to freedom of speech, thought, and association or the right to a trial. The US government awards itself the legal ability to murder American citizens at will without trial or oversight and nobody makes a peep, but as soon as you mention gun control everybody loses their minds. What do you think about that discrepancy?", "qid": 30, "docid": "39343b19-2019-04-18T17:05:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7365638613700867}, {"content": "Title: This House believes in the right to bear arms Content: My opponent has stated he is making \"the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms.\" I as Con fully intend to refute this claim that \"the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms.\"DEFINITIONS:RIGHT:\"legal entitlement to have or do something[1]\"ARMS:\"Weapons and ammunition; armaments[2]\"[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...PREMISES:(A)Legally Americans don't have the right to bear arms in the sense that most people think of. The \"right to bear arms\" related to strictly militias. I will explain why thoroughly below.ARGUMENTS:(1)The origins of the \"right to bear arms\" is based on the lack of a military industrial complex. Often in modern America, we forget that the idea of a professional military in the United States is little over a century old. Traditionally in the United States, the federal government drafted citizens when the United States needed to fight a war[2]. It wasn't until the periods of after World War I that the idea of maintaining a professional military was thought. The period after World War II, the Cold War, cemented the idea of the United States maintaining a professional military. [2]http://www.history.com...Previously, before World War I, states had their own irregular militias which would be called on for service by the federal government first before a draft was initiated. These militias would eventually be what we term in today's time, the National Guard. But in the early days of the United States and during the period when the British governed the colonies, the militias were of great value for the defense of towns. Some states when so far as to require the citizenry to carry firearms. An example of this would be in Maryland how every able man under law was required to carry a gun on his person[4]. The law existed because there was no professional military or large National Guard existent at the time. Citizens were organized themselves into militias to defend their towns. They did not wear uniforms in most cases and were not trained that well at all. [4]http://www.neverbluefarm.com...These militias would be the base of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the base of the army during the War of 1812. This is why the Continental Army lost majority of the battles during the American Revolution because these militias were intended for a limited defense of a town not a prolonged war. The \"right to bear arms\" specifically is related to these poorly equipped and poorly trained militias. This is very clear by what the second amendment states: \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[5]\"[5]http://constitutionus.com...(2) I have no intention of arguing for gun control or anything similar stating guns aren't safe or Americans shouldn't be wielding firearms. I am here to argue that the idea that Americans have the \"right to bear arms\" for private use is not true and certainly is not a right. The \"right to bear arms\" related to the public usage of firearms in order to defend the United States via militias which were irregular and unprofessional military forces. This can easily be seen in English Common Law:\"The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace[4]\"Knowing that the \"right to bear arms\" related to militias and the public usage of firearms, this refutes the claim that the \"right to bear arms\" applies to most Americans because they are not part of an irregular military force such as a militia.", "qid": 30, "docid": "6e496c1b-2019-04-18T15:33:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7362949848175049}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: The instigator is insisting that discussing definitions amounts to semantics, when defining terms is so core to debate that it is the first of the timeless Socratic questions. [1]He continues to assert that it was clear what he was arguing, while providing no support for his definition of \"concealed carry handgun laws\" and dropping all my analysis. Please flow over my logic, in particular the following:\"Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed.\"I urge you to vote for concealed carry and vote CON.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;", "qid": 30, "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7362146973609924}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights Content: My assertions regarding this topic are as follows: - US citizens have the right to bear arms - This right should be defended and even extended - The right to bear arms is a beneficial policy Both pro and con have equal burden of proof, each having to prove the others standpoint wrong. First, the citizens have the right to posses and utilize firearms in protection of themselves and other citizens. This is not so much an argument as it is a preliminary statement. Our constitution grants us this as a right to defend ourselves. Until such a time as this amendment is revised or revoked, the right to a firearm for personal use is granted. Thus I do not understand my opponent's contention about 'What is a right?'. Second, this right should be defended and even extended within governmental and legislative policies. Current policies of government restrict the above rights beyond what is constitutional and beyond what is logical. Many will argue, \"At the time that they wrote that amendment, they didn't have automatic weapons.\" At the time of the formation of our nation, most gun owning Americans had either the Brown Bess, or the Kentucky Long Rifle. The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day. The founding fathers knew what they were saying when they gave freedom to bear arms to their citizens. As threats to ourselves and our nation increase, the tools we have to defend ourselves also should increase. Lastly, the right to bear arms has proven to be a beneficial policy. I point to my evidence provided in the first round, cited by sources provided in the first round. (Located in the comments. My bad.) I am not sure what my opponent was trying to point out with his reference to a nuclear warhead, and I think it would be beneficial for him to elaborate on that point. I now invite my opponent to attempt to prove any of my points wrong.", "qid": 30, "docid": "69133b4f-2019-04-18T15:11:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7355557680130005}, {"content": "Title: U,S citizens should be allowed to carry weopons freely. Content: I will first go to my own case and then to my opponent's case. Contention 1: Carrying weapons freely is already legal in the U.S. 1st of all, I will state that \"U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns\" because it is a protected right in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. \"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.\" Thus, U.S. citizens are already allowed to carry weapons freely. Rebuttal: \"because if U.S citizens are allowed to carry guns, it would threaten the lives of other neighborhoods, too\" Um, any examples or sources? U.S. citizens are allowed to carry guns now and at least 34th in intentional homicide rate by country per 100,000 people. Thus, the U.S.A. has already proven that carrying guns in not as threatening as thought. \"For example, this year, a man from Korea (oh, why my country?!) had too much stress that he even decided to kill people. As a result, he went to Texas, bought a gun, and just went shooting everyone he saw. \" Sources? I don't know when or if this happened but just because someone has stress doesn't mean they will shoot someone. Many people have lots of stress and they are not inclined to shoot everyone. This is an extreme case of being over-stressed while having guns. \" What I'm trying to say is, people around you can kill you any minute.\" No, they can't. We have so much security these days that there are very few guns besides in the few crime-popular cities such as Lose Angeles, Oakland, etc. Thus, guns should remain legal. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 30, "docid": "6f4a304e-2019-04-18T18:17:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7352925539016724}, {"content": "Title: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Content: You misunderstand me, my fault for not being specific in round one. I am only talking about every US citizen having the rights to OWN guns not to rob banks with them or even use them in anything else than self defense. the topic says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. not what you have described as reasons for the law not to be carried out fully. George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress. I defend the statement of all citizens having the right to bear arms cause its intended purpose is to use the guns in self defense at a time of civil conflict. Just cause you have the right to have access to a gun doesn't mean its legal for you to use it for anything other than self defense. As for children owning guns parents have custody of their children and make decisions for them their fore nothing that belongs to a CHILD is actually theirs.", "qid": 30, "docid": "7904b371-2019-04-18T19:41:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.735266923904419}, {"content": "Title: Gun Rights Content: Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate! Nicolo Machiavelli once said that there were five reasons why it was absolutely essential for individuals to enjoy a right to keep and bear arms: to protect one's self, to keep rulers honest, to hunt, to defend the state against foreign invasion and to maintain one's republican character (lol). After all, how could any liberty be more vital than the second amendment? It makes every other civil liberty Americans enjoy possible. If not for a citizens' right to keep and bear arms, they would be at the mercy of their own government with their rights existing only at their government's pleasure [1]. I'll begin my rebuttal by responding to my opponent's claim that only cops, convenient store owners and those who carry large amounts of money should be able to own guns. While it's clear that a legitimate argument can be made for why cops are allowed to own guns - why convenient store owners in particular? Why not bookshop keepers or grocery store owners or Taco Bell? Convenient stores (which typically do not deal with large sums of money) are just one type of many stores; many stores deal with even larger sums of money on a daily basis - such as Macy's. Further, what constitutes a \"large amount\" of money? And what if a 17 year old had this large amount - would they be eligible to carry a gun? These standards to me seem far too loose and non-specific. I don't see the relevance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard in terms of responsibility and trust. For instance, it would appear that Con's advocacy for money-handlers to be allowed guns is so that they can make sure nobody steals from them. However, doesn't that just give them the power to steal from another who is not allowed to protect themselves? And then of course there's the question about tyranny of government. If ONLY the cops (or other government groups) are allowed to own guns, then isn't that not only a violation of our second amendment rights, but also just a straight up forfeiture of protection? After all, the government is nothing but a group of powerful (mortal, fallible) individuals. People have the right to protect themselves. Our right to own guns should not be stifled by people who have proven too irresponsible to hold that right. Instead, their rights should simply be revoked and they should be punished as individuals for any trouble they've caused. People care to own guns for a variety of reasons. Because those reasons aren't meant to intentionally harm others, we shouldn't expect that one's intention in owning guns is to commit a crime. Not only do guns not cause crime, but they help stop it. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck, handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. The point is that in this world there are people who can be identified as \"prey.\" As the old saying goes, \"God didn't make all people equal \u2014 Mr. Colt did.\" A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that \"A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.\" Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [2]. Now, obviously my opponent realizes that law enforcement and the military need to have weapons. In that case, I think it's perfectly reasonable that citizens should be able to arm themselves with the same protection (as I said, to ensure that American freedom is protected). If you think that this is an unreasonable protection, we only have to look to American history to see why this concern is relevant. In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act that made it illegal for citizens to speak out against the national government. During World War II, Japanese Americans - citizens and resident aliens alike - were stripped of their property and herded into concentration camps without cause or trial. Perhaps American freedom isn't as safe as we all thought [1]. So, that brings us back to Pro's proposal for gun control. He submits that only those handling money, convenient store owners and cops should be allowed guns. Well not only do people reserve the right to have a gun for reasons other then these, but gun shop owners, gun makers, gun collectors and the like all have the right to have their products bought and sold. This economy works on the basis of supply and demand. If people didn't supply these guns legally with current gun laws as they stand (the federal government requires gun store owners to perform background checks on all consumers wishing to purchase firearms already), then individuals would just buy these guns illegally on the black market. This would create a huge illegal market and expand the influence of corrupt organizations like the mafia and street gangs which would sell these firearms illegally. Further, it kind of eliminates the purpose of a gun (safety and protection) to keep the limited from the people who need them or feel safer with them (since, as I've said, they've been proven to deter crime). People should be responsible and held accountable for how they utilize their right to bear arms. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent for now. Good luck! [1] http://media.www.thebatt.com... [2] http://www.mcrgo.org...", "qid": 30, "docid": "f7b00f4-2019-04-18T19:05:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7346800565719604}, {"content": "Title: Lawful concealed carry is a good thing Content: I accept the challenge, concealed carry is detrimental to the public,I will state my argument after yours", "qid": 30, "docid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7343466877937317}, {"content": "Title: The Right To Bare Arms Content: Alright, good argument but let me straigten this out. You say we have a professional army, well they are under the government control, if they government turns bad then they will too. So, we as citizens should have the right to bare arms if that happens. Second thing is that I am a student in a high school, and pretty much a lot of students agree with me, I would feel safer if a trained and certified teacher was armed. Anyone can walk into the school and start shooting at free will. If a teacher had a weapon, then we would have a chance to fight back. Question is, would you rob, rap or try to kill someone when you know that they have a weapon? My family has a gun in a safe area in each room that you need a password to open. That is what everyone should do so it won't get stolen. So, to close, I believe that there should be tighter security background checks, people should have a sure secure area to put your gun in, and protect yourself.", "qid": 30, "docid": "54c02311-2019-04-18T19:56:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7341530323028564}, {"content": "Title: Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S. Content: The status quo is that in every state guns are now legal for home defense, and the Supreme Court has upheld the right of using guns for self-defense of the home. I will argue that the legality should be maintained. My opponent will argue that the Constitution should be changed, if required, and laws passed to prohibit the use of guns for self-defense in the home. I will argue that the use of firearms should be subject to reasonable background checks and training requirements, but that generally people who want a gun for the purpose should be able to legally own one. Currently about 42% of U.S. homes have guns. [1. \"Gun Control Facts.\" By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 2/11/13. http://justfacts.com...]I'm looking forward to a good debate on the subject.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5f5df93c-2019-04-18T17:17:11Z-00007-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7333934307098389}, {"content": "Title: Loose Gun Control Content: Thanks for introducing ths debate. Good luck. However, my opponent has not given any resolution whatsoever. I will assume we will just debate whether or not the average person should be allowed to own a gun. I'll have one very short point for this round. First however, I'll go over his arguments. His points had no real structure or fomatting, so I'll just pick them out as I seem them. 1. If everyone had a gun it would reduce crime a. Warrant please? b. When 68% of murders are committed with a gun (1), allowing more people to have them is just adding fuel to the fire. If we want to reduce this type of death, the answer is to have less guns, not more. 2. If two people (supposedly in a conflict) both have guns, neither has control. Control is meaningless. If person 1 is intending to harm person 2, knowing person 2 has a gun, there will be no face-to-face confrontation where \"control\" would be necessary. Person 1 will make sure he attacks from behind, ensuring that person 2 does not have a chance to retaliate with his own gun. 3. Criminal wont break into a house where the owner has a gun. No, he probably wont. What you dont realize though is that he probably wont break in if the owner doesn't have a gun either. He likely waits for the owner to leave, then makes his move. 4. Most guns are unregistered No sources behind this. But more importantly, no impact whatsoever. Why does this matter? He never tells us. 5. Right to bear arms a. The right to bear arms is about source 2, contrary to what you may believe. b. Even if you dont buy that (though I dont see how you couldn't), we only limit the right to bear arms, we dont eliminate it. We only require a permit for ownership. Thats the main reason that most gun control laws haven't been overturned on grounds of your argument. My argument 1. Guns worsen self defense As previously shown, if one is looking to harm you, knowing you have a gun, they're more likely to refrain from direct combat and instead attack from behind. This gives you a lesser chance of defending yourselfas you are now defending from a surprise attack rather than a frontal one. Furthermore, if the attacker himself has a gun, you're screwed whether you have one or not, as all he has to do is get the first shot off and you're too blinded by pain to respond. I've purposely kept this short, but I'll expand if my opponent has a decent response. I urge a con vote, thank you. 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://coto2.files.wordpress.com...", "qid": 30, "docid": "aadda99b-2019-04-18T18:52:53Z-00008-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7328571677207947}, {"content": "Title: Replace the second amendment with universal healthcare Content: I don't agree that gun ownership is a right, granted by the government or inherent. It is a privilege with responsibilities like driving a car. Those who are unfit don't have a license, we are expected to carry insurance and are responsible not to drive drunk or pay for any accidents we cause. I am suggesting only the fit be allowed to own a weapon and they must keep that weapon secure so it's not used in a crime. Where do you stand on assault weapons? I'm not suggesting the government has the right to control healthcare. Perhaps the answer is let the market provide healthcare like Obamacare. I believe we as citizens have the right to expect to be cared for when we need it. Every citizen should be covered, guaranteed. I don't know how that happens.", "qid": 30, "docid": "3979a4cc-2019-04-18T11:50:17Z-00007-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7325177788734436}, {"content": "Title: Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime Content: \"This is clear semantics. It is clear what I meant by conceal carry, other sensible people agree. [1] My opponent says I failed to define, but as a rule states no semantics with definitions, therefore he breaks the terms of the debate. He automatically FF's, and any voter can see this. \"Au contraire, definitions =/= semantics. Definitions are the framework for this debate, and essentially are what this debate has boiled down to. Furthermore, he says that \"other sensible people agree\", however, it appears that there are only 2 of these other people. This is not a significant number or a compelling reason to vote PRO. \"Also, as stated, it was easily clear to what I was arguing with the resolution and the side I took (PRO), so my opponent seems to be just derailing a perfectly good debate. \"And as stated, it was not clear at all. There are good laws and bad laws, restrictive laws and freeing laws. When he says \"concealed carry handgun laws\" he leaves it up in the air to decide what laws he is talking about, and what they do. \"As paradigm lost said:\"Point out that he [my opponent] is playing a game of semantics and thus is derailing a perfectly good debate. Sensible voters will be able to see what the resolution is and how it's argued. \"\"Again, just because there is another DDO user who agrees with the instigator, doesn't mean that \"any voter would vote pro. \"On the Definition:Throughout, my opponent has not defined \"concealed carry handgun laws\". I provided a reasonable definition in the 1st round, which he rejected out of hand, labeling it as \"semantics\". He has dropped my logic and analysis that which demonstrates that any law pertaining to concealed carry must either (a) do nothing, or (b) impose restrictions on concealed carry. Since I am CON, I am against concealed carry laws, and without concealed carry laws, it is obvious that anybody can concealed carry. This equals more guns and less violence, as my opponent agreed. In close, my opponent has accused me of derailing this debate, but he has in reality derailed it from the beginning by picking a resolution that is highly amiguous. He has then proceeded to drop my reasonable definition without proposing an alternative.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7323872447013855}, {"content": "Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc. Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms. I will debate the validity of having the RIGHT to own a gun. In my position as con, I will argue that people have the PRIVILEGE to own a gun :) Ok? Good, so to begin we must decide what a right and what a privilege is: Right: something guranteed that you do not have to deserve Privilege: something granted that you have to deserve I agree, the ability to own a gun is good. But it is also bad. 1.) You must get a license to own a gun, therefore, a gun is a privilege not right 2.) Those who want to commit crimes should not have the right to own a gun. If the right to bear arms was in fact a privilege to bear arms, then less people would be able to grab a gun and shoot someone.", "qid": 30, "docid": "5d889dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7322160005569458}, {"content": "Title: There is a correlation between the laxity of a country\u2019s gun laws and its suicide rate \u2013 not because... Content: \u201cA well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\u201d \u2013 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use. Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.", "qid": 30, "docid": "a6235621-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00018-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7320225238800049}, {"content": "Title: Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms. Content: The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that \"bearing\" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.", "qid": 30, "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7318732738494873}, {"content": "Title: Gun Control is wrong and the government shouldn't infringe on the Second Amendment Content: I would like to accept. First, allow me to help clarify the terms. 1. \"Gun control\" shall be defined as a limit posed by the government that restricts a citizen's rights to own firearms. 2. The resolution can be rephrased as \"the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed\".BoP should be shared.I will be arguing for \"The right of the people to bear arms should be limited.\"My main arguments:I. It is inherently dangerous for society to freely possess weaponry.II. Self defense is not a legitimate excuse to freely own all firearms.III. The NRA is not closer to the \"solution\" of ending all dangerous shootings than everyone else.IV. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not meant to deal with the weaponry today. Therefore the right to bear arms should be limited.Thanks.", "qid": 30, "docid": "a4cc71c7-2019-04-18T17:30:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7316692471504211}, {"content": "Title: gun rights should NOT be taken away. Content: Here is what you said \"but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes.\" -You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun only those over the age of __ no more handguns to those without a military license some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves \"If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license.\" First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point. Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed. \"If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime.\" This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime", "qid": 30, "docid": "5d889dc3-2019-04-18T19:57:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7314449548721313}, {"content": "Title: Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S Content: Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.", "qid": 30, "docid": "fc158b5c-2019-04-18T17:22:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7312978506088257}, {"content": "Title: I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind Content: I believe in concealed carry self-defense, And the right to protect against a tyrannical government with firearms. If you have a convincing argument, Try to change my mind. If you are not going to finish rounds and forfeit, Please do not accept this debate. Hope this is a good one!", "qid": 30, "docid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00009-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7312861680984497}, {"content": "Title: Gun rights Content: My opponent seems to have misunderstood my concern. To have legitimate clash at this point will be difficult, which makes the unfortunately brief nature of this debate regrettable. -My opponent asserts that US citizens have the right to bear arms. Right does not imply legal allowance, right implies fundamental condition for just existence. For instance, a human has the right to freedom, regardless of whether or not the government under which he falls enslaves him. So, we face a conflict: does my opponent claim that only US citizens have the right to bear arms? This seems jingoistic and discriminatory. I believe my opponent wishes to assert that gun ownership is a fundamental right of the species (or that Americans are somehow apart from the rest of the globe). -This point is virtually null and void when we shift our gaze to a proper understanding of what a \"right\" actually is. I further contend that to say \"The Brown Bess was the AK-47 of the day, and the Long Rifle the M16 of the day\" is a baseless and improvable assertion. Should we evaluate current policy regarding electricity expenditure in lighting by comparing it to the candle? Also, the assertion that \"threats to ourselves...increase\". What threats? What do these threats justify? How far does this argument extend? My opponent's ambiguity fails to address any real matter upon which we may partake in concrete debate. -I address my contention with social preservation in my initial questions, which remain overlooked. (The nuclear warhead was an extreme example [intentional slippery slope] that demands clarification for the extend and necessary cut off point of proposed defense legality). Remaining questions: Why is firearm ownership a right? Why is social preservation ideal? Is social preservation objectively upheld by firearms, and to what extent? How can firearm restrictions be lifted when a direct consequence of this action will necessarily mean the loss of some innocent life? Thank you.", "qid": 30, "docid": "69133b4f-2019-04-18T15:11:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7312542200088501}, {"content": "Title: Citizens should be allowed to own guns. Content: \"Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms. \" The instigator has the burden of proof. You are making the claim that \"Citizens should be allowed to own guns. \" Using this logic, I can claim that I am petting my pet Pikachu, and ask you to disprove it. As you are making the claim, you must make the argument as to why we SHOULD have the right to bear arms. Thank you.", "qid": 30, "docid": "87c1783-2019-04-18T19:06:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7310559749603271}, {"content": "Title: Loosen gun control Content: Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on. The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.", "qid": 30, "docid": "4b3ceaeb-2019-04-18T19:55:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7309354543685913}, {"content": "Title: We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms Content: Thanks for setting up the debate. I personally disagree with the statement that Americans should have the right to bear firearms from the experience of living in Australia and witnessing the success of Australia\"s Gun laws in creating a better and less violent society. My argument will be that by violating US Citizen\"s 2nd Amendment rights by enacting laws to reduce accessibility to guns, will create a safer society through reducing the incidence of mass shootings. I believe the gun rights issue is one of public safety and that the evolution of firearms technology renders the 2nd amendment anachronistic.", "qid": 30, "docid": "1295c15f-2019-04-18T13:59:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7305628061294556}, {"content": "Title: Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime Content: I would like to point out before I begin that it is the burden of the PRO to prove that ALL 50 fifty states should be allowed to carry a firearm and that by doing this, crime will effectively be reduce. Because my opponent has not provided any definitions for his or her debate it is safe to assume that the definitions I post in ROUND 1 will thereafter will referred to as the definitions of the debate. Definitions: 50 states: Implied by the PRO to be the United States of America. Right to carry a firearm: Commonly referred to as each individual allowed the right to carry or house a firearm. Firearm: A small arms weapon, such as a pistol or rifle. Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. I would like to begin by refuting my opponents case. (1)I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U. S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. First off, this does not support the resolution in any way. There is no evidence backing up his position. However, this is just a brief roadmap of my opponents contention. I will point out that U. S. citizens could easily receive guns. Once the gun is bought, there is no concrete way of tracking the gun. Making it easy for lets say, a person above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes, to purchase firearms and supply other people. I will save my arguement about decreasing crime rate for later. (2)\"I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities. \" The fact of the matter is, a knowledgable thirteen-year-old can find his or her parent's firearm and easily turn off the safety mechanism and inflict damage upon themself or others. As seen in the Columbia School Shooting, it is already too easy for children to get guns if they wanted. Now with every household in the 50 states carrying a firearm, as my opponent is advocating, it will be even easier. Because my opponent has provided a small paragraph of information I will stop here. It is key to remember that my opponent must effectively support the claim that ALL 50 states be allowed to carry firearms because it reduces crime. I have not posted any sources yet, as I am allowing my opponent to first and because I am running out of personal time for this. Thank you for this debate.", "qid": 30, "docid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7300731539726257}, {"content": "Title: gun control Content: Alright you have the right to bear arms yes. But there is no reason why we need access to every weapon available. Should we be allowed to own a shotgun yes, a pistol yes, a rifle, yes even a sniper sure, but why do you need a .50 caliber sniper rifle that marines use or why do you need ak-47s or ar-15s. You don't go hunting with those guns. Those guns are designed to kill people. And for the purpose of protection based on your states open carry laws or concealed weapon laws a pistol does the job as well. As for when your at home a shotgun will do just fine. I'm ok with gun control in the fact of not needing every weapon. Would you like a nuclear weapon as well. how about c4 is it ok if I can go down the street and buy c4. We need stricter laws on guns but not total control. We need to put in place harder background checks, mental health issues, age, and morality. Guns don't kill people kill and that is the problem. We can't trust people.", "qid": 30, "docid": "7439cac8-2019-04-18T16:34:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.729695200920105}, {"content": "Title: Gun control Content: I personally believe that every person within the US has enough responsibility to own a gun and to not abuse this privilege. Without these weapons, many people would feel insecure within their homes. Additionally, if we were to take guns away from our citizens, the use of illegal, and unregistered guns would drastically increase. Therefore allowing our citizens to own guns is immensely important.", "qid": 30, "docid": "e0ccc98c-2019-04-18T20:04:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7294716238975525}, {"content": "Title: mass murder weopons should be banned by statute Content: \"the constitutiaonality is not clear of this issue... so i'm not going to debate it. for various interpretations by const scholars, which shows the variability,\" The way I see it, it says \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\". The right of the people to bear arms. Nowhere do I read \"The right of the people to bear arms that are not fully automatic\", so I think this includes the right to bear fully automatic arms, with the proper permit required. \"if it's not a ocnstituaoinal right, then taking ak's machine guns etc isn't being unconstitutional, and that argument doesn't matter. besides, instead of tehnical legal arguments policy argments are better so the const argument is weak either way you cut it. \" I just explained myself above. However, I would like to point out that this was very hard for me to understand because of grammar/spelling errors. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but rather as a pointer. \"you never respondedto the idea that AKs etc don't save people in defense.\" What is there to respond to? Your right. If someone draws an AK47 on you, and you were stupid enough not to see it before they pulled it out, then there is really nothing you can do even if you have one too. Why, though, is an AK47 any different then a handgun? If someone draws a handgun on you, even if you do have an AK47 or the like, you are in trouble. Just because the AK47 shoots faster does not mean it is better for killing people, as I said in my last argument. If you wear an AK47 on your back everywhere you go, and someone in some dark alley puts a pistol to your head, your the one in trouble. Even if that pistol is only 22 caliber, you are still the one in danger. If you move to pull your gun out, you will find a bullet through your head very shortly. The only place an AK47 would be more affective then a handgun, then, is in a crowded place. How, though, would you hide an AK47 with hundreds of people around you? IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. You would never get a gun that size far enough into a public place to do any damage, because you would have the cops on you before you came anywhere close to a crowded place. \"it's simply common sense that if someone has an AK instead of a pistol, they'll do more damage. so your main point is baseless. even if there's many people dead when a pistol is used, as you said, that only means more would be dead with a machine gun etc.\" Do more damage to your corpse, maybe. A tank will kill you no deader (if you will) then a hand gun will, it is simply a matter of how quickly you die, and how messy you are after you are dead. If the first bullet is placed well, you will die. One bullet is all you need, and a murderer will generally try to make the least amount noise while doing something like murder. You say there would be more people dead when a machine gun is used? Your right. Good luck getting it into a place where there is more then five people. Someone is going to see that you are carrying a gun that size, and someone is bound to get concerned and call the cops. \"so... i agree guns don't kill people but people do... that doesn't mean we should allow machineguns etc. the reason we shouldn't.... is because people kill people. i never said that guns do, you put that in my mouth. an AK makes it much more potent, and spreads it.\" I was not putting that in your mouth, I was simply making a point. I was saying that guns don't kill people, and in reality no gun will kill you deader (if you will... sorry, it's getting old, but I don't know how else to word it...) then another, so AK47's should not be outlawed. If it is killing lots of people quickly that counts, then I think we should outlaw cars, because they can kill a lot of people in short order too. While we're at it, we should probably outlaw skyscrapers and planes too, I mean, look what they did to us on 9/11? If that wasn't mass murder, I don't know what is. Your argument that they kill people faster and in bigger quantities is no good then, and that pretty much makes YOUR whole argument baseless. Thanks, Renzzy", "qid": 30, "docid": "42e462f6-2019-04-18T19:52:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7293582558631897}, {"content": "Title: Open carry is an opportunity to express individual rights. Content: Expressing one's rights openly to the public is an uplifting experience for a citizen. Carrying a gun openly is a valuable opportunity for law-abiding citizens to express their right to carry a weapon, connect more viscerally with their broader rights and the laws that enshrine them, and inform others of those rights.", "qid": 30, "docid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00052-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7292713522911072}]}
{"query": "Is obesity a disease?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease Content: Resolution: \"Obesity [1] is a disease [2].\"I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative\u2014and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the \"Pro\" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 31, "docid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8597512245178223}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a \"disease\" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.824536919593811}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7925931215286255}, {"content": "Title: Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity Content: YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!", "qid": 31, "docid": "636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7860074639320374}, {"content": "Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it", "qid": 31, "docid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.775389552116394}, {"content": "Title: TTHW prohibit the sale of children\u2019s toys as part of fast food meals Content: Obesity is a public health issue .", "qid": 31, "docid": "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7746784687042236}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7676135897636414}, {"content": "Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: Obesity is a subject I have spend copious time researching.My stance My position is that both morbid obesity and obesity are complex biological subjects that have many causes. Fat-shaming is both cruel and counterproductive. Say no to fat shaming.", "qid": 31, "docid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00008-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7557432651519775}, {"content": "Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: Outline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer \"Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder\"Diabetes \"Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers.\" [2]Heart disease \"Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart.\" [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence \"CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity.\" [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber \"It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake\" [5] Sleep \"Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals.\" [6]. Exercise \" Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%).\" [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7489317059516907}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent con states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.\"He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat\" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7466834783554077}, {"content": "Title: Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating Content: Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.", "qid": 31, "docid": "9f203748-2019-04-19T12:46:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7460634112358093}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: I do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)", "qid": 31, "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7429487705230713}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today. Content: Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "qid": 31, "docid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7386581897735596}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: Okay so firstly, I don't know what the definition is for disease, and more importantly, it is not relevant. What matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time). Nor does it even creep up on them like things such as cancer or strokes may do. By this I mean people are aware that they are overweight and it happens gradually. So you seem to be implying that fat people have no choice in their condition, this is frankly wrong. So although the American Medical association define it as a disease, that does not change the fact that it is self inflicted. So your point, though theoretically true, has no relevance to this discussion. People get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people. Also, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem. You say only 8% of women have the 'perfect' shape. You need to tell me why this is relevant for me to respond to it. But I assume you are meaning that only 8% of women aren't fat and so magazines not showing fat people will make everyone depressed. 1. 92% of women are not 'fat'. I am not saying only have the 'top' 8%, I am saying don't glamorize fatness. Also, the reason why only 8% of women have this 'perfect' shape, and so many people are 'chubby' or 'plump', is not because of some natural phenomenon indicating that 50% of women (or whatever) are classed as overweight - it is because of bad practice in the culture. Again it is 'self' inflicted. Not what people typically consider a disease. You say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying... I have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone. But these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. Heroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem. And before you say I cannot compare the two, I can. Being overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana. Also you may argue that these things are also shunned because of the lifestyle they typically associate with - but marijuana at least is smoked in many cultures without problems, I have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour. It always requires laziness or greed or ignorance. (not to mention mental weaknesses and problems). You continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition. No, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.", "qid": 31, "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7376692295074463}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not \"choose\" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7355481386184692}, {"content": "Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: My opponent starts with the premise that obesity is a bad thing. Yes certain things like diabetes and cardio vascular diseases come due to obesity, but my opponent makes the assumption that such thing is bad because people are opposed to the idea. Now my opponent has no grounds to say that this is the case, there are people who are for, against, and impartial to obesity. Therefore this obesity issue is subjective, and if my opponent is arguing that we should ban things that promote such subjective things, then my opponent would be proposing to ban all other subjective promoting things. Now there is a weight \"problem\" in the U.S. in general, not just obesity, but anorexia. Therefore for people with anorexia the may be a good thing. Also junk food promotes variety since it adds a different category of food to whole bunch of foods.", "qid": 31, "docid": "cb509540-2019-04-18T13:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7354288101196289}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated \"Cancer is a disease\". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00000-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7341920137405396}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: Since Pro has done so I will now submit my case as Con. Fact one: Obesity is a disease. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... \u201cObesity has been officially recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, an action that could put more emphasis on the health condition by doctors and insurance companies in order to minimize its effects.\u201d Fact two: Only 8% of woman have a \u201cperfect\u201d body shape. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu... \u201cThe Independent, a UK publication, only 8 percent of women now have an hourglass figure.\u201d Fact three: One in 200 American women suffers from anorexia. http://www.state.sc.us... Fact four: The western culture has a harsh definition of \u201cperfect body.\u201d http://jezebel.com... http://www.divinecaroline.com... Adele, Aishwarya Rai, Ananda Marchildon, Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jessica Simpson, Kate Winslet, and Heidi Klum have all been deemed too fat. Harm 1: People with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy for media. http://www.cbsnews.com... Talia Castellano was an attractive 13 year old who inspired many and died of cancer last year. Girls like her may have their dreams shattered as result of the logical conclusion that woman with diseases are not attractive. Harm 2: If only 8 out of every 100 have a perfect body and the rest are deemed \u201ctoo fat\u201d women may begin to self-harm and starve themselves. Harm 3: More women will suffer from anorexia and potentially commit suicide because woman are afraid they are \u201ctoo fat.\u201d Harm 4: Women who are deemed \u201ctoo fat\u201d may suffer from rom severe depression. Because of all the facts and harms based on Pro\u2019s logic vote Con. Now to open up the rebuttal period over to Pro.", "qid": 31, "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7325725555419922}, {"content": "Title: DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools Content: (INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? \u201cThe condition of being grossly fat or overweight.\u201d (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person\u2019s health? \u201cObese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.\u201d {1} {2} \u201cObese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.\u201d {1} {2} \u201cChildren and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma.\" {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: \u201cHealthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity\u201d{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don\u2019t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly \u2018well you go to your classes and academic subjects\u2019 but I have reason to believe your reaction could be \u2018go to P.E.\u2019 I will provide multiple studies showing why: \u201cLook at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.\u201d {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can\u2019t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn\u2019t it? Here is some more studies: \u201cThe California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed \u2014 kids who were more fit performed better academically.\u201d {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: \u201cCharles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control\u201d {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. \u201cStress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.\u201d {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc\u2026 makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? \u201c25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol\u201d {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: \u201c7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana\u201d {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! \u201cPhysical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.\u201d {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "7064c844-2019-04-18T15:41:56Z-00007-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7306041717529297}, {"content": "Title: It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Content: I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing \"rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. \" Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, \"I am competent/incompetent\") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; \"it was beneath his dignity to cheat\"; \"showed his true dignity when under pressure\" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; \"physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients\" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: \"It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility\" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London \" Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily\" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "qid": 31, "docid": "6e81aa86-2019-04-18T19:35:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7297619581222534}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7268813848495483}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.", "qid": 31, "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.725488007068634}, {"content": "Title: Smoking is as bad a Obesity Content: Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;", "qid": 31, "docid": "d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.723335862159729}, {"content": "Title: Solving the obesity problem - my method Content: The only rule regarding this debate is that a sense of humour is required Obesity = a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, exceeds healthy limits. It is commonly defined as a body mass index (weight divided by height squared) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. Obesity is a growing concern (pun not intended). I have a few suggestions on how to solve this problem, if you disagree, well you know what to do! 1) The overweight people are simply \"slagged out of it\", i.e. full permission would be given for people to mock or ridicule the unfortunate fatties. Suggested methods of slagging are as follows: a) verbal abuse b) a rubber stamp with \"fattie\" or \"please don't eat me\" engraved on it would be made available to all healthy people (i.e. people a healthy weight). They could use this stamp as they pleased on the nearest obese person c) hanging posters of healthy people on the walls as a constant reminder of what they have to achieve The obese person would become so ashamed that they would eventually be pressured into losing the weight 2) If that didn't work, then the obese people would be forced to work on a reality TV program, named \"Fat Camp\" or something along the lines of that. In the show the obese people would be put through various army style exercises, while they all lived in a house together or a compound. The camp would be run by a very extreme ex army officer. Not only would this make great TV (it would be big brother fatty style!) it would be providing the facilities for weight loss free of charge. To make the camp more unbearable, if you didn't lose a certain amount of weight every week you would be made run about in a circle after an ice cream van driven by some beautiful thin person. Now if that aint great TV, I don't know what is!", "qid": 31, "docid": "1b20a275-2019-04-18T19:44:06Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.722286581993103}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7222009897232056}, {"content": "Title: We should shame fat people. Content: My opponent and I agree that obesity is a problem and should be addressed. He then claims that we disagree on how it should be addressed, but then he outlines a solutions that is almost perfectly in line with my suggestion in round 1. My opponent states \"If you are talking 'fat' then it must always come from a good place. You are talking about it because you care\". This is very similar to my statement \"and treated (medically speaking) with compassion and respect\". The similarity comes from the words \"care\" and \"compassion\". We both agree, it seems, that we should try to show children who are at risk of becoming obese and those who are obese ways to change their lives in a compassionate, caring way. This seems contradictory to idea of \"fat shaming\" which is defined as \"An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person\". This definition is also not in line with my opponents \"ideas\" as his ideas are largely stemming for feelings of genuine concern for the obese while \"fat shaming\" is fundamentally malicious. I believe my opponent meant to say \"we should use tough LOVE on fat people to encourage them into healthy habits\" instead of his original contention which has very little room for the compassion he claimed he had for the obese. I would like to continue to contend that what I have defined as fat shaming is detrimental to society and is not desirable. If this what my opponent meant then I will continue the argument. If my opponent did not mean \"fat shaming\" as it is defined then I would like to extend the option of an agreed upon tie since I only agreed to this debate under the premise that my opponent meant fat shaming as \"An act of bullying, singling out, discriminating, or making fun of a fat person\".", "qid": 31, "docid": "e4feb1b5-2019-04-18T12:43:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7218783497810364}, {"content": "Title: Being fat causes problems for everyone Content: Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity\u2019s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can\u2019t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].", "qid": 31, "docid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7211973667144775}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.", "qid": 31, "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7203302979469299}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7197542786598206}, {"content": "Title: It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants Content: I don't really know what a \"food disorder\" is but guess it would be when an obese goes into a restaurant intending to order the poached salmon with green salad but when the waiter comes he mistakenly orders a 28oz porterhouse steak with fries instead! Otherwise my opponent may be referring to people who are obese due to medical conditions. However, this accounts for less than 1% of the obese (1) and, in any case, no doctor would ever prescribe huge portions of junk food as a treatment for an obese's illness. Finally, I used BMI as a definition because it is the most scientific and widely used definition (2) but, of course, restaurant employees will be able to use their discretion and not unduly penalise athletes such as rugby and American football players. Please remember, voters, this proposal will not prevent obese people from eating in restaurants, it will only prevent them from over-indulging themselves. Now, to address my opponent's contentions: C1 \u2013 I would not agree that the majority of people are obese, either in the US or the UK. In the US around 1 in 3 adults are obese (3) and in the UK around 1 in 5 are (4) \u2013 we should not confuse being overweight (which most people are) with being obese. In any case, this law would not \"oppress\" the obese, as they will still be free to visit restaurants freely. Furthermore, it would not restrict their freedom of choice: if it is someone's ambition is to become obese and they are too lazy to cook they will still be at liberty to use the drive-thru facility or order a take-out. C2 \u2013 I agree that fast food is cheaper than organic produce but this is a false dichotomy because fast food merchants such as McDonalds offer low fat alternatives. Please compare the two following meals taken from the McDonald's menu (5): A - Angus Bacon and Cheese burger, Large Fries, 5 Chicken Select strips with Creamy Ranch Sauce, Chocolate Triple Thick milkshake, Large Mocha coffee. Total calories: 3710. (162% of adult daily calorie intake) B \u2013 Premium Bacon Ranch Salad with Low Fat Vinaigrette, 4 Chicken McNuggets with Barbeque Sauce, Fruit \u2018n Yogurt Parfait, Large Coffee. Total calories: 550. (27.5% of adult daily calorie intake) You see, fast food doesn't necessarily have to be fattening. So, if an obese walked into McDonalds and ordered meal B, he would be perfectly entitled to sit down and eat his food. However, if an obese ordered meal A, under my proposal, he would be refused service unless he agreed to order something with fewer calories. Incidentally, restaurants would not be losing out financially as a result of my proposal as my opponent claims because, as my opponent himself rightly pointed out, healthy alternatives are often more expensive than the fatty items. Now, moving on to my opponent's comments regarding normal people taking offence at the fat. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. It is not the obese that are offensive - it is gorging themselves on obscene piles of fatty food that causes offence. It is very important to understand this distinction. Take the drunk in the pub. He wouldn't be offending anyone if he was sober, or if he was drunk at home. Similarly, a smoker that refrains from lighting up in a restaurant and goes outside to smoke causes no offence to his fellow diners. It is not the individual, per se, that is offensive, it is their behaviour and that same principle applies to the obese. All my proposal aims to achieve is to encourage the obese to adopt a proper sense of decorum and show some respect for other customers by eating in moderation when in restaurants and I don't think that's too much to ask. Thank you. (1) . http://www.nhs.uk... (2) . http://www.nhs.uk... (3) . http://www.cdc.gov... (4) . http://www.nhs.uk... (5) . http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "c5d6e3e3-2019-04-18T19:13:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.719473123550415}, {"content": "Title: America is NOT obese. Content: As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the \"obesity problem\" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.", "qid": 31, "docid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7191531658172607}, {"content": "Title: We should use the term \u2018fat' instead of \u2018obese' Content: Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like \"obesity\" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like \"dangerously\" \"morbidly\" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.", "qid": 31, "docid": "4e64f8eb-2019-04-18T19:04:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7188397645950317}, {"content": "Title: Fat Tax Content: Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...", "qid": 31, "docid": "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.717505156993866}, {"content": "Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Semantics prove nothing. My opponents entire defence relies on the word fat not being associated with the word obese. HE IS WRONG. Obese and overweight are both medical terms. Whereas fat is a casual/colloquial term. So when I use the word fat, I'm casually depicting an over weight or obese individual. His arguments are arguments from semantics where he is only able to dispute definitions of words. rebuttal \"Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either.\" Fat people are a fetish for normal people AT BEST. So what if some fetish bound skinny guy likes a fat greasy pair of buttocks? This doesn't mean he wants to have children with it, nor does this mean he would want to start a relationship with it. Fat people mainly breed with one another resembling some form of pathetic hippo mating scenario where neither one can see their own genitalia. When it comes to sex, fat people are on the bottom of the social hierarchy. This creates the notion that fat people are unattractive and tells us that potential mates find fatties unfit to breed. For whatever reason pro has made claims without sources to back those claims up, he also wants sources to be used only in the final round, how can the legitimacy of sources be argued if they're provided in the final round? This shows that my opponent is unreasonable, also shown by the fact that he claims to love fat people made apparent by his insight into \"Big Beautiful Women\" yet he disproves of people being obese. He seems ignorant to the fact that being defined as fat on any level is a gateway to being obese and anything that makes you susceptible to being obese can not be considered healthy. Despite my opponent claiming to not be talking about obesity he bought up the obesity paradox, which suggests that people who are fat have extra defence against some form of cancers, thus a defence against cancer is healthy right? Not necessarily, a lack of cancer does not mean you're healthy, but having an increased risk of heart disease does mean you're unhealthy, so this argument does not prove that fat people are healthy. \"\"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance.\" \"No, being excessively fat, or obese is.\" My opponent claims that being fat does not reflect bad self maintenance, yet tells us that being excessively fat does, this suggests that being fat to some degree does reflect bad self maintenance. The point is that the lack of self maintenance is responsible for one gaining weight. This clearly tells us that being fat is not associated with a life style that would be considered healthy or fit. \"I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'.\" When I described fat heart attack I mentioned that it was fat people who were susceptible to them. I don't think someone who has not got visible abs should be considered fat, by the above statement my opponent does.This shows his lack of understanding of the word fat. \"My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.\" I'm suggesting that you're dangerous by telling fat people that they're healthy, this false information will cause them harm. it's like telling cancer patients that they are fine and they don't need to find treatment. You are a dangerous man by spreading your lies and I stand by that statement. \"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today\" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to \"preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants\". Unlike you I'm not denying that fat people need our help, if I'm urging readers to donate to a charity which saves fat kids then I think that's a damned good thing to do. Not only do you deny fat people the medical help they need, but you seem to be against CHARITIES NOW? Thus far my opponent has proven to be ignorant and thoughtless when it comes to fat people's needs and charities. At least I care about our fellow human beings. To conclude this round Aside from the obesity paradox I don't think my opponent has forwarded any arguments that support the notion of fat people being healthy or fit. My opponent has done nothing but argue semantics and use capital letters to excess, to the point where it feels like he is raging due to his own lack of substance. I've forwarded points such as -Fat people are the lowest in the sexual hierarchy, indicating they're considered unfit to breed. -Fat people are unhealthy for society, due to eating more than they input. You wouldn't be fat if you worked harder than you ate. This is known as leeching. -Being fat is not natural or normal, made apparent by fat land mammals being an anomaly in the animal kingdom. -Fat people struggle with physical exercise due to carrying more mass, more blood needing to circulate, additional pressure on the arteries and fat acting as an insulator which raises the temperature. This suggests they're physically, unhealthy. -Shorter life expectancy for fat people with an increased risk of heart attacks, heart disease and strokes. -Athletes are overwhelmingly thin and muscular, suggesting fat has no place in fitness -Not only is weight gain unhealthy, weight gain can be caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. Suggesting the two correlate These are all reasons why fat people can not be considered healthy nor fit. I believe my opponent has thus far failed to properly address these critical points, without resorting to a semantic based argument.", "qid": 31, "docid": "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7162966728210449}, {"content": "Title: Resolve: The Issue of Homosexuality. Content: Since a pressing issue has come up, I\u2019m afraid my responses will be brief. \u201cUnlike homosexuals, most overweight people are not in denial about the health issues that comes with being overweight. Aso, there are all kinds of weight loss programs. overweight people are not calling people bigots for that\u201d My opponent has failed to address the fact that many homosexuals, including myself, are aware of the health risks our \u201cbehavior\u201d is prone to. For that reason we take preventive measures. (i. e. wear condoms, get blood tests, et. al. ) When he says there are all kinds of weight loss programs, I can make the analogy that there are all kinds of medication for STDS. Lastly, my opponent makes the faulty claim that obese people do not call people objecting their behavior has bigots. Because, in many cases they do. And, in many cases, they, like homosexuals are right. \u201cThe original structure of the debate was set up to lure the voters away from homosexuality's main problem in which is the fact that homosexual behavior is a health hazard and a threat to public health. \u201d My opponent is incorrect. The structure of the debate was to address multiple issues of homosexuality. He did not. If he has addressed both marriage and adoption, THEN made his arguments on the STD epidemic in the fourth round, he would not have ignored the structure of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent has made one argument against homosexuality, asserting that it is a health risk factor. However, he fails to address that heterosexual behavior can also be a health risk, according to his arguments. While homosexuals may be hold the mass percentage of documented AIDS cases, heterosexuals 1. ) are prone to AIDS as well, and 2. ) are prone to a plethora of other STDS. To make a long story short, my opponents arguments do not justify the denial of acceptance of homosexuality. They are merely used as an excuse to continue to support open bigotry. I have argued two cases in which homosexuals actively contribute to society, asserting that they operate on a very similar basis as heterosexuals.", "qid": 31, "docid": "61218b54-2019-04-18T14:30:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7158968448638916}, {"content": "Title: Should Cars be Banned Content: There are over 1 billion people overweight, and about 300 million of them are considered obese. If we did not have cars, and people started walking, running, riding their bikes, and just exercising in general, the number of obese people would drop and that would also save many lives.", "qid": 31, "docid": "a88b3bc8-2019-04-18T15:33:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7158284187316895}, {"content": "Title: Genetic Engineering in Humans is Bad Content: disease", "qid": 31, "docid": "3e7d6122-2019-04-19T12:47:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7157361507415771}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un\"health\"y adjective harmful to health. \"an unhealthy diet\" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?", "qid": 31, "docid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7141619920730591}, {"content": "Title: Parents of obese children should be deprived of their parental rights Content: Yes, the risk for developing various health issues increases. We as humans need to remember that most people are not educated about the health issues that will arise from being obese. This should not be overlooked. People can not talk about obesity without talking about education on obesity. So yes, this debate is just as much about education as obesity. Should kids be taken away from their parents for not having control over their parents influenced the child.", "qid": 31, "docid": "672e8c7b-2019-04-18T12:36:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7126604318618774}, {"content": "Title: The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity Content: And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...", "qid": 31, "docid": "69f186d6-2019-04-18T16:47:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7111434936523438}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice. Content: There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, \"Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain.\" Sources http://obesity.procon.org...", "qid": 31, "docid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7107589840888977}, {"content": "Title: People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people Content: \"Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there.\" It's great that the both of us are working together to disprove your statements, I think it provides a real sense of unity :P \"Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again.\" As I pointed out repeatedly in the debate, I'm not trying to disprove the negative effects of obesity, simply that the healthy aren't opressed. \"This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic.\" 1.) I have no idea where you got that link, so I think you're just trying to throw out random arguments to make your side look better. 2.) this argument can in no way be applied to the topic. The only way this would work were if the obese were literally forcing the healthy to change their eating habits or vice versa. \" Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out.\" You refer to obesity as if it were a contagous disease that can be caught through contact with the obese. No. I live in Alabama, one of the most Obese states in the nation. I have both fat and skinny friends (I don't know where the line between overweight and obese lies), and in all the years I've known both, neither side has changed their weight. This is proof against the fact that Obesity is \"out of control\", or that the healthy are \"oppressed and squeezed out\" which is just rediculous. I'm sure the experiences of the entire audience go against this outrageous claim as well. Furthermore, my opponent drops the fact that his claims are just as rediculous as the homophobic claims for Don't Ask Don't Tell, that the negative effects of obesity actually act as a deterrent for the healthy, that most people don't want to be obese in the first place so treating them equally won't change anything, that accepting the Pro's case oppresses the obese more than the healthy thus negating the resolution, that what he's treating as oppression can't actually meet the definition of oppression, and that using his logic means that someone moving here from Zimbabwe is being oppressed by the Americans because he can't find others from Zimbabwe. And yes, there's a whole paragraph full of things he dropped :P I urge a Con vote because the Pro has not served to prove that the Healthy are being oppressed, the only thing he's been able to prove is that there are weight equality activists. His examples of oppression don't actually meet the accepted definition (in the case of wanting to be with \"your own kind\", even though this is normally the case with racial barriers or extracurricular activities rather than obesity) and can't be proven to actually happen (in the case of the healhty being \"squeezed out\" or the obese being \"out of control and growing). Furthermore, the pro case is less of a claim that the healthy ar being oppressed more than the obese, and more of a case where he states ignorant biases similar to homophobia (which he did not refute) only with weight. And so, because my opponent cannot prove that the healthy are being opressed, and is instead arguing that if one person is obese he's going to make everyone around him obese, I respectfully urge a Con vote.", "qid": 31, "docid": "745edcc5-2019-04-18T18:16:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7106075882911682}, {"content": "Title: Obese customers should pay more for flights. Content: - OBESITY IS PREVENTABLE - I have a few problems with this rebuttal. First, we have already established that obesity is not always preventable! Genetics and other factors (including mental health) contribute to the disease. Further, sometimes the medications that people are on have a side effect of weight gain. If my opponent concedes that people cannot prevent all forms of sickness, than he concedes that people have no choice but to take medicine... medicine which can lead to obesity, therefore my point is upheld. Regardless, while obesity may very well be preventable in many cases, consider the fact that my opponent completely neglected health risks attained from things like smoking in his rebuttal. It's easy to say that obesity is more preventable than asthma; however, medical problems associated with contributing factors such as tobacco, marijuana and other drugs, alcohol, etc. all contribute to an additional increase health risks... yet we don't charge SMOKERS extra for \"insurance purposes.\" So clearly the cost of insurance cannot be a contention in favor of my opponent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- if this ideology does not cross apply to other flyer demographics, than obesity should not be singled out. Not without a law suit anyway (more about this later). - STATISTICS - My opponent has written \"since my opponent insists on an argument of statistics and precise percentages...\" which is completely false. I'd just like to clear the air and say that I do not want nor expect this to be a debate revolving solely around percentages. However, for my opponent to make an incredible, highly exaggerated claim in his favor without supporting sources is extremely abusive. No one is saying that you have to provide statistics for all of your reasoning, but what I AM saying is that it wouldn't be right for either one of us to just make stuff up on a whim and present it as factual evidence. - OTHER TRANSPORTATION - My opponent has noted that buses do not charge for individual seats. That is correct. They charge per passenger. My opponent then says, \"however, if obese passengers are indeed causing problems for the remaining passengers, perhaps extra fare is necessary.\" Right here it becomes apparent that a primary contention for Pro is the comfort of other passengers. The problem with this is that transportation's primary purpose is just that: transport. Comfortable circumstances are a LUXURY - not a necessity. If a customer deemed comfortable seating a priority, he or she would have several options: upgrading his ticket to first/business class; choosing an airline that specifically accomadates for larger seating; finding other ways of transport (car, boat, etc.) and so on. Personally I'm from NYC and have taken many forms of transportation. I cannot tell you how many times people ride the bus/subway and HAVE NO SEATING AT ALL, regardless of the fact that they paid for the ride. - FLIGHT ISN'T A RIGHT - Nope. It's not. But here my opponent is trying to straw man my argument and completely turn my point around. He said, \"If a customer from a low-income bracket cannot afford the price of the flight, it would be advisable that they seek alternate forms of transportation.\" I agree. So what's the point? Nothing. There isn't one here. MY point, however (supported with cited factual information), was pointing out the fact that there is probably a 10% chance that your neighbor on an airplane flight will be obese, due to statistics regarding obesity and its link to poverty, etc. Therefore if one is so concerned about this HORROR, they have the option of buying an additional plane ticket just in case. Otherwise they can just take their chances and 90% of the time be a-ok anyway. So here my opponent is trying to make you believe that I have suggested that healthy people buy additional seating on airplanes. I have done no such thing. My point was that if it is a huge concern to them, then they can. If they can just deal with it - or accept the fact that they have a 90% chance of being in the clear - then they DON'T have to buy an extra plane ticket. Simple as that. But my point here is why should an obese person have to buy an extra plane ticket to make someone else more comfortable? If it's about common courtesy and respect, then people should respect the obese too, by doing things such as 1) not smelling bad, 2) not bringing a crying baby on board, 3) not stinking up the bathroom, 4) not smoking as to up insurance, etc. However nobody has to pay for these inconveniences, so WHY SHOULD THE OBESE? Singling them out is wrong, and even if you disagree, my opponent has yet to prove otherwise. For instance, in response to the above, Pro has said, \"A crying child one may mute by putting on airline-provided headphones. Foul smelling passengers one may endure by simply turning on the airline-provided air conditioning. They do not lessen the product you purchased (the flight itself), even if they do make it slightly less desirable\" ... which is my exact point, except in reverse, obviously. That exact logic proves my case to be true -- having an obese passenger sitting next to you may make your flight less desirable; however, it is not lessening the product. Cramped space, smelly areas and other disruptions are inconveniences that ALL travelers face and deal with as a consequence of not being rich enough to afford their own private jets. - WEIGHT & FLIGHT - Pro acknowledges that an increase in gas prices is the #1 reason that the cost of flights has significantly increased. Another reason is that less people are flying due to the troubled economy. As a result, airlines are looking for every excuse to charge a little extra. They're pinching pennies at every opportunity. Thus, the charge for extra baggage is obviously going to increase. Now according to Pro, people pay for their seat... never did he mention that people ALSO pay for CARGO space. When people bring luggage on a plane, they are costing the airline money for things like, oh, the electric that powers the baggage claim area, the employees who transport the luggage, etc. Additionally, just as flying on a plane isn't an inherent right, neither is bringing luggage on a plane. Thus assuming that one does in fact pay for a seat on the plane, airlines have also agreed to say - okay - you can bring up to 100 lbs of luggage (for example). If you bring more than that, you pay. Those extra charges pay for increasing expenses in every aspect of flight, including gas. Similarly, an airline can charge you for things like soda on a plane. But to charge you extra per pound of body weight is discriminatory... - RESPECT FOR PASSENGERS - Obese people are not the only individuals who fit uncomfortably on a plane. Tall or larger people in general (not necessarily obese) may also be the cause of some discomfort. To discriminate against them could lead to a few things. First, it could upset customers so much that they choose not to fly at all... meaning that airlines are selling less tickets, meaning the 'skinny' people will face *INCREASED COST* to compensate for those lost sales. Second, while this idea sounds good in theory, putting it into practice would inevitably lead to countless lawsuits (amongst other burdens). This would not only be a waste of airline resources but government ones as well, and again cost others MORE MONEY... be it in taxes, other fees, etc. - FUEL - Back to the whole fuel thing, it has been said that 350 million more gallons of fuel are being used per year thanks in part to obese passengers. I don't have a lot of characters left for mathematical reasoning (though I'd be more than happy to explain it further in the next round!), but that comes to about 2.5 more gallons per flight - if that. So 2 gallons of gas is what...? $8 more per flight? So just how much extra should obese passengers be charged? That's it for now...", "qid": 31, "docid": "7d8e5f55-2019-04-18T19:39:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7077970504760742}, {"content": "Title: physical education should be abolished Content: Thank you for your reply. Pro says: \"obesity can cause diabetes\" My answer: Maintaining a child's health is not the school's responsibility. The school is solely there to educate the child. The child's health is the parent's responsibility. If the child was fed properly and healthy at home, there would be no \"obesity\" for these children. This PE period takes away from the child learning.", "qid": 31, "docid": "c7f642aa-2019-04-18T18:32:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7076565623283386}, {"content": "Title: Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Content: Before we continue I would like to make it totally clear that I agree that obesity is a very important healthcare issue, So you don't need to provide any further arguments for why this is the case - and in any case, That is not what we are arguing. What I am interested in is discussion of whether the fat acceptance movement contributes to the problem of obesity. From what I can tell your argument for why the fat acceptance movement is dangerous is as follows: 1) a majority of people who support the fat acceptance movement are themselves dangerously overweight and 2) fat acceptance teaches these people that they can and should ignore the health risks associated with being fat whether or not statement 1 is true (you would need to prove this, So provide sources if you think you can), Statement 2 is just false. The fat acceptance movement does not try to minimise the health risks associated with obesity it simply proposes that fat itself is not inherently a problem, Which is something you already agree with. From your third source, You quote: \"the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity. \" - yes, Precisely, Overeating and physical inactivity is the problem, Not 'fat', The fat acceptance movement does not promote \"overeating and physical inactivity\" it tries to lift the stigmas associated with fatness. Now to turn to your reasoning and your sources. You seem to suggest that because fat acceptance is more common in America and the UK and because those countries have high obesity rates that therefore fat acceptance contributes to obesity. This logic is extremely flawed. Can I point out that your second source is some statistics posted on the site for a company that does gastric band surgery? That's not exactly what I would call an impartial source. But the statistics themselves show that America is the 19th most obese country per capita. This is YOUR source that says this (honestly its a surprise for me too). Qatar is 8th on the list with an obesity rate of 42. 3%, 11 whole places higher than America, Does that mean that the fat acceptance movement must be even bigger in Qatar than the US? You have not demonstrated a correlation between fat acceptance and obesity.", "qid": 31, "docid": "615af073-2019-04-18T11:22:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7066663503646851}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people shouldn't be allowed on planes, let alone have to pay extra. Content: First of all I have no sound in my computer so the documentary are worthless to me. Sorry about that. My opponent admits to his personal experience and his first point to be invalid as the debate topic says overweight and not obese. Even so where do we draw the line? I win the debate as my opponent agrees with my side.\"Regarding the 60% obesity rate, you are correct. I had not remembered that the majority of the U.S. population was overweight. I should have been more clear as to what I thought overweight was\". My opponent agrees to the con side of the debate so I urge con ballot. I recommend to my opponent to redo the debate with better wording.", "qid": 31, "docid": "5324626a-2019-04-18T18:03:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7050338387489319}, {"content": "Title: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse Content: I stand here today to support the following resolution: Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse. This will mostly be a logic based debate, but if necesarry, sources may be provided. Terms: Child obesity- The condition of being considered medically obese as a person under the age of 18, or in a person not legally emancipated from their parents. (because you can free yourself of your parents at 17 or younger in some states) Pre-existing medical condition- a genetic condition that effects the bodies ability to keep itself at a healthy BMI when properly cared for. Child abuse- a legal term relating to the mistreatment of minors in an individuals custody. Includes neglect, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Currently, the state considers it the duty of the parent to keep their child in good mental condition, to keep them properly fed, clothed, and bathed, and to more or less ensure their happiness. The parent should keep the child in good health, free from maladies and health risks. These are legal obligations that must be kept or the child will be at risk of being put into an alternate home on grounds of child abuse. (source: Parental rights and responsibilities : analysing social policy and lived experiences by Harriet Churchill) The most important part of this relating to this debate is the legal duty of the parent to keep the child in good health. One may think that an obese child is not in serious danger, but this is very clearly incorrect. My stance is based on the following points. Point A: Health risks associated with obesity. It is common knowledge that being severely overweight is linked to very serious health issues. These include, but are certainly not limitted to, high blood pressure, diabetes, blood clotting, clogged arteries (and subsequently, heart attacks), and in some extreme cases, immobility. Most of these conditions can lead to hospitilization and and of course death. For a parent to allow their child to be obese by not giving them a proper meal regimen and allowing them to neglect exercise is putting that child in the firing line of all these dangerous health issues. Point B: Malnutrition. There is no argument over whether a parent that starves their child is abusing them. A child given insufficient food will become malnourished and this produces completely separate health problems from the ones listed above. Over feeding, or feeding the child an unbalanced diet with an excess of fatties foods shouldn't be any different. In both cases the body is not receiving all the vitamins and minerals it needs to grow healthy and strong. When a body is deprived of minerals, bones become more breakable, scurvy is a possibility...this list goes on. So, seeing as allowing a child to remain obese causes so many health problems, and thus is dangerous, it should indeed be considered a form of child abuse. Further discussion upon Con's response.", "qid": 31, "docid": "4bdb8ef9-2019-04-18T17:43:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7036343812942505}, {"content": "Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.", "qid": 31, "docid": "fb2e263c-2019-04-18T19:34:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.703234851360321}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7028796672821045}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.", "qid": 31, "docid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7025130987167358}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: yes, exercise is important. I guess what my main concern is people's assumption's about obese people. If you see someone over weight, do not assume its because they over eat. If you see someone thin, do not assume it's because they are healthy. The idea of being over weight has misled people into judging \"fat\" people.", "qid": 31, "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7019930481910706}, {"content": "Title: Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains Content: Thank you brian_eggleston, for this debate. First off, the majority of overweight people do not become grossly obese because of \"hormone disorders\", but rather because of over eating and lack of exercise. Yes, a select few of them actually have disorders that makes them obese, but almost all of them become fat by their own unhealthy choices in life. I do not feel sorry for them, because they brought it upon themselves, and the chances of them having a hormone disorder (the most common is in the thyroid) is around 1 and 25 (being conservative), and you can't just assume every fat person you see has this. Also, standing in a crowded train is good for the obese person's health, instead of letting them sit down and devour another Big Mac. And besides, how do you know there is not a problem with the healthy gentlemen? What if he's depressed, just been fired, sprained his ankle, or ill? This happens to many people, yet no one feels bad for every man they see on a train and gives up their seat for them, so why should we all just assume that every fat person we see has a disorder? I'd also like to point out that while there is obesity in developing nations, the highest amounts of obesity are still in developed countries like America, UK, New Zealand and Australia, I wonder why. Thank you sources- http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.thyroidproblems.net...", "qid": 31, "docid": "e99ff5b0-2019-04-18T18:41:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7017180919647217}, {"content": "Title: Obesity In America should we do something Content: I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems\"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.", "qid": 31, "docid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7014222741127014}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: Yes I agree that it is delusional to think that \"any\" size is beautiful. As soon as they become unhealthy, some might consider it unattractive, but some obese look only mildly overweight and still be attractive. However I disagree that obesity is a choice. My brother classifies as \"obese\" but he did not chose to be the way he is. Sometimes obesity occurs along with other conditions, in my brothers case, autism, which is not a choice. His doctor said that if he wasn't autistic his weight would have been fine. So no, obesity (in most cases) is not a choice. And most (obese) people don't just wake up one day and decide to just become unhealthy with a bigger chance of death at an early age. Some obesity is developed in childhood, where a child has little to no control over their lives.", "qid": 31, "docid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7010727524757385}, {"content": "Title: Smoking should be treated as a drug and made illegal in NZ. Content: If I may say obesity and smoking are two totally different things. Smoking: An act or spell of smoking something. Obesity: The condition of being very fat or overweight... I rest my case... The healthcare system could hardly refuse to treat people in need (smokers), after all how would that reflect on NZ? If someone needs treatment they need treatment, it is not something we can control. Smokers are PURPOSELY wasting their lives away, signing a death warrant and costing our health system a heck of a lot of money. Where as obese people are victims of fatty food, they just eat and eat, a guilty pleasure that in some cases can not be controlled.I will not argue that smoking is very addicting and once you start you cant stop but self control is a skill smokers need to master... Obese people are not costing the health system half as much money as careless smokers, that is a fact in concrete. Something you cannot deny... Here is a list of diseases caused by smoking... Gum disease Lung Cancer Heart disease Lung disease Diabetes Impotence Blindness... The list goes on and on... I recently interviewed a smoker and questioned her about the pros and cons of smoking, here is what she said: Zoe: I made a list of what I liked about smoking vs. what I hated about smoking ... and though I really missed it at first, looking at this list made me see that I didn't like smoking as much as I thought I did. What I Liked about Smoking: The bonding I experienced with other smokers. The feeling of creating a ritual. Watching the cigarette burn and watching the smoke swirl. Momentary gratification. What I Hated about Smoking: The after-smell on my clothes, furniture, car, house, everything. Yuck. Not being able to breathe properly. The constant nagging cough. All day, all night. Lots of phlegm, lots of throat-clearing and losing my voice mid-sentence. Painful heartburn every night and every time I drank coffee. Feeling winded after extremely mild activity. Severe throbbing headaches, occasional migraines. Lingering colds and bronchitis. Racing heartbeat, more sweating. Increased rate of hypertension. Dizziness after smoking too fast or [having] too many cigarettes. Nausea from smoking too much. The constant coppery, ashy taste in my mouth. Yellow skin, teeth and fingernails. Scaly, unhealthy-feeling skin. Anxiety from the fear about what I was doing to myself and the consequences. No relaxation, always feeling in need of something. A constant feeling of not being satisfied. Mini-withdrawals throughout the day. Feelings of shame while spending time with nonsmokers. Not accomplishing tasks because of wasted time smoking. The late-evening/middle-of-the-night trip to the gas station. Going out in bad weather to smoke alone. Feelings of inadequacy and substance dependence. Driving my cat out of the room every time I lit up. Dry mouth and constant feelings of thirst. Coughing so hard that I made myself sick. Trembling hands and fingertips. Fear. Of being unable to quit, of dying an untimely, painful death. The stinging feeling in my lungs when I tried to take a deeper or slower breath. Getting smoke in my eyes. Burning my lips on the filter. Trying to light short butts and feeling my eyebrows singe. Ouch! Re-lighting a previously torched cigarette, so I don't \"waste\" any tobacco. Overflowing ashtrays, ashes and dust everywhere. Burn holes in my car upholstery and on my clothes. \"Will I fall asleep smoking?\" \"Will I catch something on fire?\" Dry, chapped lips. The cost. All that money wasted on ruining my health and well-being. My nails and hair grew very slowly. Smoking fueled my compulsiveness relating to other bad habits, such as nail-biting and binge-eating. Having to reapply my lipstick after smoking. The filthy taste of cheap tobacco. Having to crack the car window in the pouring rain. Wet leg, wet arm, water in my eyes. Tar build-up on windows and furniture. The way my hair and skin smelled. Limited motivation and energy. Spilled tobacco in my purse, on my dresser, on my computer desk. Lighting the filter end by mistake... Dropping a cigarette while driving. Trying to tap my ashes out the car window ... while the window is rolled up. Dropping hot ashes or losing the tip of a cigarette. Oops! Tapped ashes in my drink. Feeling \"exiled\" in the smoking section/smoking room. Dulled sense of taste and smell. So here she was aware what smoking was doing and had done to her and yet she still to this day continues to smoke, she is trying to stop, she is doing everything in her power to out a stop to the bad habit but all her efforts are pointless. Nicotine patches and gum haven't worked for her. The people selling and distributing cigarettes are ending peoples lives, they have lost sight of everything and have been overwhelmed by greed. They do not care that every second of everyday people are dying, due to the effects of smoking... Let me tell you a story... My mother's father, a famous politician, smoked. They lived on a farm with animals, aside from the abundant fruits and vegetables they grew, they had also a small tobacco plantation. He dies at age 60, a waste of a life, my mother was at his side when he died and she has since vowed to try everything in her power to stop friends and family from smoking. I , nor my siblings ever got to meet our grandfather, a real shame as we have been told several stories about him, I am told I am like him but that is not enough, I wish I had the chance to meet him. He is just another victim of smoking. Smoking is a disgrace, I wonder what the reaction would be if smokers knew that an ingredient in rat poison is also found to be in cigarettes... Once again, I rest my case...", "qid": 31, "docid": "c1ca8114-2019-04-18T18:01:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7009530663490295}, {"content": "Title: Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity Content: Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.", "qid": 31, "docid": "cb509540-2019-04-18T13:01:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6994612216949463}, {"content": "Title: Fat people live longer than skinny people. Content: Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines \"fat\" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that \"fat\" means \" having more body fat than is optimally healthy\". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Mar\u00ef\u00bf\u00bda Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: \u25a0Type 2 Diabetes \u25a0Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke \u25a0Metabolic Syndrome \u25a0Cancer \u25a0Sleep Apnea \u25a0Osteoarthritis \u25a0Gallbladder Disease \u25a0Fatty Liver Disease \u25a0Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.", "qid": 31, "docid": "4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6992350816726685}, {"content": "Title: The New York Soft Drink Size Ban Content: My opponent's most recent argument is very flawed and unproductive. The opponent also puts in a false absurd quote that I supposedly said, when I literally stated the opposite. That is were I would like to begin my rebuttal. Blatantly false statementMy opponent says, and I quote \"despite my opponents claims that obesity is not a problem\"Absurd. I clearly stated in the beginning of round two, and I quote myself,\"I do not disagree that America has an obesity problem. It is a problem,\"My opponent put false words in my mouth. I would just like to point out to the audience that, as you can tell because I stated it above, American Obesity is a problem. I truly believe that and I stated it above, and my opponent tried to put a false accusation in his response. Please listen, America Obesity is a problem! I agree with that statement one hundred percent, the way of fixing it though is not by taking away drinks from a whole group of people. That's taking too much from too many people. Already Causing IssuesIn my opponent's previous argument, he has this title, only followed by the words, \"What issues?\" Actually, like I said before, there are a lot of large issues arising already. New York is being sued! That is quite a big issue if you ask me, maybe not to my audience or opponent though. Also, New York City and Governor Bloomberg are not being sued by one person or group, they're being sued by multiple large businesses, crucial to the economy in New York. When you have multiple large companies suing the city, it is a drastic issue, in my mind. http://gothamist.com...http://legalnews.findlaw.com...Freedom! \"Not at stake\"Here are some direct quotes from my opponent, that shows that freedom indeed is at stake. My opponent says-\"This ban is a restriction to the providers ability to sell to much,\" Providers, in a free country, should be able to sell whatever and however they want with no restrictions from the government, unless of course it is illegal or extremely harmful to citizens in the sense it is unsafe. An 8 oz. different is not extremely harmful to the people of America, in comparison to selling steak infested with disease. My opponent says-\"I think the government should let people make their own choices,\" Ok, so if you, (my opponent) believe that people should let their government make their own decisions, why are you standing for the idea that we should restrict what sizes of drinks people should buy. Lets, like you said, let the people make their own decisions in the sense that they can order whatever size drink that they want. My opponent then continues to talk about the tobacco industry, which is indeed a problem, but it is not what we are discussing. We are talking about restricting the sizes of drinks we, as citizens can buy. This is AmericaOverall, my main concern for this new ban is that I do not like the government telling me what to drink and how much of it. I don't mind a little instruction from the government, but when I say little I mean minimal. Sure, the government warning me about disasters and how to stay safe, but when they get involved in what I can eat or drink they cross the line. At my school in Mid-Ohio, we are not allowed to drink anything at lunch except for milk and water, and are not allowed condiments, salt, and pepper. This is America, if I want ketchup on my burger who is the government to tell me no? The same concept in New York. If I want a large coke who is the government to tell me that I can't? If I want to be overweight, (I don't know who would set that as a goal) than I can be over weight, because this is a free country! Nobody should be able to tell me what kind of drink size I can have.Not only is the ban absurd, but could lead to more bans. So lets say this ban follows through despite all of the current law suits, now we loose drink sizes. Then maybe certain drinks. Then maybe soda. Then maybe this, and that, and soon the government tells us exactly what, how much, and when to drink things. Is it a highly possible theory, not likely, but could indeed happen.The bottom line is that the government should not be able to tell us, U.S. Citizens, how much to drink. We are free for a reason, and part of freedom is being able to pick what to eat and drink, and how much of it. The government should not tell us how to act, and telling us how much we can drink is telling us. If I want to drink a large soda in New York, I should be able to drink a 24 oz. beverage.Thank you, I now turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources-http://legalnews.findlaw.com...http://gothamist.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "8a25f2d8-2019-04-18T18:05:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6971703767776489}, {"content": "Title: Fatness Content: Deadly: Drugs and smoking still kill more people than obesity. Not to mention automobile accidents. The world is very dangerous and you are more likely to die from a different reason then obesity. In shape: Where did you see that definition? The problem with that definition is when people are proportionally larger. Theoretically there can be a guy with a six pack and still have a 40 inch waist. That is why fat percentages are used. Unhealthy: What do you mean by unhealthy? America is one of the healthiest due to our healthcare and various laws regarding sanitation and pollution. Conclusion: Being fat is not glamorized nor will be in the for see able future. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. From the evidence you provided I do not believe being fat will be glamorized but the free choice of others will be. Thank you for the debate", "qid": 31, "docid": "3c486e0b-2019-04-18T16:34:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6966463327407837}, {"content": "Title: Fatness ! Content: I will now clarify my point because it is said that it is confusing. Being obese is disease, it doesn\u2019t mark who you are, your self-worth, or how great you can act or sing. It is relevant to this because it is a fact. Now a fact is not an argument in whole but it adds to your argument itself. So my point \u201cbeing theoretically true\u201d is relevant to this discussion. I would like to say that my opponent concedes that not all people are fat because they want to be, by saying, \u201cWhat matters is that people don't get fat against their will (most the time).\u201d He is proving my point that not all people choose to be that way and it is therefore a disease. My opponent says, \u201cPeople get fat when they eat more calories than they burn, simple. Eating too much, and eating the wrong type of foods, often reflect psychological problems and so are not just a 'hobby' or a 'choice' they mean more than that for some people.\u201d Now this is not relevant to this debate. The debate is on why fat people should not be in the media, not if it is a hobby or a choice. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing any substantial evidence proving that having \u201cfat\u201d people in the media hurts anyone. My opponent also said, \u201cAlso, overweightness reflects problems in society and culture, again not a inevitable 'disease' or life choice, a problem.\u201d Yes, it does reflect on our society it shows that not all a person is are looks, and they are not just for pleasure, it shows that they are a human being striving to show to us what they are going through and that people with diseases can overcome their outward appearance and look to who they are and what their talents are. He never proved why the reflection on our culture is a bad thing and I have shown you how it is actually turned into a good thing. It looks as if I should clarify this point also. I am saying that 92% of women are not what media shows as perfect. If you glamorize people who are perfect without showing that the other 92% are beautiful or talented in their own ways you are saying that they have little self-worth. \u201cYou say people with diseases who are attractive will be deemed unworthy of the media. I don't know how to respond to this, that's not at all what I am saying...\u201d There is no response, this is what your logic implies. \u201cI have nothing against people with diseases being on T.V, indeed it is good to open peoples eyes to other lives, also it helps other sufferers feel less alone.\u201d Good then there is nothing wrong with showing people who have weight issues that they can be beautiful. \u201cBut these are conditions such as neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life.\u201d You have shown no proof why obese people don\u2019t have neurological conditions or personality disorders or things which hinder their physical life. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. \u201cHeroin addiction is classed by some as a disease, but one would not try to make an addict look acceptable and okay just to make other addicts feel more okay about their problem.\u201d My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point; he also has not proven that medical doctors believe this. This can be discounted. \u201cAnd before you say I cannot compare the two, I can.\u201d Of course you can, you could cuss me off if you wanted too but that doesn\u2019t make it right. Now another thing you shouldn\u2019t do is bring up assertions without any facts backing up your claim\u2026 My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This point can be discounted. \u201cBeing overweight kills far more people than heroin and it is more dangerous to be overweight than to smoke, drink, take cocaine/ecstasy and marijuana.\u201d Proof? You must bring up proof for the things you say. My opponent has again brought up no facts on this point. This can be discounted. \u201cI have yet to find a time or culture where being fat is respectable or is the result of, of in association with, respectful behaviour.\u201d My opponent has again brought up no facts on why this is not true, just because he has never seen it doesn\u2019t mean it doesn\u2019t exist. This can be discounted, but first let me educate you on this. :) It is a widely known fact that in Africa there are many fathers and husbands that cannot provide their families with very much food. Now when a woman gets fat it is a sign of plenty, abundance, and good health. So yes, there are cultures that believe being fat is a good thing. \u201cYou continue to drive this point of depression, saying, you need to show fat people so other fat people don't feel bad about their condition.\u201d Yes, that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying. I\u2019m also saying that fat people have every right to be in media as anyone else, and that fat people are worth something and have talents that should also be brought to life. You have not proven why this is false, this can be discounted. \u201cNo, we need to takle the factors that cause over eating and bad eating habbits, such as bad foods in the market, depressive lifestyle etc. The way forward is not to glamourize fat, but to eradicate it.\u201d That\u2019s what we have organic food and Michelle Obama for. Also, you can\u2019t just take companies out of production, just because you feel like it. I\u2019d like you all to remember what I said in my first round that Jenifer Lawrence has been deemed too fat, if she has who will be next? Now for all of you who have skimmed through this debate I would like to fill out your ballot for you. Grammar and spelling: Flow Con. Pro has misspelled the words: habits, tackle, and fat. And used the incorrect form of many words such as take and used the word peoples instead of people\u2019s. Conduct: Flow Pro. He has been a great opponent and hasn\u2019t been picking on grammar or facts. Sources: Flow Con, Pro had blind assertions with no facts. And last but not least, Arguments: Flow Con because Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof by showing why beautiful fat people hurt our country and he also conceded that not all people are fat because they are lazy.", "qid": 31, "docid": "3c486dec-2019-04-18T16:40:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6961269378662109}, {"content": "Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: Firstly, I'd like to reframe this argument in the context of the debate topic; I'll then take each of Pro's arguments one by one.Pro is proposing that obese people should be charged more for flying airplanes and using public transportation. Many of Pro's arguments attempt to demonstrate that obese people are completely responsible for their own obesity, hence this form of economic punishment is justified.Number 1Firstly, in his refutation of a genetic link to obesity, Pro claims \u201cIf genetic factors were the primary cause of obesity, we'd see a more or less even distribution of obesity around the world\u201d. This doesn't make sense \u2013 genes vary from country, and are responsible for things as diverse as skin colour or race (which certainly differ primarily country to country). We don't all share the same set of genes globally, and the fact that specific regions are experiencing higher rates of obesity doesn't rule out genetic factors increasing susceptibility to obesity.Furthermore, the fact that obesity rates are increasing in several industrialized regions, which share many environmental factors, simultaneously could imply environmental factors are at play. If this an issue of individual self-control, then how is it possible that so many people globally are being affected? That environmental factors are at play is also supported by the evidence I provided that many species are increasing in body weight \u2013 this isn't just an issue about individual humans lacking self-control, but is instead a more systemic problem that isn't any one individual's fault.For Pro's other comments in this section, I'm limited in the length of my response, so I'll focus on clarifying the World Health Organization's position on obesity, since the WHO is the most credible source that Pro uses in his response. The WHO acknowledges that \u201cgenes are important in determining a person's susceptible to weight gain,\u201d[1] and that other environmental factors play a significant role, including, \u201ceconomic growth, modernization, urbanization, globalization of food marketings\u201d. The WHO report that Pro references simply suggests that industrialized nations are consuming a larger number of calories than sub-Saharan countries \u2013 it makes no claim that industrialized nations are partaking in the \u201cunhealthy lifestyle\u201d, nor makes any attempt to link that to obesity. In fact, the report acknowledges that \u201cpoor countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies,\u201d[2] making them an unsuitable benchmark despite Pro's use of them as such.The same WHO report from Pro claims that the amount of fat consumed (grams per capita/day) in China has increased by 55% between 1967 and 1999 \u2013 the highest change experienced in any region, yet their obesity levels haven't increased anywhere near the rate of some other nations (their current obesity rate is under 5% according to the WHO [3]). Clearly, other than caloric intake is affecting obesity.I'm not claiming that lifestyle choices aren't a factor; rather, I'm saying the evidence I provided in Round I indicates lifestyle choices don't explain everything, and that both environmental and genetic factors play a role in increasing obesity in our society. Therefore, before implementing such a pricing policy, we should recognize that there are significant factors at play in developing obesity that are of an individual's control. Implementing such a policy would simply be punishing many people for being born in the wrong region, or being born with the wrong set of genes \u2013 both factors out of their control. Number 2Since obesity is not completely in control of individuals, such a pricing policy would amount to price discrimination. Pro suggests we should punish them because they cost our healthcare system so much. I'm not sure what transportation has to do with healthcare, and that's probably out of scope for any policy or regulation; regardless, such a policy would be analogous to charging cancer patients or end-of-life senior citizens higher prices when providing public services \u2013 both groups also incur larges costs to our healthcare system, yet we certainly don't target them.Furthermore, obesity doesn't just affect the poor disproportionately. Across many nations, the incidence for obese women was larger than that for men[4]. Obesity is also affects a large number of children[5], and will probably continue to do so in the future. Such a pricing policy would then disproportionately punish a) the poor, b) women, and c) children \u2013 as a society, would we really be comfortable with such a policy? Unless we start charging different ticket prices for different races and sexual orientations, I honestly couldn't think of a policy that would send a worse message about our society.Number 3Pro supports regulation that would make airlines 'right-size' seating. We're both in agreement that our society is increasing in size, so in response to Pro's argument, it does make sense that airlines should respond appropriately to accommodate passengers comfort. If as a society our shoulders were getting wider, would we try to hold those wider people accountable, or would we find fault with airlines for not responding to a changing demographic? Holding airlines is the sensible solution, and we have every right to expect they dynamically adjust, both now and in the future. Instead, airlines have a history of implementing policies and forcing customers to adjust (for example, charging for checked bags), so they can pad their bottom line.Number 4There are several reasons why Pro's estimate for total fuel costs are too low. Firstly, Webber was referring to an Airbus A380, which carries 50% more fuel than an A340[6]; so it's not logical for Pro to use an A340 as reference point. Secondly, the cost of aviation-grade kerosene is significantly more than standard automobile fuel; this is even acknowledged in the source Pro uses[7]. The rest of the credibility of this report is suspect; for example, it doesn't have a valid link to the Bureau of Transportation for some of its figures.Nevertheless, even $470 out of the $190,600 figure that Pro calculates is still only about 2%. Again, my main point is that economically, the costs of transporting the obese are not significant for the airline industry, and probably even less so for other forms of public transportation. As an industry, airlines have not embraced such a pricing policy (despite being quick to impose other fees that anger customers, such as charging for checked bags or snacks). This is backed up directly by the most reliable source for this topic \u2013 the airlines themselves. For three major U.S. Airlines (Delta, United, American), no where in any of their recent 10-K filings[8] do they talk about obesity affecting their cost structure, though they freely discuss other insights and risks for their operations in these filings.ConclusionI agree with Pro that this is a modern phenomenon, but the causes are certainly not limited to lifestyle choices. Given that, punishing individuals for a consequence that's out of their control, is both unfair (for individuals and certain marginalized demographic groups) and economically unjustified for transportation companies, and so shouldn't supported by charging the obese higher prices.References[1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.who.int...[4] http://www.aeonmagazine.com...[5] http://www.cdc.gov...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://elliott.org...[8] http://www.sec.gov...", "qid": 31, "docid": "d8a53153-2019-04-18T17:24:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6959503889083862}, {"content": "Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Dear con, you could have given your definitions in earlier rounds but since neither of us did that, I don't see any problem giving my definitions as soon as I could, in this case, in R3.You have been talking about me breaking the proper format rule so much. And I remind you once again, you are the one who started arguing in the wrong round. I mean, what are you even arguing against if the instigator, who is on the affirmative side, hasn't even said anything yet.Then you broke yet another rule of citing your sources at the end of last round in your R3.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\"Being fat is a reflection of an unhealthy life style and suggests a lack of maintenance.\"No, being excessively fat, or obese is. \"The best way to describe a fat person, is that they're the size of a car.\"The best way to describe an obese person, not a fat person. (Not in my opinion though, Lamborghini, for example makes some slick narrow super cars)I would like to bring to my opponent's knowledge that fat kills a person when it is in too much excess, that is, one is OBESE. If your abs aren't visible, you won't necessarily die due to a 'fat heart attack'. \"This source tells us that one in 11 deaths are cause by excess fat. Being fat is an efficient way to die.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;Oh, look! You have a source mentioned in the middle of R3! Anyways, I opened it and the first thing I see is the heading (obviously) - \"Britain's obesity death rate\" WHY DOESN'T MY OPPONENT GET I AM NOT SUPPORTING OBESITY! FAT AND OBESE ARE NOT SYNONYMS IN THE MEDICAL SENSE! The Google definition of obese is \"GROSSLY FAT\" i.e. \"RIDICULOUSLY FAT\". Yes, ridiculous amounts of fat kills people, Yes, it is a disease. Yes, people who are ridiculously fat should be given medical aid. BUT WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT OBESITY IN THIS DEBATE?I still stand by my words. Being fat is okay. Being obese is wrong. You are speaking against obesity, I am against obesity as well! But don't falsely say that every fat person on this planet is also obese.\"This is detestable and you should be ashamed sir, ASHAMED\"Sure, buddy. I should be ashamed of stating the real facts? Or should I be ashamed because you want me to, since you sense you are losing? I think, you should get the differences between basic English words like obese and fat cleared up. You are confused.\"Obesity is not a paradox\"No, it is not, but 'obesity paradox' is a paradox. It has confused so many people in the medical field. You can't just deny its existence because you don't want it to exist! Although, I still don't support obesity, but I needed to show one case where fat people are fit, and look! There are enough cases to confuse a whole group of medical professionals around the world. My opponent further says that I am dangerous. Dear contender, I never did and never will support obesity, or tell obese people that its good to be obese. Don't try to change the thoughts of the readers of this debate and the voters. This attack was literally pointless.In my opinion, and hopefully that of a huge number of people, little knowledge is what is actually a very dangerous thing. I get it, you hate fat people for being fat, you want everyone to have glistening abs, but you shouldn't let your pre formed views come in the way of this debate.\"Certainly it can't be healthy to your mental health being fat, the realisation that you're less attractive to the opposite sex. The opposite sex have deemed you UNFIT through unconscious bias.\"Whoa, what kind of a cocoon is my opponent living in? He really thinks fat people don't get love? There are entire communities of people who admire fat people sexually and romantically! And they are not really invisible. I would be shocked if you haven't come across terms such as BBW (Big Beautiful Women), BHM (Big Handsome Men), etc. And the people belonging to these communities aren't less in number either.\"Heart deisease is the number one cause of death in America\" (Use the spell check feature please. Using proper spelling is a rule as well {Con spelled disease as deisease}, not a big deal, but still.)America suffers from obesity, and so people die due to it. I still don't support obesity. I support being moderately fat (I don't even know how many times I will have to mention this)\"Please donate to my charity in order to save a fat child today\" I think you are trying to make a joke, but in case you don't know, that link is to a site whose aim is to \"preserve and protect the ocean and its inhabitants\". I would like the voters to consider con's providing of a link of a completely unrelated to the debate just for the sake of a silly joke.I would also like the voters to consider that con's argument was about how obesity is bad for people, even after I had stated that I do not support obesity in R3 (quoting myself from R3 - \"I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity\") Apparently, con just chose to ignore me.Quote from source - \"In a new study by U.S. and European researchers, published [PDF] in the European Heart Journal, overweight people were found to be at no greater risk of developing or dying from heart disease or cancer, compared with normal weight people, as long as they were metabolically fit despite their excess weight.\"Fat is a killer when in excess. Diseases such as a myriad of heart diseases don't depend only on weight.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have successfully argued and made my points against the contender. I have proved through the arguments that more than one cases exist where fat people are fit. Doing that was the necessary and sufficient condition for proving myself correct to con and the voters. The con has not yet been able to prove that fat people are unfit in every case. He has only proved that obese people are unfit and even that is not 100% true, since the Obesity paradox exists. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I hope we reach a conclusion on common grounds. Sources will be mentioned at the end of R5 (BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULE) I await con's last round of argument before conclusion round. :)", "qid": 31, "docid": "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6955404877662659}, {"content": "Title: Parents of obese children be prosecuted with neglect Content: Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle", "qid": 31, "docid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6947876214981079}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is a disease. Content: 1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay \"healthy\" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6945266127586365}, {"content": "Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Being overweight can increase the risk of diabetes. 2. It's bad for physical health. 3. It's bad for your mental health. 4. It also can increase the risk of kidney disease. 5. It makes you weigh more so it takes more energy to walk or run. 6. It reduces life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org... This is why being overweight is bad. I thank whoever joins this debate. Vote Pro please. Thank you", "qid": 31, "docid": "87ef82c7-2019-04-18T19:25:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6941559314727783}, {"content": "Title: It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants Content: I apologize to my opponent for my delay in responding and I will address his refutes as such: I will agree to his points on a food disorder being a very small percentage. I would like to point out an interesting point about his BMI refute. He essentially here proposes that restaurant owners would be able to make their own discretion. At the instant that the modern day restaurant owner can refuse service to a person on their own, and at the instant that they are allowed to judge who is obese and who is not; what's to say that A. this law is necessary and B. it would be properly enforced. I believe that the idea that a restaurant owner would be the ultimate judge would not change anything at all; quite the contrary it would open up a giant loop hole in the law that restaurant owners would utilize. Further more I would like to point out that how would a restaurant owner go by judging who is fat and who is muscle. Does my opponent allow the restaurant owner to do a pat down on customers to tell if their muscle or fat? I believe that is the only way to ensure fair enforcement of this law, but I believe a manager rubbing an obese's thigh may be considered sexual harassment. I would like to point out to voters that my opponent is indeed proposing a law that prevents obese from eating in restaurants \"(1) A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly\u2014 (b) allows fattening food to be sold to such a person.\" Essentially I would like to point out restaurants that will be unable to serve fat people. All you can eat buffets, because by definition fattening food can also mean mass quantities and I believe \"all you can eat\" would qualify as mass quantities. Further more I will agree that the majority of people do not qualify to be obese, however my opponents law proposes that nobody may sell fattening food to an obese. That means an obese may not go through a drive-thru or order a take out, because a drive-thru is technically still a restaurant; further more my opponents resolution states that a restaurant is premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public. Last time I checked a super-market is able to sell food to the general public so essentially super-market would be unable to provide service to the obese. Also, a person is not able to get food for their friend so essentially my opponent is proposing a system that would force obese people to stop eating fattening food. My opponents main case is based on the idea that fat people are gross when they are over-eating yet my opponent is essentially limiting their liberty to be fat; if a person wants to obese he is unable because he has no means to acquire fattening food. He may not buy food to cook for himself because super-markets can be placed under my opponents definition of a restaurant. Henceforth the only way an obese may be fat is an underground black market that would sell fat food. I believe this is a grave injustice to people who want to be fat; let the streets ring out with the call, \"I am fat, and I am proud!\". For my opponents C2 refute I agree with him that people may order a less fattening meal. However, the whole point of my opponent is claiming that it is the obeses' eating habits we can not stand. So thus does it not stand that they would still \"pig out\" even on this salad? Further more an obese has a tendency to buy multiple quantities of the same food to satisfy his needs, yet my opponents policy refuses the obese to buy multiple quantities even of healthy food because under his definition of fattening food it is illegal to do so. Thus store would lose money because any store that sells either multiple-quantities of food, large quantities of food, or fattening food would be unable to sell their food. Further more any healthy alternatives will still be limited in quantity therefore defeating the purpose that it would balance out, because an obese would not be able to eat a satisfying meal that would usually include a big purchase resulting in $$$ for the store owner. I would like to ask my opponent if it is only the \"visual\" eating habits then why must we ban them eating fattening foods altogether? If they are messy eaters they would still be disgusting even if eating small quantities of healthy food. Further more, is a government justified in saying what is the right way to do something? Are we not basically enforcing oppressive paternalism by saying that what they are doing is wrong and what the government knows is right? I'd like to also point out that my opponent has not warranted that their is a substantial amount of people who feel offended by fat people eating out. When I go to a restaurant and I see something I don't like I don't stare in sheer horror at them, I ignore it and I move on. Many people are capable of doing this so denying an obeses' liberty seems like quite an extreme to result too. Further more to address the smoker and the drinker. My opponent basically offers up an alternative with the smoker. Why don't we just separate food stores into a \"fat\" and \"non-fat\" section? All people who take offense are easily able to go into their section and thus it would negate the purpose of enforcing a law; further more their would be no costly expenses such as ensuring the law is enforced and the obese will keep their liberty to be fat while people will not have to witness them. Further more, restaurant managers have the right to refuse service in the modern day, and yet I do not see fat people gorging on themselves constantly being kicked out. Further more I would like to remind my opponent that drunks are impaired mentally and thus may make irrational actions; being fat does not make one dizzy, irrational, un-able to think, or have their decisions impaired. Further more my opponents proposal would not allow fat people to be, \"messy\" in their own homes at the instant that no food store can sell them fattening food and no friend can bring them food, or even mass quantities of food. I would like to point out that the smoker offends people because second-hand smoke can be a serious concern and their is no way to avoid the smell of smoke other than leaving the area. Last time I checked witnessing something \"ugly\" does not make them have lung cancer, and they can easily ignore them and move on with their lives. My opponent funnily reminds me of people in government. He likes to make the proposal seem innocent and moral while ignoring all the negative effects that would quite clearly have lasting implications. My opponent case has not established a reasonable amount of concern that would warrant such a wide-spread law, his opinion alone does not warrant a mass law. My opponent is proposing a policy that would damage the economy, remember all restaurants would have some form of economic implication; such as all-you-can-eat buffets being unable to serve obese. My opponent allows for restaurant owners to make their own discretion; this already exists as many restaurants have the ability to refuse the right to service. Thus their is no reason why a law must be passed. The major reason I have to point out is that my opponent is restricting the liberty of a fat person to be ..well..fat. They are not allowed to buy fat food from any legal store, they are not allowed to have a friend deliver, and they are not even allowed to buy fat food and cook it themselves as super-markets remember satisfy the definition of restaurant that my opponent has proposed. I would like to say that it is very common for people to have bad habits that people do not wish to see. The idea that we should enforce oppressive paternalism is immoral and unjust. I repeat let the streets sing against this law, \"I am fat (obese) and I am proud!\" Fat people deserve as much liberty as any other skinny people and thus voters we should reject this law simply for its immorality, however if that's not enough than look too the economic declines it will cause.", "qid": 31, "docid": "c5d6e3e3-2019-04-18T19:13:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6938596963882446}, {"content": "Title: Introduce a \u201cfat tax\u201d (Junior) Content: Being fat causes problems for everyone", "qid": 31, "docid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6935598850250244}, {"content": "Title: Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle Content: It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.", "qid": 31, "docid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00024-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6933706402778625}, {"content": "Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: Thank you for responding daev, I was getting worried that you wouldn\u2019t. Con is trying to make 4 primary objections to my argument: Obesity is caused by environmental and genetic factors and therefore obese people are not responsible for their obesity. Surcharging customers according to their weight will disproportionately affect the poor. Passenger discomfort is mainly due to the choice of airlines to use smaller seats; and The economic impact of overweight passengers is minimal For number 1, a close look at the evidence surrounding obesity rates and causes will show you that they are not caused primarily by genetic factors. If genetic factors were the primary cause of obesity, we\u2019d see a more or less even distribution of obesity rates around the world, but we don\u2019t. We see it concentrated in first world countries like the US, in countries in Europe and in Australia. This is because people in these countries consume the most calories. According to the World Health Organization, between 1997-99 average calorie consumption in industrialized countries was about 3,380 calories per day compared to just 2,195 per day in sub-Saharan Africa, and 2,403 in South Asia.[i] The additional 1000 calories per day consumed by first world citizens shows that obesity is caused by an unhealthy lifestyle, where people choose to eat foods that are high in fat. Also, if genetic factors were primarily to blame, that wouldn\u2019t fit into the rapid rise in obesity rates in the past 30 years. One Canadian study found that there was a ten percentage point increase in the rate of obesity from 13.8 in 1978, to 23.1 in 2004[ii]. The study also concluded that the primary cause of this increase in obesity rates was an increase in calorie consumption in the diets of Canadians during those years and that obese people consumed on average, more calories per day. The same results have been found in other industrialized countries like in the US where there has been a sixfold increase in the obesity rate since 1960[iii] and in developing countries like China, where increased food availability in recent times is contributing to growing obesity rates.[iv] All of these statistics show that it is the availability of food and a person\u2019s lifestyle choice of what foods to eat that are the primary causes of obesity. Diet and exercise are available options for most if not all the people affected by obesity, therefore it is certainly possible for people to control their weight and we cannot lay the blame on \u201cgenetics and chemical influences.\u201d For number 2, I agree that obesity primarily affects the poor in industrialized countries. However, the poor who are obese are already affecting healthcare premiums for all Americans by adding $190 billion to the annual healthcare price tag.[v] That affects those who are of average weight and who are poor. So why is it OK to tolerate obese people who lack the will power to eat healthy and exercise costing us all more in many areas of our lives like in health insurance, while it is not OK to single them out and surcharge them more for their unhealthy lifestyle? For number 3, Con shows evidence that airlines are squeezing customers into smaller seats. Certainly this practice is going to exacerbate the problem I am pointing to and I would support something like a federal regulation preventing airlines from making seats too small or below a certain size. But even in the absence of shrinking plane seats, the expanding waistlines of the world will guarantee that the problem I outlined will still occur. Are the airlines supposed to \u201csize up\u201d to the heaviest passengers? Should there be seating just for the obese at a higher price? My definition of \u201cfat\u201d at a BMI of 27.5 or higher allows those who are reasonably overweight not to be penalized, it is only those who are very overweight and obese who are negatively affecting the experiences of other passengers that should rightly be affected. Like this guy:http://www.nypost.com... The additional revenue that airlines and mass transit systems will generate from implementing my plan could off-set the desire to shrink plane seats to make more money. For number 4, Con says that the economic impact at least on airlines is minimal. I\u2019m not sure how he calculated that $9 million dollar figure for the fuel costs of a 20 hour airbus flight, but if fuel cost $9 million, no airline would ever make any money. It is not that expensive to fuel an airplane. According to airliners.net an Airbus A340 can carry 54,023 gallons of fuel with a maximum range of 7,900 nautical miles[vi]. That adds up to 6.84 gallons per mile and .017 gallons per passenger per mile. With an average gallon of gas now at $3.528[vii], the highest possible price for a fully loaded Airbus A340 is $190,593, far lower than Con\u2019s estimate. And also, studies show that airlines get discounts for fuel and pay on average about $1 less per gallon than the public because they consume fuel at bulk prices[viii]. On Con\u2019s $9 million fuel price tag, each passenger would have to be paying about $36,000 on a plane of 250 passengers for the airline to break even just for that flight. Clearly Con\u2019s math is wrong. The extra $1 million in annual fuel costs for a long distance airline route due to fat passengers is something an airline company will take notice of. According to a 2010 report by the Brookings Institute, the annual jet fuel costs attributed to obesity is a staggering $742 million dollars.[ix] And as obesity rates increase into the future, the problem will only become worse not just for airliners, but for mass transit as well. Implementing a surcharge will encourage weight loss and healthier lifestyles for all people affected, and will encourage a culture in which people take personal responsibility for their lifestyle choices. This will help mitigate the discomfort regular sized passengers experience on planes, busses and trains who are being unfairly chastised. Conclusion So the evidence suggests that the rampant increase of obesity is a modern phenomenon, primarily caused by the easy access to unhealthy foods combined with a sedentary lifestyle. Fat people simply lack the will power to resist eating more calories than average weight people, and their inability to control their desires results in more costs for all of us both in economic terms and in the sheer space they take up. I take care of myself by eating healthy and exercising regularly. There is no reason any able-bodied person shouldn\u2019t be able to do the same. As such, my proposed surcharge only impacts those who are towards the obese end of the scale, not those who are mildly overweight. The hundreds of millions of dollars in additional airline fuel costs, the billions added in health insurance related costs[x] and the impact dealing with the sheer size of overweight people in our personal lives means that it is perfectly reasonable to consider penalizing those whose lifestyles negatively impact all of us, both physically and economically. [i] http://www.who.int... [ii] http://www.statcan.gc.ca... [iii] http://www.forbes.com... [iv] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... [v] http://www.forbes.com... [vi] http://www.airliners.net... [vii] http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com... [viii] http://elliott.org...[ix] http://www.brookings.edu... [x] Ibid", "qid": 31, "docid": "d8a53153-2019-04-18T17:24:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6927114129066467}, {"content": "Title: Fat people live longer than skinny people. Content: Thank you for posting your next argument. Here is a clip from the New York times news, \"About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease. \" You can read the full report here: http://www.nytimes.com... That is one way of looking at it. Another way is this, people who are overweight do suffer from those sicknesses you listed, but even more people die from starvation in other countries. Nowhere in my arguments did I say I was just talking about the USA. In children alone 15 million will die in 2010 of starvation. And those are the reported cases. Most people who live in 3rd world counties are underweight. 30,000 African children under the age of 5 die today, most of these children are underweight. Therefore, people who are overweight do tend to live longer than those aren't. There are many more statistics I could show, but I believe my point has already been made. I thank my opponent and look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). http://library.thinkquest.org... (2). http://wiki.answers.com... (3). http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.69269859790802}, {"content": "Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Where is your evidence? 2. Wikipedia, is formed by professionals. Only people who have a proof website can change it. 3.Being overweight is a known risk factor for heart disease 4. Research more before posting a comment because being overweight CAN INCREASE risk of diabetes. www.news-medical.net/?id=32912 www.mamashealth.com/eat/oweightdam.asp Vote Pro please. Thank you", "qid": 31, "docid": "87ef82c7-2019-04-18T19:25:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.692398726940155}, {"content": "Title: Junk Food Should Be Banned Content: Junk Food Can Cause Obesity", "qid": 31, "docid": "e8fec7bb-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00010-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6921168565750122}, {"content": "Title: The New York Soft Drink Size Ban Content: Thank you, and now in to the final round. First off, I would like to bring to the audience's attention;My opponent is two sided. When it comes to obesity, my opponent has said two opposite statements, stated by himself on if it is a problem or not. In round two, my opponent says;\"despite my clients claim that obesity is not a problem, it certainly is,\" So by reading this you understand that my opponent thinks that obesity indeed is a problem, for it is clearly stated. Then my opponent, in round three says;\"my opponent did rightfully point out that he believes obesity is a problem. I actually disagree\" Now, my opponent claims that obesity is not a problem. My opponent's belief towards obesity is two sided and against himself. All of these quotes were taken directly from my opponent's previous arguments. \"Dropped topics\"Although I did infer ideas of the dropped topics in my previous debates, I did not reply specifically to those exact topics, for I thought that is was not necessary, but if my opponent insists on it, I certainly will. \"The cheapness of soda and the benefit of companies to sell it in unhealthy amounts,\" First, an unhealthy amount is determined by the specific person. 24 oz may be unhealthy for me and not you. 12 oz may be unhealthy for one person but perfectly fine for another. We can not determine an \"unhealthy\" and \"healthy\" amount, for it is different for everyone. \"This restriction is similar to long standing restrictions on tobacco,\" We are not talking about tobacco restrictions and bans, we are talking about whether or not you can buy a 24 oz coke from McDonald's. \"His idea the people might by more soda is flawed logic,\" Once again, it is an inconvenience for people not being able to buy as much soda as they want. It is just very annoying, therefore people may go against the cause in a boycott sort of way. Is it a highly possible scenario? Not too much, but it is possible. \"The soda industry is paying people to publicly oppose the legislation\" Another conspiracy theory. Why in the world would a company spend their money on average citizens to oppose the ban, when the soda company, who in a group has way more power than an average citizen, spend their money for people to appose it, when they could do it themselves for free? They have more of a say and more power, so why pay citizens? Also, no proof. Now, this does not include the private industries suing the city, which indeed there are like my opponent stated. But they are private groups who are against the cause. And like my opponent said, \"why would the companies waste their money? \" The companies are private, and like most people, are against the ban. Now that I have responded to all, supposed loose ends, I can make a small rebuttal to my opponents most previous statement, then go in to my closing statement. Response First, I do not get why my opponent keeps referring to tobacco, marijuana, cigarettes, ect. We are talking about soda proportion being banned, not the legalization or marijuana. There is quite a difference between the two. He also says \"I reject all previous and any further statements that this ban is telling \"people\" what to do. \" I do not know why the quotes around \"people,\" maybe because my opponent stands for the idea of banning the companies and not the citizens. Well the companies are people too, just like you and me. So, you are not banning a company, you are banning the people working in that company, regulating what they can and cannot sell. Now, if that is not what you mean when you say that, and are truly stating that you are not telling citizens what to do, that is absurd. That is exactly what you are doing. You are telling people that they must not buy drink sizes over 16 oz. How are you telling them? You are banning them! 'People can cash their check every week, buy nothing but soda from a grocery store, and hook it up to their veins through an IV if they want,\" says my opponent in the previous round. Exactly. So why ban it from a restaurant when people can just always get as much as they want? If anything, in an oversimplification, this ban is a very large inconvenience! Final StatementI would like to finish off by simply stating how wrong this ban really is to our freedom in the sense it will take away basic freedom such as eating and drinking. Also, this is America. If I want a large coke at a local restaurant I should be able to get one! Nobody should tell me no. This ban not only violates basic principles of freedom, but if anything, is quite the inconvenience. This ban will be followed by a great deal of lawsuits and protesting. The ban is also not scientifically based that it will regulate obesity, which my opponent has stated is not important, so why the ban? My only question, why? This ban is absolutely absurd in the sense that it is;Violating basic principles of freedom, a large inconvenience to the city and the citizens, and unproductive.", "qid": 31, "docid": "8a25f2d8-2019-04-18T18:05:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6919143199920654}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: Initially, i'd like to agree with your opinion that obesity is not better than being thin in any case, but there are also some unfavourable problems when your body needs some kind of vitamins, chemical elements such as iron, calcium or zinc. However, your stomach doesn't digest this extremely crucial chemical elements because there is something wrong with digestion system which leds to being thin and having problems with health.", "qid": 31, "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.691825807094574}, {"content": "Title: Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t... Content: Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.", "qid": 31, "docid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.691758930683136}, {"content": "Title: More People Should Fat-Shame Women Content: I agree that obesity is associated with greater risks of cancer, and other health problems which is why something should be done. I think that if more people fat shame women then obesity will be decreased. There will be less television programs which promote fat acceptance, see link below and Roosh's reaction to appearing on the showCon asserts that fat shaming is not only an ineffective method of reducing obesity, but that it actually increases obesity. He says \"Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective both through scientific and anecdotal evidence\". There are numerous studies including my third source which show that exposure to weight stigmatizing information make overweight women, but not normal weight women, eat more calories and feel less in control of their eating behaviour. However this doesn't prove that fat shaming is ineffective though. Such studies only focus on comfort eating when people are depressed, rather than the bigger picture e.g. they don't mention the people who choose not to overeat and be fat due to fat being deemed unattractive. When someone is fat, they are not depressed simply because people fat shame them, it is their attitude which depresses them and that is something everyone has control of. Here is video revealing a fat woman's viewsShe chooses to believe in thin privilege, blames anything just to feel better about not taking any resposnibility for her health.My opponent blames fat shaming for causing obesity too by saying \"I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese\" when fat shaming is not the cause of obesity.Here is another video below, this time showing some views from feminists Fat people should not be pitied, they do not deserve to be loved. See video below:Men have to love theirself to deserve love, and women should too. Pitying them just makes them feel depressed and less motivated to lose weight. Fat women need to accept that men find fat ugly, and they need to stop believing in fat acceptance movements. Once they can accept that fat is ugly and learn that they need to earn love, then they will be motivated to lose weight. Telling them to blame fat shamers who represent a tiny minority, and allowing them believe that fat is beatiful i.e. not respect men's opinion, is not going to help them, quite the opposite.Con says 'overeating is one cause but there are many others'. I've provided sources in the previous round showing that overeating can explain almost every case of obesity. He even shows that a small amount of excercise makes a big difference, so obese people are not trying to lose weight. Fat shaming them though can encourage them to seek a doctor and other professionals about their problem. Educating people about obesity is a waste of money and gives people more reason to hate fat people. Everyone is taught at school that to be healthy we must excercise, sleep well, and eat well e.g. eat vegetables and have a balanced diet, not too much sugar etc. What more do people need to learn? Should fat people blame everything like their lack of education about fibre? Surely that would cause women to take even less responsibility for their health", "qid": 31, "docid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6911818981170654}, {"content": "Title: It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers Content: Many thanks to my opponent for her continued interest in this subject. With Britain now having one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, the problem has now become one of widespread debate in the general population. Firstly, it should be accepted that overeating is an addiction and obese people deserve proper medical help to overcome their cravings for food, just in the same way as a drug user might be trated for their addiction.. However, just as junkies that refuse treatment, or relapse, face mandatory rehabilitation, usually involving incarceration within a secure environment, so this same principle applies to obese people who persistently refuse to address their weight problem. This is not punishment, it is assistance for those people who damage their health and cost the taxpayers fortunes as a result. My opponent went on to quote Prof. Jane Wardle who said that parents shouldn't be held totally responsible for their children's excessive weight. I'm not a medical practitioner, as I already admitted, but it would appear to me that overweight kids' parents should be held to account. After all, where do the children get the food (or the money for food) from? Perhaps if they steal it, the parents may have an excuse, but if they are knowingly feeding them too much junk food, isn't that child cruelty? Wouldn't' a mum that plied her kids with alcohol or a dad that bought his kids crack be punished? Her final quote from Tam Fry reinforces my argument by suggesting that even with a gene predisposing one to obesity were to be identified, becoming overweight is not inevitable provided one leads a healthy lifestyle. In other words, becoming obese, or addicted to drugs or taking up a life in crime are matters of personal choice. In society, we have rights but also responsibilities, to ourselves and to others and if we neglect our responsibilities, we should expect to receive help in order to rehabilitate ourselves back into society, whether that is through prison for drug offenders or the workhouse for the obese. Thank you.", "qid": 31, "docid": "6e81aa86-2019-04-18T19:35:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6904954314231873}, {"content": "Title: Overweight people cannot be beautiful. Content: To address your question, I meant your perception on a human body, I regret not mentioning that, my apologies. If you wanted this to be about obesity, then you should have labeled it \"Obese people cannot be beautiful\" instead of \"Overweight people cannot be beautiful\" as they are technically two different groups of (weight) classification (looking at it from a medical stand point).", "qid": 31, "docid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6904722452163696}, {"content": "Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Seeing as I made an argument in round 1 I will not post an argument in this round to make it fair. It has been a good debate. Health risks linked with being fat- https://www.niddk.nih.gov... Obesity rate in America- https://www.google.co.uk... Fat girl problems- http://www.essence.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6901988983154297}, {"content": "Title: Fast Food Advertising Should Be Banned Content: Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease", "qid": 31, "docid": "47553c48-2019-04-19T12:47:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6898267865180969}, {"content": "Title: Skipping a meal (pro) vs eating junk food (con) Content: Having some food in your stomach is better than having nothing at all. Our bodies need food to function and when you don't get that you will have a hard time trying to everyday tasks. Eating junk food over time is what can cause obesity. I am pretty sure that if you eat a bag of chips once in a while you are not gojng to turn out that way.", "qid": 31, "docid": "b4086b59-2019-04-18T15:29:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6892056465148926}, {"content": "Title: Curb childhood Obesity for USA Content: I would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: \"http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.", "qid": 31, "docid": "a8af0abf-2019-04-18T19:34:36Z-00006-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6884790658950806}, {"content": "Title: Being overweight is bad Content: 1. Being overweight can't increase risk of diabetes. 2. Fat makes you warmer so it lets you be warmer in the winter. 3. Anyone can change a commment or post on wikipedia so it is almost no use of putting wikipedia on there 4. It isn't bad for your mental health I await my opponent's rebuttal", "qid": 31, "docid": "87ef82c7-2019-04-18T19:25:59Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6879978775978088}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: I accept your challenge. This seems like a really interesting topic to discuss and I'm looking forward to your arguments.I saw that you did not choose a side on this debate so I figured you let me choose my side of the argument first. For me, being obese is worse than being thin, and I will prove that in the following rounds :)", "qid": 31, "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.687775194644928}, {"content": "Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: I would have to disagree. I don't believe the weight problem will be fixed over time, as it has not in the past. I will provide some results given www. obesityinamerica. org 'Approximately 62 percent of female Americans are considered overweight65' 'Approximately 67 percent of male Americans are considered overweight66' MY OPPONENT: \"It seems bad now, but it is getting better. \" I really find this hard to believe as i see obesity grow around us everywhere. I will prove this by giving a few examples. 1. A box of 12 'ding dongs' = $2.50 One health bar=$5.00 2. Food is everywhere - beaming from roadsides, advertised on television, screaming in bright colors from grocery store shelves, glowing in vending machines down the hall from your cubicle. 3. exercise has almost been reduced from society. Why run when you can get somewhere just as easily by driving? 4. for entertainment, all anybody has to do it gaze into a television screen now. There is not as many motivating factors in society for these people as much as there has been in the past. The popularity issue doesn't help much either. There self-esteem is hurt when they are made fun of, but that often just makes it worse. people who are criticized usually don't do anything to help it. for example: If you tell an emo person not to jump off a cliff, what are they going to do? They will probably explore their options. They think that life is hard and will only get worse for them. Their problems will probably increase rather than decrease. Same with obesity. Why should they stop and try to help their problem when it is EASIER to not do so? Would someone go jog a mile, because someone called them a profain name? or would it be easier to eat away the stress of their problems? MEDICAL TREATMENTS- Medical treatments such as liposuction, Do not help obesity problems. It simply takes away the fat they already have, but their problem won't vanish with their fat. 46% of liposuction patients, grow obese again within the next five years. I believe that obesity is a growing factor in america, and given our condition, it will only get worse.", "qid": 31, "docid": "fb2e263c-2019-04-18T19:34:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.687299370765686}, {"content": "Title: Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit Content: For number 1, Con\u2019s counter to the evidence I cited on the causes of obesity misinterpreted some of my words. When I said that we\u2019d \u201csee a more or less even distribution of obesity around the world\u201d if obesity was due to genes, I was saying that in populations that have the same genes, you don\u2019t see obesity evenly distributed. For example, African-Americans have much higher rates of obesity, than Africans[i][ii]. Same genes, different rates of obesity. Why? Because the former live in America where they have more access to food, particularly unhealthy high-calorie food, and the latter do not. If African-Americans consumed the same amount of calories as their African counterparts, they\u2019d be just about as thin as them. Laziness plays a large role too. Sedentary lifestyles are a leading contributor of obesity[iii]. If you eat unhealthy high-calorie food all day and never exercise or perform any physically demanding work, of course you\u2019re more likely to become obese. The rise in obesity around the world, like in China is due primarily to these factors. China has just recently become an industrialized country, so of course their obesity rates will be lower, just like America\u2019s were 50 years ago. As more and more Chinese embrace a high calorie western diet, it is only a matter of time before their obesity rates catch up to ours, and the rapid increase of obesity there in the report I cited is proof of that. Con cannot seem to understand this. The primary environmental factors giving rise to obesity are access to unhealthy foods, combined with the lack of will power to refrain from eating more than you need. To say that obesity is genetic implies that obese people cannot help themselves, and could not lose weight if they tried. But that is simply not true. All obese people could lose weight, it is only a lack of will power that stops them, and that means it is a lifestyle choice for which they should be held responsible for when they negatively affect others. That\u2019s why I\u2019m proposing a transportation surcharge based on weight. Con is trying to make a case that the obese are victims who have no control over their weight. I\u2019m arguing that this is nonsense because if genes were the primary factor, fat people would never be able to lose weight, and the billions spent on weight loss every year is a testament to the fact that people can lose weight with proper diet and exercise. All that is required is will power. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to single out those who are negatively costing businesses and passengers. For number 2, Con completely misunderstood what I was conveying. What I wrote was that fat people already contribute to billions of dollars more in healthcare costs, and these costs result in higher premiums for everyone, fat and skinny. I was drawing an analogy here. Why is it OK that a healthy person has to pay higher premiums for their healthcare to cover the costs of the unhealthy lifestyles of the obese? Since the same thing is happening with transportation costs, why is it not OK to tolerate personal responsibility by making fat people pay more on transportation? The addition $742 million in annual fuel costs just to transport obese passengers in not insignificant. As these costs rise as obesity rates rise, airlines will simply pass that cost onto ticket prices, and we\u2019ll all end up paying more for our tickets. So what\u2019s better, that we allow fat passengers to raise airline costs for everyone due to higher fuel requirements and more space they take up, or that we single out those whose unhealthy lifestyles are costing the system more money? If we do not implement a policy of personal responsibility, we will end up with a system where we\u2019ll all be paying for those who are obese. For number 3, according to a WSJ report, for every 100 passengers, the airline\u2019s profit from just a single seat[iv]. The largest expense of each flight, 29%, comes from fuel costs. So the profit margin for airlines is very small compared to their costs. Obese passengers are cutting into this profit margin not just by adding nearly three quarters of a billion dollars in fuel costs, but in the sheer size they take up. Many airline companies are charging their passengers for 2 tickets if they cannot fit into their seat[v]. A pay as you weigh policy that I\u2019m proposing will help discourage unhealthy lifestyles and encourage better eating and exercising, something which nobody can deny is needed. For number 4, Con has not been able to justify his wildly high price tag for fueling an Airbus A380 at $9 million dollars. As I\u2019ve said, if that were the price of fueling a single 20 hour flight, no airline would ever make any money, and they\u2019d have to charge passengers $36,000 per ticket just to break even on the fuel costs. Clearly Con\u2019s math is absurd. According to Indexmundi, the average price of jet fuel per gallon in May 2013 was $2.73,[vi] lower than the average gallon of gasoline for non-commercial vehicular use[vii] and is about a dollar less just as I mentioned. This means that a fully fueled Airbus A380, which holds about 85,000 gallons[viii] would need $232,050 worth of jet fuel, 38 times lower than Con\u2019s $9 million calculation. According to the reports I\u2019ve cited before, the $742 million of additional fuel costs just to cover obese passengers is alarming and is not a small drop in the bucket. Considering that this price tag will only grow higher as more people become obese, we have 3 options: (1) Have the airline companies take a financial hit, making them more vulnerable to bankruptcy, (2) have the airline companies raise airline ticket prices for all of us to cover the additional fuel costs, or (3) implement a policy like the one I\u2019m proposing that makes those customers who are obese and are causing this problem to take personal responsibility for their unhealthy lifestyle choices and pay a surcharge. I think option 3 is perfectly reasonable because otherwise, what is most likely going to happen is option 2, where we\u2019ll all be paying more, and that is not fair. Conclusion The primary causes of obesity are (1) a high calorie diet, (2) lack of physical exercise, and (3) a lack of will power to eat better and exercise. Genetics plays a secondary role. The fact that people can lose weight if they try hard enough shows that it is lifestyle choice that is the most important factor in obesity[ix]. Why should we tolerate fat people raising healthcare costs for everyone, and airline and transportation costs for everyone, and not tolerate surcharging only those who are adding the system additional costs? To me this makes no sense. If I take care of myself health-wise and I have to pay more for an airline ticket because obese people are adding costs to the system & taking up space, why should I have to pay more for other people\u2019s unhealthy lifestyles? I\u2019m being victimized in the process. The surcharge will discourage obesity by penalizing those who are responsible for the costs they incur on everyone else. Considering the small profit margin airlines make, the $742 million in fuel costs for the obese as reported in 2010 could be offset by the surcharge, allowing the airlines greater profit, and lowering ticket prices for those passengers within guidelines. If I could sum up the argument in a sentence, it makes sense to surcharge those who cost others both financially and physically, by making them personally responsible for what the data shows is due to a lifestyle choice, and the method by which I proposed only targets those who at or near obesity. [i] http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov... [ii] http://tinyurl.com...; [iii] http://en.wikipedia.org... [iv] http://tinyurl.com...[v] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [vi] http://www.indexmundi.com... [vii] http://tinyurl.com...; [viii] https://en.wikipedia.org...; [ix] http://tinyurl.com...;", "qid": 31, "docid": "d8a53153-2019-04-18T17:24:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.686881422996521}, {"content": "Title: Junk Food leads to obesity. Content: Junk food leads to obesity. Take potato chips for instance. They have a lot of fat in them.", "qid": 31, "docid": "7102fd89-2019-04-18T15:22:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6865842342376709}, {"content": "Title: americas weight probem is only getting worse Content: I believe that the weight problem over time is being fixed. It seems bad now, but it is getting better. We are treating it as a psychological problem and creating weight rehabs for those who have this problem. We have medical treatments, and ever day I swear I see less and less obese people. It is obviously not popular to be overly skinny or fat anymore and with this peer pressure comes the decreased amount of over weight people. I believe in the future of America, I believe that we will continue to become greater, and eventually we will defeat obesity. It may be getting worse, but over a larger span of time I know that it will get better. So in that sense, it is getting better, and eventually it will be.", "qid": 31, "docid": "fb2e263c-2019-04-18T19:34:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6863980293273926}, {"content": "Title: Obesity Content: I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.", "qid": 31, "docid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00009-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6858160495758057}, {"content": "Title: The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service Content: My opponent makes an excellent argument against obesity. However, what has failed to be done, is show that transfats are the leading or primary cause of obesity, thus indicating that it ought be eliminated as the solution. While I fully agree that obesity is a serious problem that can no longer be ignored, there are various other, superior alternative solutions. Our obesity (as a nation) is caused by an imbalance of calories intake verse outtake, meaning that we are consuming more then we are using. One very nifty feature of our body is the ability to take energy (i.e. calories) that we don't use and save them for later. Even if you eat an all carb diet (which is highly unhealthy, as the body needs proteins and fats), all unused energy is converted from carbs, into fats for future use (the body will do the same with excess protein too).[1] Therefore, by simply saying \"no more transfats\" our imbalance problem is not going to be fixed. Lets look at some of the major offenders in school foods, soda and candy. Coca-cola does not have a single gram of fat, infact, most soda doesn't (I cannot find a single one, but I will refrain from making that generalization in case there is one that I did not think of).[2] Let us look at a snickers bar, 13.6 grams of fat, only 0.2 grams of transfat.[3] Or a 3 musketeers bar, with 9.0 grams of fat, no transfats at all.[4] We can even go to McDonalds and see the item with the most transfats is the double quarter pounder with cheese and it has a staggering 2.5 grams of transfats.[5] So we know that transfats are not found in soda, candy, or fast food (the usually suspects of obesity). Well, lets just see what does have transfats? The number one offender (according to Cindy Moore of the CCF) is butter, which now many butters (particularly soft spread) contain very little transfats (though still some) compared to the older, more traditional stick butter.[6] We also, as an alternative solution, ought to look at the other side of the equation, exercise. Right now, many schools are cutting their PE programs, at a time when most kids do not do any exercising outside of school.[7] We ought also educate kids and their parents on the importance of a healthy diet. This does not mean that we should go overboard and complete ban and eliminate all transfats from schools, only that kids should be provided various options and the knowledge to be able to make informed choices on those options. [1] http://recipes.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com... [3] http://caloriecount.about.com... [4] http://caloriecount.about.com... [5] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [6] http://www.vpul.upenn.edu... [7] http://abcnews.go.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "36aea26b-2019-04-18T18:57:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6857281923294067}, {"content": "Title: Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year Content: Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.", "qid": 31, "docid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00011-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6853930950164795}, {"content": "Title: There Should Be a Fat Tax Introduced Content: Despite the staggering increase in numbers of people who are obese, there is an increasing tendency on the part of health professionals to take a \"non-judgmental\" approach to such problems. The Labour government\"s Foresight report blamed the rise in obesity on an \"obesogenic environment\" \" explaining the problem as an inevitable consequence of modern, sedentary lifestyles. When interviewed on Radio 4\"s Today programme recently, Alberic Fiennes, of the National Bariatric Surgery Registry, repeatedly referred to obesity as a \"disease\" \" rather than a self-inflicted condition that people have the ability to control through willpower. Of course there are some illnesses and drug treatments which promote weight gain, but such a non-judgmental approach denies the importance of personal responsibility and passes the problem on an NHS which is increasingly unable to cope \" particularly in the current economic climate \" with everything that it is asked to do. It is unfair that the huge costs of treating and coping with obesity should be passed onto taxpayers. Why are fat people treated differently when public health policy does not take the same attitude towards people who harm their health by smoking or drinking too much? In each case, a tax is imposed which more than covers the cost to the NHS of treating diseases related to these activities. Tobacco taxes raise \"9.3 billion a year for the Treasury \" more than three times the \"2.7 billion which the NHS annually spends treating smoking-related diseases. Alcohol taxes raise \"8.3 billion a year, nearly three times the \"3 billion annual cost of treating alcohol-related diseases. One of the arguments against a fat tax has been the fact that it would disproportionately hit the poor who are more likely to eat fatty, cheap and convenience processed foods. Indeed, a study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2004 concluded that a tax similar to that now imposed in Denmark would cost the poorest 2 per cent of the population 0.7 per cent of their income. For the richest 10 per cent of the population, on the other hand, the impact would be minimal. Yet there is an easy way for the poor to avoid a fat tax: buy less fatty food. Meanwhile, as well as Denmark\"s new fat tax, Hungary has also introduced a tax on all packaged foods containing unhealthy levels of sugar, salt, and carbohydrates, as well as products containing certain amounts of caffeine. Health experts believe such taxes will encourage food manufacturers to make products that have a reduced fat content \" and that consumers won\"t even notice the difference in taste \" and they might be far healthier as a result. Besides ambulances, the NHS has also had to invest in specialist lifting equipment, including cushions at \"2,500 a time and specialist stretchers costing between \"7,000 and \"10,000. The Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust spent \"500,000 on extra-large furniture and equipment. In Lancashire, hospitals also spent \"42,010 on giant birthing beds for obese women in labour, while Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon spent \"3,000 on just one set of scales able to weigh people up to 78st. Then there is the cost of bariatric surgery \" an umbrella term for operations involving the reduction obesity, including gastric bands and gastric bypasses. In 2003/04, the NHS performed 470 such operations. That figure rose to 6,500 in 2009/10. Given that a gastric band costs between \"5,000 and \"7,000, and a gastric bypass between \"8,000 and \"14,000, this has become one of the fastest-growing drains on NHS budgets. Yet less than 1 per cent of obese patients are receiving the operations, and there is a great deal of pressure on the NHS to increase this percentage.", "qid": 31, "docid": "64c88bde-2019-04-18T15:14:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6844108700752258}, {"content": "Title: Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous Content: I do agree with you in the sense that fat doesn\"t necessarily mean unhealthy. After all, The type of fat and the amount of fat in your body greatly determine how healthy you are, And fat is part of our diet and composition. But too much of anything is never good especially when you take into consideration where the fat is being stored. That, I shall explain eventually. I did say before that this whole thing is not a black and white mentality. Skinny obviously doesn\"t mean healthy. I could be heavier than you but healthier. After all, Many athletes are considered overweight but what the scales don\"t tell you is body composition. Many athletes are heavy because of their muscle while others are heavier because of their fat. I also know for a fact that fat doesn\"t necessarily have to be outwardly presented, There\"s something called skinny fat, Meaning people who are skinny happen to have their body mostly composed of fat. You really don\"t have to have a big butt and gut. And of course, I didn\"t forget that there\"s diseases like anorexia and malnutrition from being extremely underweight, Picky, Or whatever the cause may be. The thing is, In rich and modern countries, That is not really the case anymore. Food is no longer an issue and is constantly available all around us, We are on a completely different side of the spectrum. We are just getting bigger. Now about the sumo wrestlers, They are definitely healthier because they engage in vigorous activity and follow some sort of regime. But we mustn\"t forget what kind of audience the Fat Acceptance movement consists of. A good portion of overweight or obese audience members are not like sumo wrestlers because the majority of them do not engage in as much activity as sumo wrestlers and I can guarantee that the majority of them do not follow a strict regime. That is why the message they\"re getting out is concerning. They\"re basically telling them to sugarcoat their problems or potential problems and just accept themselves as they are especially when you take into consideration what countries embrace fat acceptance. Fat acceptance was founded in the US and is widely embraced there, It\"s also become a thing in places like the UK and Australia of which those countries are already experiencing the consquences. Overall, \"the most common causes of obesity are overeating and physical inactivity\" in the US which is completely opposite of what sumo wrestlers do. Because of this, 109, 342, 839 people in the US are obese making it one of the heaviest nations in the world. Now, The placement of fat. You said that that sumo wrestlers are fat and healthy but you did miss something very crucial. The conception of fat is not \"black and white\" as I said in my first argument. Firstly: \"The study revealed that although the wrestlers have enormous bellies, Most of their abdominal fat is stored immediately under the skin, And not behind the stomach wall within the gut or visceral area. In fact, Sumo wrestlers had about half of the visceral fat of regular people with visceral obesity. \" The fact that the fat they store doesn\"t affect their organs makes them much more healthier than fat people in places like the US or UK. It is not surprising to find millions of people losing their lives to such issues. This leads to my second point. Secondly: \"the most significant cause of death were diseases of the heart which were responsible for 23. 1 percent of all deaths in the United States. \" \"The CDC doesn't list obesity as a cause of death. Instead, It lists heart disease as the No. 1 cause, Killing nearly 598, 000 people a year, While cancer kills 575, 000. Overall, Nearly 2. 5 million Americans died in 2010. \" As you can see, It so happens that being overweight and obese correlates with the majority of these deaths. https://www. Nbcnews. Com/health/heavy-burden-obesity-may-be-even-deadlier-thought-6C10930019 https://renewbariatrics. Com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ https://www. Medicinenet. Com/obesity_weight_loss/article. Htm https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/", "qid": 31, "docid": "615af073-2019-04-18T11:22:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.684341311454773}, {"content": "Title: Curb childhood Obesity for USA Content: My opponent agrees with me that obese people are being discriminated against, that the cause IS because of their surroundings, (like I have mentioned) but he also said that we should not help them. Sir, I would like to point out that many children are being affected by this disorder and the effects that come with it such as: >Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes (an autoimmune disease that results in destruction of insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas.) >Cardiovascular disease >Stroke >Hypertension (high blood pressure) >hypothyroidism (caused by insufficient production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland.) >Dyslipidemia (a disruption in the amount of lipids in the blood.) >Hyperinsulinemia (where excess levels of circulating insulin are in the blood) >Insulin resistance (the condition in which normal amounts of insulin are inadequate to produce a normal insulin response from fat, muscle and liver cells.) >Glucose intolerance >Congestive heart failure >Angina pectoris >Cholecystitis >Cholelithiasis >Osteoarthritis >Gout (a disease created by a build up of uric acid. In this condition, crystals of monosodium urate or uric acid are deposited on the articular cartilage of joints, tendons and surrounding tissues. These crystals cause inflammation and pain, both severe. If unchecked, the crystals form tophi, which can cause significant tissue damage. Gout results from a combination of elevated concentrations of uric acid and overall acidity in the bloodstream.) >Fatty liver disease >Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems >Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) >Fertility complications >Pregnancy complications >Psychological disorders >Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) >Stress urinary incontinence >Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder Not all, but most of these will result in a painful death, and sir, you stated \"Why should we help them...?\" If we don't help our children prevent these treacherous diseases and conditions, who will? Not the media! in fact, they are contributing to diseases. but that's a whole different debate for a whole different time. Not the government- they have caused more problems than they have solved we have to attack one of the main sources: Schools! As I stated before \"schools contribute to this growing epidemic when they limit food sources to saturated fats.\" We need to gather parents and school administrators and warn them of this disease that is growing before America's eyes. We need to donate money to raise awareness in health classes and we need to raise the number of Physical workouts everyday.", "qid": 31, "docid": "a8af0abf-2019-04-18T19:34:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6839843988418579}, {"content": "Title: Should Americans get help beating obesity. Content: Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a biological problem. The actual predisposition to obesity of all people is 23%. That's a lot less than what they show on TV. You also got the other thought wrong. Fat people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place. For example, the weird hit \"All About That Bass\" by Megan Trainor is filled with hate against people who AREN'T fat. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "qid": 31, "docid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6838725805282593}, {"content": "Title: America is NOT obese. Content: True, to say \"America is obese\" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country \"obese\", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...", "qid": 31, "docid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6837887763977051}, {"content": "Title: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments Content: how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments", "qid": 31, "docid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00005-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6832743883132935}, {"content": "Title: Being Fat isn't Always Directly Linked to Being Unhealthy. You Can be FIT AND FAT at The Same Time. Content: Let me educate my opponent by stating a basic debating guidelines. The affirmative side always begins a debate. Affirmative side has the burden of proof most of the times and a proper debate begins by the affirmative side stating their views, and then the opponent opposing the proposition.Con says I broke my own rule about following the debate format and tries to put all the blame on me. But once con started the debate in the wrong round himself, that diminishes the merits of his argument since one can not oppose unless the other has stated. I did the best I could to keep the debate going in a proper way, even if out of format. Once the format has already been damaged by con, I wish to continue the debate and not care much about bringing the proper format back. This debate would not have started turning into a mess had the contender given heed to the rules in the first place. I wish the contender stays on topic as well.I apologise if I offended the contender in any way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Con believes strongly that being fat always affects the heart. His assertions tend to make everyone believe fat people almost always die of heart diseases and heart attacks. (quoting Con - \"BAM! you got a fat heart attack and you're dead!\" ; \"or risk a fat heart attack.\")But, heart diseases are based on multiple factors and weight is considered one of the important factors only when the person is very fat, or obese. I believe I should define some terms here to reinstate some clarity - Fat - Having more than average fat tissue. Fit - The state of being healthy.Health - \"A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.\" WHO, 1948.When a person gains excess fat (more than they can use up immediately), it is stored in adipose tissues, to be used for energy later on. This fat wont suddenly get into arteries and clog them. Fat escapes into arteries when it is too much, in the case of obesity. I feel I have already cleared the fact that I am not supporting obesity, but my opponent doesn't seem to understand.\"I bought up a very good point last round that my opponent dismissed as he didn't understand.\"I understood the point very well. In my opinion, it wasn't a really good point. Reasons - We are not talking about the fitness of the entire population, so why would we need to discuss the survival advantage? Survival advantage is viewed for a species as a whole. Having the kind of bodies carnivores do, or amount of blubber whale have,etc. gives their species advantage. BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THEIR WAS NO INTENTION TO TALK ABOUT A SPECIES. When I said \"You can be fit and fat\" I did not mean - you = entire homo sapiens species.\"For my opponent to counter my argument, he would have to show that humans are naturally fat and excessive fat play a role in survival.\"Fitness and survival abilities are different concepts when applied to a single organism. So, no I won't have to prove what con asks me to prove here because that would be straying away from topic.I have stated sumo wrestlers and power lifters as examples since you did so in the first round. I would have used only power lifters as ONE EXAMPLE in my debate had it been started the proper way. I sense Con is trying to manipulate the debate by starting the argument in the wrong round and asserting some things. If not, I apologise.\"To further my argument against this claim I would like my opponent to consider the impact fatties have on the health of society.\"We are talking about how there is a possibility that a fat person can be fit. We are NOT talking about how fat people affect the society. Con seems to have confused some terms.I hope I have made myself clear enough and dissolved any confusion.More arguments.There was a study and the best way to describe the results would be to use an example of comparing the human body with a car. You can love or hate the external looks, but you can't judge the internal efficiency. Maintenance is what matters.A parameter often used to say that fat people are unhealthy is the BMI. But it has been proved in a lot of instances that it's wrong many times. For instance, professional basketball players tend to have elevated BMI scores, even though they have so little fat and more muscle. Football players are big, but the physical activity keeps the heart problems due to excessive weight at bay.Finally, for this round, I would mention the OBESITY PARADOX. Being overweight IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED BY SOME RESEARCHERS TO HELP PROTECT SOME PERSON FROM DISEASES LIKE CANCER, PNEUMONIA, STROKE, HYPERTENSION, etc.\"For determining health or fitness, hhealthy behaviors, including nutrition and physical activity, matter more than weight.\" (Quoting from source)People are generally stuck on the phrase 'fat is bad' because they have been told so from an early age. Too much fat is bad, yeah, obesity is a serious health condition; but just fat is not bad. I think I have proved my assertion more than enough.----------------------------------------------------------------------Just to clarify this debate to con a bit more, I say that \"Being fat isn't always directly linked to being unhealthy\" It should be self explanatory here but I just need to prove one instance where fat is healthy and you have to prove that no such case exists. Thank you for reading :) Have a good one.I await con's further arguments. :)", "qid": 31, "docid": "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.683103084564209}, {"content": "Title: Wide Loads Should Proceed in Single File. Content: With thanks to my opponent for such a prompt reply, I should like to respond as follows: At the beginning of his argument my opponent wrote: \"Firstly the obese are like vehicles, now they are like drunkards. My opponents sole case rests on asserting obese individuals are like something they are not.\" And at near the end\u2026 \"Assuming all obese will react similarly is to say BMI is a personality motivator. Clearly that is not correct either.\" Of course, one should not generalise in debates, but on the basis of absolutely no research, I had no choice! My opponent, on the other hand, did do some research: \"Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project, 2007, predict that if no action is taken, by 2050, 60% of men and 50% of women and 25% of children will be obese. Department of Health, UK Government.\" Interesting that the British Government agrees that the obese need to be tackled, perhaps they were inspired by watching rugby or American football matches, who knows? Certainly, the figures quoted in this document just go to show how bad pavement congestion caused by slow-moving obese people will get unless the problem is addressed as a matter of urgency. Ideally, this would be done by explaining the health risks associated with being overweight, in the same way as has been done previously through public information campaigns which outlined the dangers associated with smoking, taking drugs and drinking to excess. In this way, the obese will be able to make an informed choice about their weight, and those that choose to slim down rather than to continue to stuff their faces full of junk food in an continuous orgy of gluttony and greed, will find they will be able to walk quicker and not take up so much space on the pavement and, therefore, not be subject to summary punitive action at the hands of anti-fat-related-pavement-congestion police snatch squads. I don't quite agree with my opponent's analysis of the legislative system so I have supplied a link to the Parliament website for those who may be interested. http://www.parliament.uk... However, Acts of Parliament usually apply across the entire country, rather than just one city, which is why I proposed a by law instead. Furthermore, I do not agree that this law would be unpopular with the obese. After all, my favourite pastimes are driving and drinking, yet I agree that drinking and driving should be illegal, so even though I believe I am perfectly capable of motoring quite safely after a few pints, I nevertheless obey the law. Anyway, thanks Puck, for the debate and thanks in advance to the voters for your generous support!", "qid": 31, "docid": "5f670626-2019-04-18T19:41:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6829464435577393}, {"content": "Title: Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts Content: Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.", "qid": 31, "docid": "fdb7b7d4-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00076-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6829344034194946}]}
{"query": "Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7908527255058289}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7838931083679199}, {"content": "Title: Efficiency Content: Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that \u2018hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data\u2019 recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7462239265441895}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00009-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7347315549850464}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory voting Content: Mandatory voting more impactful than making voting easier", "qid": 32, "docid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00040-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7284049391746521}, {"content": "Title: Efficiency Content: Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error \u2013 and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] \u2013 yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00015-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.726937472820282}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7231262922286987}, {"content": "Title: The Internet is more useful than frustrating Content: I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply \"vote\", which means, according to Merriam Webster, \"the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc.\" 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.", "qid": 32, "docid": "2232031-2019-04-18T16:30:28Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7219456434249878}, {"content": "Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and \"confirm\" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.", "qid": 32, "docid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7207561731338501}, {"content": "Title: open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for elections Content: Increasing voter engagement", "qid": 32, "docid": "bfe8543f-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00009-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7178887128829956}, {"content": "Title: Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote Content: Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.", "qid": 32, "docid": "e006bff-2019-04-18T19:30:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7138419151306152}, {"content": "Title: A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Content: By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel", "qid": 32, "docid": "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7120885848999023}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Content: The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren\u2019t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to \u2018find, retrieve and evaluate\u2019 information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are \u2018most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer\u2019[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00023-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7091198563575745}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \"\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \"\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \"a lot of hacking in internet\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...", "qid": 32, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7088990211486816}, {"content": "Title: Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org. Content: I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them. In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine. You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote. PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*", "qid": 32, "docid": "c975876f-2019-04-18T19:25:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7087256908416748}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Content: Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] \u2013 why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00020-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7083490490913391}, {"content": "Title: Engagement with democracy Content: If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual\u2019s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00029-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.707328200340271}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over \u00a380 million to organise[1], Canada\u2019s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00017-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7070248126983643}, {"content": "Title: This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Content: Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.", "qid": 32, "docid": "615e029c-2019-04-18T19:03:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7069944143295288}, {"content": "Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: org voting system. Having joined only a few months ago, I was unaware the current voting system was an added feature in version 3. However, I remain resolute in my position that a one-point voting system is better for this site. 1) My opponent begins his rebuttal with the accusation that my \"entire premise is flawed,\" and backs this claim with ambiguous qualification, simply saying that the \"old debate. org system was much, much worse. \" How much worse exactly? He says there was a reason they asked for change but does not list it. Perhaps he meant for the reason to be explained in his other counter arguments; nevertheless I can guess the reason. As I stated in my previous round, the idea behind the current voting system is great. The IDEA is great. I am willing to bet that all serious debaters on this site appreciate the idea of having a more precise assessment of their performance. I myself admit the very IDEA brought me to this site. My premise, however, is that the idea only works if the majority of voters execute it in practice. As I showed in my first round, this is not the case. 2) My argument in no way rests on the assumption that users care about their win ratios. I am well aware of askbob's personal Terms of Service and Kleptin's intentional 0% win ratio. The motive behind their actions is evidence of the current voting system's flaws. The actions of these fine men are the result of inaccurate voting results, specifically in the form of prejudicial vote bombing. My argument rests, instead, on the assumption that users care about individual debate results, hoping to gain insight so they might improve in the future. 3) My opponent wants to shift the focus from the system to its users, but this does not comport with the philosophy of the site's creator, Phil. His position is that members who have legitimately confirmed their account have every right to vote whichever way they choose. If user voting is flawed, it is because the system allows for such flaws. So long as the administration does not intend to police votes (if that were even practically possible), total reliance falls upon the system itself. 4) I never conceded my system to be impractical and respectfully ask my opponent to quote me. If the webmaster was able to go from a single-point system to the current system, then he can do the opposite. To simply say it's too much work is a red herring. 5) As I stated in my previous round, thoughtful voters could still assess all areas of debate. My system in no way inhibits it. Thoughtful voters are capable of explaining their votes in any system and need not be given a formula. Indeed, if askbob can create his own TOS, then members can create a good voter feedback convention. 6) My casual voter category is based on simple observation. It is clear that many voters award all 7 points to their determined winner. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they do this because they simply view it as a 7 point score, like football. Call them vote bombers if you wish, but there is no shortage of evidence that people award all 7 points to one side. I daresay such voters far outnumber thoughtful ones. 7) Vote bomber identification is irrelevant unless a vote-bomb-removal system is implemented, though this does nothing to eliminate the problem with casual voters. The only way to ensure that the current system adheres accurately to its philosophy is to punish all voters that do not explain themselves, including non-malicious casual voters that like to award 7 points to the winner. Consider this debate: (. http://www.debate.org...). A score of 31 to 55 is meaningless. You cannot determine anything from that score other than some kind of preference towards Con. Is it because he argued better? Had better conduct? The only reason we know for sure is because 8 thoughtful voters explained their votes. Taking the thoughtful votes into account, this debate's score would have been around 4 to 11 in a one-point system. This score is MEANINGFUL, even with explanations. It tells us that 11 people preferred Con while 4 people preferred Pro. Even if some votes were arbitrary or malicious, it carries meaning, which is further enhanced by thoughtful voters explaining themselves. It's worth pointing out that, minus the 8 thoughtful votes, the score would likely have been 4 to 3 instead of 30 to 16, which is a much closer score. Just because Debate. org tried the one-point voting system and moved on does not mean we cannot count our losses with the current system and revert back. Already users are denouncing win ratios and ignoring actual vote scores. Let's go back to a more meaningful voting system--the one-point system--before it gets any worse. Vote (or vote bomb) in favor of Pro.", "qid": 32, "docid": "9bc1a170-2019-04-18T19:34:34Z-00001-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7069740891456604}, {"content": "Title: Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting Content: As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.", "qid": 32, "docid": "33d6b29e-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.705010175704956}, {"content": "Title: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Content: Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] \u2013 why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7047200202941895}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: The first point Con makes is that opening the voting system to more people increases the risk of including biased voters. On the contrary, I believe that opening voting will diversify what types of voters we have, outnumbering the amount of potentially biased people there are and might be if we open up voting. Additionally, as I have said before, because Debate.Org has such able and responsible moderators and the report system put in place to report potentially biased votes, and because of the \"Reason For Voting\" which is mandatory for all debates when voting, voters must give statements specifying why they voted for someone. They cannot provide vague and unspecific statements like \"I voted for Pro because he provided a better argument.\" Moderators will remove votes for these explanations because even though they might slightly explain the reason behind one voted, it is too unspecific.The second point Con makes is that a better solution to resolving the problem with low voter turnout is to advertise voting more. On the contrary, I feel that this will have little to no effect. I am certain that most, if not all people, are aware that anyone with the proper registration can vote. I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective, especially being that this is a debating website reliant on public voters. I believe that many people have considered voting, but have been prevented from doing so because they did not want to give out personal information such as their home or personal phone number.Con ends his argument by saying that \"Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.\"Yes, I do believe that we should not open voting to everyone, with little to no restriction. It will open the website to corruption and voting fraud. And there will be a point when it may become too extensive and tough for our moderator team to handle, no matter how great they are at their work. However, I do believe that the low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle. If we remain to keep the strict restrictions on voting, not only will many thought-provoking and groundbreaking debates go unnoticed, and a winner remaining undecided, but the failure to gain any new voters, the website itself might spiral down into ruin from inactivity, as people who seek greater debating opportunities will flock to other debating websites such as DebateIsland.", "qid": 32, "docid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00001-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7039034366607666}, {"content": "Title: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Content: Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] \u201dE-Voting Rights\u201d, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting", "qid": 32, "docid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00012-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7037531137466431}, {"content": "Title: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Content: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.", "qid": 32, "docid": "b76ec089-2019-04-19T12:45:35Z-00014-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7022805213928223}, {"content": "Title: On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO. Content: Thank you warren42 for your speedy reply.Re: Intro/ImpactsI am going to start here as this is the easiest contention to counter. In my opinion, it is also pro's weakest contention. In the intro and final contention, pro blames vote moderation for lack of votes. In order for Pro to be able to win this point, he needs to show that vote moderation is the sole or at least the most significant factor in the lack of votes. I will contend that there are two other factors involved that are causing the lack of votes: 1) The debates are hard to find, and 2) An increase of overall debates. Factor 1: Debates are hard to findOn the old debate.org design, debates were the front and center of the website (see screenshot). As soon as you went to debate.org, you saw the completed debates on the homepage. Debates were the selling point of the website and the first thing you saw. You could easily locate completed debates that needed to be voting on. Screenshot from the Internet Archives.The current user interface, however, is quite inefficient and hides the debates in the voting period. In order to find those debate, the fastest way to do that is to go to debates->voting period. Had debate.org simply kept the old design to the homepage, then the voting thread would not be needed (more on this later as pro brought this up in his arguments).Factor 2: An increase of debatesOver the past few years, debate.org has grown exponentially and the overall number of debates have increased as a result. For example, as I am typing these words, there are 16 debates in the challenge period and over 8K debates in the voting period. Going back to the Internet Archive, we see that in the past two years, there has been a consistency in debates that are in the voting period. However, going back to only 4 years ago, there were only 4 debates in the challenge period (2). -------------------------------------------------\"Misidentification hurts innocent individuals\u2019 right to vote, as they are penalized for an act they didn't commit.\"I will address misidentification later on however I want to address this point now. On debate.org, there is no \"right to vote.\" Voting is a privilege that can be taken away at any time for poor votes. Similarly, whiteflame and the moderators are usually quick to acknowledge their mistake and oversite. Should a vote be removed in error, the moderators allow the vote to be re-posted and the removal will not be held against that person.For example, Pro voted on my debate with Amed. The moderators failed to notice the RFD in the comment section (this is why I always post that my RFD is in the comments) and the vote removal is not held against that person. [2] Re: Voting standards are inadequatePro begins by taking Bluesteel's comment out of context. It is quite clear from Bluesteel's post that she is referring to RFDs that are very clearly biased. Pro agrees that biased votes ought to be removed. I will screenshot the post to make my point clearer: Bluesteel never stated that you cannot vote for the side that you agree with nor did he say that if your ballot on a 7-point system mentions that you agreed with this person before and after the debate your vote will be removed. I do not know of a single case in which a vote was removed solely because you voted for the side that you agreed with. I also do not know of a single case where a vote was removed because you indicated on the ballot that you agreed with a particular side. -------------------------------------------------The next point that Pro brings up the issue he takes with voting on the arguments presented. Pro writes:\"[W]hen one debater makes statements which are objectively false, I think that previous knowledge of an issue can and should be utilized.\"I am in full agreement with the voting standards on this one. It is important that the voter does not become a debater. In actual Lincoln-Douglas debate styles, the judges only vote on the issues presented. Let's say that I make a statement that says 2+2=5. If that point is not countered or is inadequately countered, then the point is dropped and should be given to the person making the claims, regardless if it is objectively false.What you can do with your RFD is that while the point goes to that side, this point did not convince me because of X, Y, and Z. -------------------------------------------------Finally, Pro takes issue with the voting thread. I fully agree with him on this point that the voting thread should not be used to sway voters. The voting thread is important because debates in the voting period are hard to find. However, it should not be used to make additional arguments. I would argue that the main rule should be that the only thing that is allowed to be posted is the resolution and the link to the debate.The voting standards are adaquetI wanted to bring this point up in the pervious round but did not want to be seen as violating the rules of the debate and making a rebuttal. The voting standards are more than adaquet because they require only a minimum adaquecy on your RFD. No moderator is going to make you write a doctoral dissertation on your vote. Debate.org user TUF summed this up quite nicely [3]:\"[L]et's be honest, the vote standards aren't overly complicated enough to where all of the potential problems with a vote can't be solved by just reading the debate in it's entirety. That's what the standards encourage members to do. Do we really want members voting who don't want to put the time and effort into giving you feedback on a debate you worked so hard on? I say good riddance to any voter that quits voting because they think the standards themselves are \"too strict\" and happily welcome the new era of voters who care enough about the site and community to contribute to fixing the problems themselves. \"The voting standards are easy to understand, easy to follow, and do not require a ton of effort. If one is a decent voter and consistently posts good votes and good RFDs, then any vote standard will not effect you that much.Re: Interpretation by modsRe: A. Adaquet votes are removedPro cites a few times in which adaquet votes were removed and one of them happened to be my own vote. According to the vote guide, sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. If one side used sources and the other side did not, then I still need to explain why I found that one side's sources to be reliable. In other words, quality is more important than overall quantity.As I mentioned in the first round, I was able to repost my vote after I added some more detail on the sources. In both instances that Pro cites, the voter failed to properly explain *why* the sources had an impact on the debate, thus the votes were in violation of the voter guide. As to Pro's argument that he has had a vote removed that he did not cast, this is the only time that I have heard of this happening. It is clear that the mods simply made a mistake as to who the voter was. Re: B. MisidentificationI've already touched on this previously and now wish to slightly expand. Moderators are only human and will make mistakes regardless of the voting standards in place. When a vote is removed in error, the mods are generally quick to make corrections and will not hold that against the voter. The resolution is negated. I look forward to your reply. Sources1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly...", "qid": 32, "docid": "eb368265-2019-04-18T12:56:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.70033198595047}, {"content": "Title: Direct representation should be adopt for legislatures Content: 1Alyssa, I appreciate You accepting this challenge. On point #1, if the only \u201cmore procedures\u201d which would \u201cslow down the entire decision-making progress\u201d of concern are the \u201ccareful calculation\u201d of Each Representative\u2019s votes, that data can be easily automated. Currently, in the United States House of Representatives, the institution which I reference as \u201cthe existing model\u201d, in order to vote, Each Representative takes Their official congressional identification, places it into a voting station and presses a button indicating \u201cAye\u201d or \u201cNay\u201d; the voting station reads from the identification, the identity of the Representative and records the vote electronically; to accommodate direct representation, the information stored on the identification could also include the relative voting weight of the respective Representative and the voting machinery could easily adjust accordingly. Regarding point #2, minority voices will indeed be heard and will be given weight proportionate to that of the Voters; the \u201climited\u201d power concern raised is actually experienced now under what We might call the \u201cWinner take all\u201d system. Presume, for a moment, Americans all voted along racial lines: Whites only elect Whites, Blacks only elect Blacks, Latinos only elect Latinos. Under direct representation, One would expect ~17% of the votes to go to latino Representatives, ~13% of votes to go to black Representatives, ~5% of votes to go to asian/pacific island Representatives, 1.2% of votes to go to american indian/alaskan native Representatives, and ~63% of votes to go to white Representatives. Meanwhile, under the Winner take all system, We currently see only 6.9% of Representatives are Latinos, 8.1% of Representatives are Blacks, 2.4% of Representatives are Asians/Pacific Islanders, less than 0.5% of Representatives are American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and over 80% of Representatives are Whites. As such, the representation of minority populations can only be enhanced by direct representation. Contrary to the assertion, incentives to compromise will not be lacking: if One is elected to the legislature in a direct representation system, Voters expect One to accomplish certain goals and, if those goals are not met, the One would more readily find Voters transferring Their votes to Someone Else, diminishing One\u2019s influence in the legislature; if compromise is necessary and/or helpful to accomplishing those goals, One will have a good reason to compromise so as to keep Constituents satisfied. As a result, polarization will actually be less likely than now, where One only needs satisfy a majority or sometimes only a plurality of Voters in order to retain the same influence in the legislature. With respect to point #3, the premise seems faulty: in no democratic republic is the \u201cpublic\u201d expected to compromise; only Legislators are expected to do so and, as I note above, direct representation provides Legislators more incentive to compromise and not less. As We have seen with the United States in the last few years, Representatives can and, to a sizable degree, do represent \u201ca highly adamant force that refuses to compromise\u201d and America has had gridlock as a result. Cf., \u201cshowdowns\u201d over the debt ceiling and the recent shutdown of the federal government. Conversely, under direct representation, instead of asserting directly or indirectly a mandate to represent an entire electoral district, Representatives will only have a mandate from the Voters selecting Them as Representative and then only to the extent of the said specific Voters. Additionally, Representatives in this new system will not be able to turn Voters having preferred a different Candidate into \u201cpolitical hostages\u201d because said Voters will have sent different Representatives, though They may have less voting weight, undercutting the ability to remain stubborn in the manner described. For example, if Izzy Idiot currently holds the only seat from Wyoming, Izzy is going to try to assert just as much influence in the congress if 100% of Voters approve or only 50%+1 Voters approve. Meanwhile, in a direct representation system, the state might send 4 Representatives and, if voting weight in the congress is proportionate to the fraction votes received, the republican Representative might have only 65% of the influence Izzy has under the current system, the democratic Representative might have only 20% of the influence Izzy has, the independent Representative might have only 13% of the influence Izzy has, and the \u201cEverybody Else\u201d Representative might have only 2%, resulting in a wider mix of voices and views being considered and the interests and desires of the People more accurately reflected. As noted, Each of the Representatives will have increased incentives to compromise and achieve goals. The assertion \u201cif each representative can get elected by being highly polarized, he/she will compromise\u201d seems contradictory to the rest of the argument made.", "qid": 32, "docid": "99f3bd3f-2019-04-18T16:22:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7001431584358215}, {"content": "Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks for the debate. =Aff case=I. One man two votesZarroette makes no attempt to mitigate the impact of disparate voting power between members. Her only response was taken out in my last round--what's important are votes values in relation to each other, not their nominal value. I'll just extend this point all the way across and urge an affirmative ballot, the practical result of the old system is to make bad votes more valuable than good ones. DDO cannot have a system that gives GWL twice the power of whiteflame. Zarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed. Unless you think my votes against Mikal were justified, vote Pro. Remember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me. Any system that allows someone a legitimate vote without reading the debate is a system we should reject out of hand. Her only response that sort of attacks this point is the one on sample size. The problem with her argument here is that I'm not making sweeping generalized claims like x% of votes are fraudulent, I'm giving specific case studies of voting gone wrong under the old system. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence, under Zarroettes case we have no evidence of any harms stemming from the new system. II. Strategic voting This point should be viewed as dropped and therefore conceded. This is a crushing blow for Con, as it takes out her argument about me not providing enough evidence by establishing a logical framework that indicates strategic voting is inevitable under the old system. Ideological voters are going to try to award as many points as they can, and under the old system they are handed a toolbox to use to increase their voting share. I'm not sure what else to say here except to heavily encourage judges to reread my second contention and to not allow Zarroette any rebuttal to it in the last round as I can't respond. All of Zarroettes qualms about subjectivity are magnified under the old system because of the vast amounts of discretion voters are given. Zarroette's only response to my poll is that there are more than 17 debaters, but given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample. Even if it isn't, I have 17 people who were harmed by the old system, Zarroette has 0 harmed under the new. At this point you can already vote Pro, as I gain the advantage of wiping out a huge subset of ideological voting that is impossible to extinguish in any categorical system. III. Competition and debate Zarroette drops that it's absurd the old system assigns a majority of the ballot value to points that aren't argued for in the debate. Her only response is that voting on a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place. She also argues that we should reject the voting system used in every single debate league ever in favor of Phil's because the arguments aren't written down for the judge in a real debate, except they are. It's called flowing, the vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down and it isn't as if the arguments are only heard once--the important ones are emphasized by the debaters again and again. Keep in mind as well that Zarroette never proved that \"complexity\" is a good thing nor that complexity has declined under the new system. As with my previous points, I don't really know what else to say here. At this point there's literally no way to vote Con because the majority of my case has survived the round completely unscathed. =Neg case= Tool tips vs. Moderation policyIn order to circumvent my arguments about poor votes slipping through under the old system, Zarroette tries to argue that we should look to the tool-tips on the side of the ballot as the voting policy, not the kinds of votes the mods allow. I think this is where she is staking her entire hopes to winning the debate, but this is flawed for four reasons: First, Zarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote. She asserts that awarding the S&G point because someone used the wrong \"your\" would be a fraudulent vote but the tool tips don't say that. Quite the contrary, they heavily imply that the judge is to try their best to fill out the entire ballot. The tool-tips say \"on balance\". If Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands, which even Zarroette admits is ridiculous. Secondly, even if Zarroette carries this point, she still loses because we should look to realism instead of idealism when trying to determine which system is best. At the end of the day, moderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy. She argues that maybe there aren't enough mods--this is a turnable argument. Juggle is not going to grant anyone else mod power, at least not for a while thus if her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine. Thirdly, the tool-tips encourage a bad voting paradigm. Zarroettes only response to this argument is that it's an appeal to popularity, but she fails to understand that things are often popular for a reason. Someone following the tool-tips and voting on a minor spelling error would have their vote meet hostility because trying to fill out the entire ballot is a *bad* paradigm. Fourth, there's no evidence that voting quality has decreased under the new system so she loses her offense. Thus the tool-tips should be ignored. Voting complexityZarroette puts herself in a double bind by asking me to prove that it's harder to explain the old system to a new voter while simultaneously arguing that the old system is better due to it's complexity. Zarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories. Remember, either these things are important in a debate or they are not. If they are. people have the incentive to do them anyway due to wanting to win the ballot. Fraudulent votesZarroette has failed to give a single example of a bad vote under the new system, and now it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette has no answer to my response that under the old system a bad vote can be worth two or more good votes. Even if fraud was easier under the new system (it isn't), it's less potent. Zarroette keeps saying that we should assume that people vote poorly because the new system only asks who won, but that's literally the same thing the old one does except the old one gives poor voters more power. Vote Pro. IncentivesZarroette makes no response to the massive double bind she's put herself in. I argue that the categories on the old system, while important in a debate, are overemphasised to an absurd degree in the old system. Zarroette argues that these things are important in a debate, and that's why without having points for them no one will do them properly despite having every incentive to try and pick up the ballot. I think the flaw in this argument speaks for itself. Recall as well that Zarroette has given literally no evidence of any depreciation of debate quality under the old system and at this point it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points. BiasIf bias was really so widespread and easy under the new system, Zarroette should've had some evidence of this. As it is, my harms greatly outweigh. Her vagueness disadvantage is nonunique.", "qid": 32, "docid": "d48f82ad-2019-04-18T16:09:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6984182596206665}, {"content": "Title: Democratisation Content: If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00027-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6974725723266602}, {"content": "Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: I look forward to this! My opponent has only provided one argument to support his position. That argument is this: Because there exists three different voting styles (thoughtful voting, casual voting, and dishonest voting), the votes as a collectively whole become distorted; and therefore reverting to debate. org's previous voting system would be beneficial. I offer the following counterarguments: 1) My opponent's entire premise is flawed. As I and many other v2ers can vouch, the old debate. org voting system was much, much worse. There was a reason we v2ers pleaded for this amended voting system. 2) Your argument rests on the assumption that users actually care about their win ratios. For example, the cleaners have denounced win-ratio-worrying (. http://www.debate.org...); and instead, they debate for fun and learning. Others, such as askbob, have created their own systems for counting votes (. http://www.debate.org...). Furthermore, for those who care about their win ratios, the debate. org sys admin is currently building a vote-bomb-removal program (. http://www.debate.org...). So, really: Everyone should have no problem with the current voting system. 3) The flaw does not lie in the voting system, but in the users who do not follow debate. org's debate guideline and TOS. The voting guideline (. http://www.debate.org...) specifically tells users how to vote. Hopefully, we will soon have user moderators (the Webmaster has hinted at this feature many times), and bad users will no longer be a problem. Again, it is not the voting system, but some of its users, whose votes (like I mentioned in point two) will soon be removed. 4) Your system is impractical. You've conceded this. A system to convert all current votes to a proverbial binary system would take way too long to make, especially considering that the current system works fine. 5) As for the thoughtful voters, they often leave comments explaining how and why they voted. They give suggestions to the debaters, and this helps them improve their debate skills. Without the many categories, it would be harder for these \"cleaners\" to give reasons for why they voted. This would lead to confusion and would destroy the very intent of their helping, thus destroying the fun atmosphere debate. org is supposed to be founded on (. http://www.debate.org...). 6) I am uncomfortable accepting your \"casual voter\" premise. You bear the burden of proof in proving that a significant number of them exists (if at all). Honestly, I think that if people are going to spend the time to read a full debate, that they wouldn't be so lazy as to not spend the time to think for half a second, and judge the categories fairly. 7) The current system allows an easier identification of vote bombers. Vote bombers generally bomb all seven points, and so all of their information is shown in the \"Votes\" tab six times. This makes it easier to identify which users are bombers so we can report them. Imagine if you only had one vote statistic to judge off, which was mixed with tons of other votes. It would be virtually impossible to determine who the vote bombers are! Those are my objections and arguments for why we should not revert back to the old voting system. I leave the floor open to my opponent.", "qid": 32, "docid": "9bc1a170-2019-04-18T19:34:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6973991394042969}, {"content": "Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!", "qid": 32, "docid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6969658136367798}, {"content": "Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00016-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6960218548774719}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting", "qid": 32, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6954326033592224}, {"content": "Title: Voting Reform Content: I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.", "qid": 32, "docid": "b33077f-2019-04-18T15:26:00Z-00006-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6953189969062805}, {"content": "Title: Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled Content: i would like to congradulate my opponents conniving linguistics designed to twist my intentions and argument. you asked someone to defend the premise that our current voting system is fine, and blantantly ignored my first argument that attempted to do such that as well as my second one in which i specifically stated that it is fine and although it is not the perfect system is the best one designed for its orginal intentions. you my friend, i feel, have not even been completely clear. your main piece of evidence is personal experiment in which you claim proves that more than half the people on this website do not read the debates. \"1/2\" you say? do you honestly believe that more than \"1/2\" of debate.org subscribers actually participated in your little experiment? ill leave it for the readers to decide how pausible this is. the problem is not that i did not present an argument or defend it, the problem is you have so crudely disregarded everything ive said because you are so blindly consumed with your idea that our current voting system is frivelous, that even if i could have presented a brilliant, flawless argument,you would have still dismissed it because you are convinced of your own vain righteousness. as far as critiqued alternative suggestions that you never made i do admit that i assumed you wanted justification mandatory, but that is all. no need to take that minor mistake and run with it. you did, however, state that voting is unfair to debaters without justification, and i argued against that. i think it could be possible that you are upset with the people that dont read arguments because you are possibly one of those people and therefore assume everyone else is. i really dont know. for the THIRD TIME the current voting system is fine. and if you continue to argue that it is not, please present evidence with more authority than your side project experiment. also, be more specific when you claim that the voting system needs to be \"overhauled\" because i wasnt sure if you wanted it removed or changed or what. instead of using linguistics to attack me, you should have used them to be more clear in your own argument.", "qid": 32, "docid": "d4b3ab9e-2019-04-18T19:57:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.689580500125885}, {"content": "Title: Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 US elections Content: A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud", "qid": 32, "docid": "e10d3563-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00011-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6891932487487793}, {"content": "Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: I have debated this topic previously, though the user I was debating with closed his account. I would like to try and have a proper debate over the topic of automatic voter registration. I shall argue in favor of automatic voter registration, while my opponent shall argue against it. BOP is shared.", "qid": 32, "docid": "a83c80fd-2019-04-18T14:13:58Z-00009-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6867441534996033}, {"content": "Title: Would complicate elections Content: Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence \u2013 so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., \u2018The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting\u2019, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3", "qid": 32, "docid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00024-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6861063838005066}, {"content": "Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: 1) My opponent concedes that the idea of the multi-category system is good. He just has practical issues with it. So let's address those... 2) My opponent concedes that those users who have given up on their win ratios are doing noble things. He has a problem, though, with individual debate results. I've already responded to this: Phil is currently working on his vote-bomb-removal program. I stated this TWICE, and yet my opponent said nothing in response. The way to fix the voting system is not to completely redo it, but to amend it. My opponent agrees that the main problem is vote bombing, and that is in the process of being taken care of. 3) My opponent concedes that the problem originates from bad users. He writes that Phil's \"position is that members who have legitimately confirmed their account have every right to vote whichever way they choose,\" and I agree. My opponent forgets, though, that his problem is with vote bombers who abuse the system, people who do not legitimately confirm their accounts. And vote bombing is in the process of being taken care of. Again, completely changing the voting system is not necessary. 4) Of course completely changing the current system is impractical! It works okay now, and is in the process of being fixed. And yes, it is harder to go from the current system to the outdated system than from the outdated system to the current system. When v2 became v3, all v2's one-point votes were converted to argumentation votes; the point ratios remained exactly the same. To go back to the outdated system now would require completely distorting the votes. And furthermore, my opponent of all people, as an experienced programmer, should know the months it would take to write a program that would redo all the votes on this site. Again, my opponent's plan is impractical. 5) Has my opponent ever considered that maybe the new system actually helps debaters improve? Since v3, debaters are now more eager to do research so that they can win the sources vote. Since v3, debaters check their spelling and grammar more adamantly. Since v3, the amount of abusive ad hominems have lessened. Of course the new system helps comment communication; people now know what to look out for. 6) My opponent writes, \"It is clear that many voters award all 7 points to their determined winner.\" No it isn't. I don't think so. I believe that if a reader is going to take the time to read a full debate, that they would also take the half a second to think about their votes. And if indeed there exists this minority, I doubt they will have much effect. But I too am merely speculating. My opponent bears the burden of proof in proving that these \"casual voters\" exist. He has failed to do so. This destroys his entire case. 7) My opponent writes, \"Vote bomber identification is irrelevant unless a vote-bomb-removal system is implemented.\" Ummm... my opponent seems oblivious to the fact that a vote-bomb-removal system is in the works. Knowing so destroys his counterargument. The current system allows an easier identification of vote bombers. In closing, my opponent has failed to prove his case. He (1) failed to prove casual voters exist beyond an extremely small minority, (2) failed to recall that a vote-bomb-removal program is in the works, (3) conceded that the idea of our current system is good, (4) conceded that the problem is the users and not the voting system, (5) failed to provide beyond a single argument, (6) failed to prove his singular argument, and (7) ultimately failed to prove the resolution. I'd like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, and I would like to thank the audience for taking the time to read this. Thanks!", "qid": 32, "docid": "9bc1a170-2019-04-18T19:34:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6838515996932983}, {"content": "Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: I wish to thank Thett3 for what I\u2019m sure will be stiff competition. By standard debate conventions, Pro is to assume the burden of proof, hence he must affirm that the new system is better than the old one. Anything less (e.g. neither being proven better) results in my victory. \u201cBetter\u201d I propose that there are two highly important aspects involving a debate which can make it \u201cbetter\u201d: 1: Quality of content 2: Quality of votes The old system strived for both components. My following arguments will show that the old system reached these goals better than the new system. Arguments in favour of the old system A1: Encourages far more complex, better voting In some regard, the new voting system likens to that of a forum upvote system: you vote it up or you don\u2019t. There is a slight difference, of course, in that of an RFD being required. However, because there is less framework for voters, this new system lessens the capacity to vote well for BOTH competent and new voters. Allow me to explain\u2026 The multiple forms in which one can vote, under the old system, creates a structure that leaves the new system an embarrassment. For competent voters, the old system allows them to distinguish between debaters in important aspects of a debate. With the new system, competent judges cannot makes such distinction, in terms of point allocation. For example, if a competent judge thought that differing aspects of each debaters\u2019 cases, he/she is unable to express those distinctions in point form (i.e. it\u2019s either 7 points or nothing). Therefore, this competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form, due to the over-simplification of the voting system. As for newer voters, the tool-tips of the old system provide instructions on how to vote in each category. This will help the newer voters produce a better vote, especially when you compare it to the \u201cwho do you believe won?\u201d In an analogy, you don\u2019t teach someone to ride a bike by telling them that he/she should be going forward (the result). You tell him/her how to go forward. Likewise, you don\u2019t get someone new to voting to vote properly by telling him/her to choose a winner (the result). You tell him/her how to choose a winner. A2: From this complexity, it is far easier to detect fraudulent votes, because each component of the vote requires an RFD With the new system, the delegation of 7 points is all that there is to the vote, in terms of determining the winner. As to why the 7 points are given, it\u2019s really as simple as \u201cwho you believe won\u201d. How could you easily penalise anyone for a supposed \u2018vote-bomb\u2019, when the criteria is literally \u201cwho you believe won\u201d? Someone could think that I won this debate, and regardless of whether the reasons are even coherent, there would be no qualms with the RFD, in regards to the rules (which is different to the moderation, as I\u2019ll explain later). Alternatively, under the old system, a vote with underhand tactics would be deleted. Not only do the points\u2019 allocation require accuracy, but it\u2019s easy to detect inaccurate or fraudulent votes. If the RFD is not one from the criteria, listed in the tool-tip (the question mark circle, on the left of each category), then it is easily spotted, thanks to the explicit criteria to check against. Conclusion for A: Via increased complexity required in point allocation of votes, votes will: be easier for newer members to understand, be more nuanced for more competent members to differentiate debaters with and will make detection of fraudulent/grossly inaccurate votes easier. All of these things help to increase the quality of votes. B1: Sources, spelling & grammar and conduct are all important aspects of a debate My opponent essentially concedes this point in the latter half of his 3rd argument. Therefore, for this debate, this premise is a given. B2: Giving points to categories greatly incentivises them In absence of incentives, one does not necessarily feel obliged to perform. Hence, when the incentives are obvious (i.e. points, instead of assumed integrating into overall vote), then there becomes a real focus to strive for these. So, when 1 point is awarded for conduct in a debate, then there becomes a real incentive to behave during a debate. Similar examples can be given with sources and S&G. Conversely, in absence of incentive, or in this case a convoluted sense (general 7 point vote, rather than the multi-category), these important points are not encouraged to a great extent. Yet they are, as my opponent concedes, important parts of a debate. B3: Negation When opposing debaters are incentivised to behave correctly, provide sources and punctuate and spell correctly, they will both try to compete for the point. In absence of conduct or spelling and grammar issues, neither side will be awarded points. So, as long as you are correctly spelling, correctly punctuating and behaving correctly, you should not lose in this contention. In regards to the sources, offering points for sources encourages the debaters to not only gather sources, but to gather better sources than the opponent. The fear of not gathering the quality of sources required for points will drive debaters to hunt for sources. Conclusion for B: There are real incentives to be found in the old voting system. When offered points (i.e. things of desire) for work, people are far more likely to provide better quality work. When there is a vague sense of points for work, people are less likely to provide. C1: Lessening of inherent bias The goal of any voter is to vote objectively as possible on debate content only. At every point allocation of the old system\u2019s tool-tips, it reminds voters that, \u201cyour opinion of the topic should not have any influence here\u201d. Given this context, the new system spews out the unintelligent line, \u201cwho do you believe won the debate?\u201d When it comes to voting in general, there is going to be a certain level of inherent bias. This is due to personal context, such as life\u2019s experiences, background knowledge, reading comprehension skills etc. When there is explicit criteria to be met, this lessens the inherent bias, because the RFD is now bound by these specific voting guidelines. Again, \u201cwho do you believe won the debate?\u201d is an incredibly vague standard in which to vote by, and this will exacerbate the inherent bias in voting. The old system lessened the capacity for inherent bias, and hence increased the quality of votes. Counter-arguments to my opponent\u2019s main points CA1: The new system increases a voter\u2019s capacity to cause more damage with a strategical vote To argue this points, let\u2019s say that I wanted to illegitimately vote on a debate. Under the new system, the maximum and only amount of damage that I can do is 7 points worth. All I have to justify is \u201cwho I believe won\u201d. Comparatively, under the old system, to do seven points of illegitimate damage is nigh impossible. In conjunction with the voting rules expressed in the tool-tip, a voter cannot award source points to someone who did not provide sources, or clearly provide poorer quality sources. Thus, in instances of strategical voting, the damage in the new system will always be the maximal of the old system \u2013 the worst you can do in the old system is the norm in the new system. CB1:\u201c\u2026there is no guideline on when to vote on which category.\u201d I\u2019m really quite shocked that my opponent has provided such misinformation. The tool-tips, next to each voting category, provide guidelines on when to vote on which category. Due to character limits, I will address the other of my opponent's arguments in the next round. The resolution is being negated.", "qid": 32, "docid": "d48f82ad-2019-04-18T16:09:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6831878423690796}, {"content": "Title: Voting Reform Content: Thanks to Wylted for taking me up on this important debate! The outcome of the voting reform process could have a variety of wide-ranging impacts on the health, direction, and tenor of DDO's politics and community affairs, and so it is important that this topic is discussed in our community. In this debate I will examine the problems of the current voting system that necessitate change, and then I will discuss how my proposal effectively and efficiently addresses those problems. I will also discuss the BOP before I launch into those arguments. With that, let's launch into the debate!BOPSince Wylted has agreed to split the BOP, judges should approach this debate keeping in mind the question of \"which system is better?\" Whichever system is better is the one you should vote for. There should be no presumption in favor of the status quo.PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUOThere are five big issues that I see in the current voting system: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote, (4) that users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process, and (5) that voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes. I will now review each of these five points and explain why these are problems under the status quo.(1) People in the Polls are DisenfranchisedFirstly, it is important to note that just because a user spends a lot of time in the polls section that does not mean that they are not good users who are invested in the site. Two particular users come to mind: PetersSmith and Bblackkbbirdd; both of these users attempted to cast votes or wanted to cast votes in the last election, but were barred from doing so because they did not meet the voting eligibility requirements. By all accounts these users were invested in the site, promoted exemplary polls, exhibited good conduct, and were all around benefits to the DDO community. (2/3) Users who are barely part of the community are able to vote/Users with no interactions in the forums can voteI just want to point out that 2 and 3 are different insofar as a user can be invested in the community without spending much time in the forums, but for the sake of saving valuable character space, I will be addressing these points together. The investment comments have more to do with (2), and the latter have more to do with (3), but I think they're all interrelated to some extent.Let me construct a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let's say that user X has received a PM asking him to vote. User X has done 3, 1-round debates. Each of his rounds in all of his debates was one or two brief sentences. He has never posted in the forums, never created a poll, and has been on the site for a few weeks (let's specify and say 21 days). This user is eligible to vote. There are several problems with this. Firstly, this user has not demonstrated any investment in the site. There are many temporary users of DDO, who flit in, do a few debates, and leave. They are not long-term users, and so have no stake in casting a wise, prudent vote for the site's long-term investment. This means that they will likely not care as much about casting a good vote if they choose to vote. Alternatively, they may stick around for awhile, but only be on the site in short bursts and leave for months on end. Here again, their frequent absence diminishes the stake they have in ensuring the best outcome. To me, the impacts of this are that they are more likely to vote for whoever asks them to vote (regardless of the quality of their positions), are more likely to not get informed about the issues before voting, and are thus more likely to cast careless or bad votes.Secondly, even if this voter is invested for some reason, they are likely not well informed. This most recent election cycle, big issues that the candidates discussed included forum reorganization and revitalization, reducing flamewars in the forums, trials, and other issues outside of the debate section of the website. These are things that users who spend little or no time in the forums are not going to be informed about, so it will be hard for them to truly assess the importance of these issues to the welfare of the site as a whole. In fact, it is quite possible that they do not even know many areas of concern in their own section of the website due to the lack of effort they put into it. Finally, it is also possible that they do not even know what they are voting for. Of the voters I talked to when I campaigned, those who were not involved in the forums seemed more likely than other groups to conflate the position of mod and president. It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site.Thirdly, it seems that X could very easily be a multi-account created in anticipation of the election. With voting requirements that are easy to meet, it also becomes easy to craft alts with the specific purpose in mind of casting illicit votes.(4) Users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign processI experienced this problem firsthand when I was campaigning this election cycle. Several users clearly did not want to receive messages, and were irked that they would often find their inboxes filled to the brim with notifications and PMs from multiple people on both sides of the race. One user in particular, Beastt, noted that he was fed up of receiving these messages. Clearly, this can feel harassing to some users, which is not what DDO wants its users to be feeling.(5) Voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votesThis issue sparked several debates in the forums, particularly after Mikal posted his thread accusing campaigners of harassing people to change their votes [http://www.debate.org...]. Wylted himself has admitted this is a problem--and it clearly is a threat to the integrity of DDO's electoral process (voter intimidation), but also to DDO's values and positive community atmosphere.HOW MY PROPOSAL SOLVES(1) My proposal solves for the disenfranchisement of poll-usersUnder my system, Bblackkbbirdd would have been eligible to vote per the fourth bullet, having at least 200 posts and 50 polls, and could thus have cast ballots. PetersSmith would have been very close to being eligible (less than 40 comments away, which could have easily been made up before voting began). Another disqualified voter, Zyloarchy, would have been much closer to qualifying too. Ultimately, my system makes it much easier for these types of users to become qualified voters.(2/3) My proposal solves for community involvement and forum useBy raising the bar on eligibility requirements, we can cut down on some of the members who are merely transient being able to vote. We can also make it harder to create alts simply to garner more votes. Moreover, by ensuring that everyone has to have at least 100 posts to vote, we ensure that voters have some exposure to the heart of the community and increase the chances of their being informed about other site issues.(4/5) My proposal solves for harassmentMy proposal mandates that if someone asks not to be PM'd further, campaigners must stop PMing them. A no-contact list could even be created to this end. Furthermore, my proposal explicitly bans contacting voters after they vote to lobby them to alter their votes.Prefer my System. Over to Con...", "qid": 32, "docid": "b33077f-2019-04-18T15:26:00Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6821954250335693}, {"content": "Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.", "qid": 32, "docid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6820375919342041}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes Content: In this debate I am not arguing that the voting system for this website is simply flawed or contains unavoidable imperfections, but rather than it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. You may find this an odd statement to make. I have only been in one debate so far, and I am winning that debate, so why am I questioning the voting system, off of which I am winning. Well, I believe that the errors in the voting system did not affect my win (that I won despite the errors). In fact, I believe that I would have won by more if not for the errors in the voting system. I am not arguing that everything about the voting system is flawed, just a few things. Here are the dimensions of the debate: category miscellaneous topic The voting system for debate. org has many avoidable mistakes position (pro/for) number of rounds 3 time to argue 72 hours (3 days) voting period 72 hours (3 days) argument max 8000 characters The burden of proof is on me.", "qid": 32, "docid": "d07a0a9e-2019-04-18T18:11:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6813654899597168}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments", "qid": 32, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6808198690414429}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here\"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. \"Protecting the integrity of our elections\" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they\"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today\"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don\"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.", "qid": 32, "docid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6799818873405457}, {"content": "Title: Voter photo id laws. Content: Okay, real quick. My opponent says that new arguments don't count in the last round, implying I can't make counter rebuttals, so I demand that nobody considers any new arguments, counter arguments, rebuttals etc. he has made in the final round. My evidence that his studies agree with me still stand since his counter rebuttals don't count. Here is one point my opponent can't contend with, and I think this argument should be weighed heavier than anything. No matter how many studies are done on in person voter fraud, we will never be able to come up with even a close estimate to how much of it takes place. Every single investigative journalist who attempts to place a fraudulent vote, has been succesful. The stats may lie, because it is impossible to know when in voter fraud has happened (because they don't ID people, these people just come in, vote and leave, without leaving a paper trail other than the vote. ) My opponent is asking us just to believe people are who they say they are and just had the \"honor factor\" when it comes to voting. He doesn't believe people will be dishonest, under this \"honor factor\" system, despite the fact that investigative reporters have shown that in person voter fraud is extremely easy to commit. I don't know about you guys, but I want to know my vote isn't being erased by people who are ineligible to vote or who vote multiple times. I want my vote to count.", "qid": 32, "docid": "1a2ffdd3-2019-04-18T15:08:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6792396306991577}, {"content": "Title: Edemocracy (properly structured) should replace Representative Democracy everywhere. Content: Hello, I argue against the idea of Edemocracy. Although a noble idea to update politics to today's technology, it would not be possible for these reasons; 1. This is just a updated idea of a direct democracy, our founding fathers were against and created the Electoral College to stop this for several reasons. To have no chance of any tyrant/dictator came to power by having few responsible people who are put into place by the respective party and the average voter. If we voted for president with an Edemocracy system who is to say we would not elect a lying/manipulative who is a great public speaker such as Adolf Hitler? 2. It would be impossible for anything to pass. If every voting adult could raise and vote on issuing, voting would be a daily job where one would be voting on hundreds if not thousands of different issues. To be informed enough to make a valid decision on a vast amount of issues would be impossible for the average American. The chance of compromising would be next to nothing; look at Congress now (with less than 700 people), and the amount of SUBSTANTIAL bills passed. It is low, the chance of getting MILLIONS of people to agree would be impossible. 3. It would leave a lot room for collusion. People would only be voting by what affects them, so we would have groups/regions only taking their needs into account, while not keeping America in mind as a whole. This would lead to many behind the door dealings which couldn't be tracked or proved because anyone could vote for anything. 4. Technology is not at a point currently to do this. The Internet is not secure enough to allow of this magnitude to occur over it, identity/password/account information could be stolen. It would be impossible to identify the person who is voting is actually the person voting. One could easily get their phone, flash drive, papers stolen with their information on it. Many people still do not have access, a want, need, understanding of Internet, text messages, or e-mails. They would have no way of being able to vote, and forcing this whole new system would be against their constitutional right to vote. Taking in Hurricane Sandy for example, if the power, phone, Internet goes out of a large part of a region they would have no way or an extreme difficulty voting, as they have now with the current system. The amount of time/resources for all voters to listen to voice and videos would be overwhelming. A black market for voter information could begin with various groups buying and selling these for their own use or profits. 5. If this is system would be in place there would be no need to initially keep Congress, unless their vote would be more important. This is not possible based on the one man equals one vote. Like I said earlier this is a very noble idea, but this could not be used at the Federal level. I would agree that it would be possible at the state/local level for various referendums/questions. The idea of Edemocracy has potential, but is not possible in this day and age. The point of the government we have now is to make decisions based on our political position and best interests.", "qid": 32, "docid": "370a7f9a-2019-04-18T18:03:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6782724261283875}, {"content": "Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to \"nuh-uh\". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.", "qid": 32, "docid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6779884099960327}, {"content": "Title: Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org. Content: \"I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them.\" The intention of the voting is shown in the article, \"How to Vote,\" found on this site. http://www.debate.org... \"The next four questions break down a debaters score by looking at the four most important aspects of the debate. These questions are where the points come from. Remember, voting on Debate.org is based on fact and NOT on Opinion.\" \"Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters. Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round. Comments made by other members of the site. \" Thus, the point of the system is to get the points to the people who deserved them based on FACT, not OPINION, and opinions are one of the aspects of vote bombing. \"In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine.\" I don't really care how you vote; I just want to point out that if you vote based on opinions, you are abusing the system. \"You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote.\" You are abusing the system if you don't follow the guidelines laid out for how to vote. \"PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*\" My opponent is trying to threaten everybody who votes against him... In conclusion, vote bombing is, in fact, an abuse of the voting system here on Debate.org, because the purpose was for debates to be won based on facts, and NOT opinions. Thank you for reading, and I hope you vote, hopefully based on fact.", "qid": 32, "docid": "c975876f-2019-04-18T19:25:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6779558658599854}, {"content": "Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.", "qid": 32, "docid": "a83c80fd-2019-04-18T14:13:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6773529648780823}, {"content": "Title: on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process Content: Well, this debate has gotten very interesting. My opponent has seem to have broken his own rules. He said that the fourth round was to show why we are winning certain arguments and a summary speech. But instead, he decides to refute my arguments. And even though you usually use the last rounds to refute your opponent, my opponent created rules where you do otherwise. So, I will show why I am winning each argument as the rules shows.His first contention says that exposure to ads will possibly increase voter turnout. I prove that in 2008, the last presidential election, there were 130 million voters. But in 2012, after the passing of the ruling of Citizen's United and the most recent presidential election, that there were only 117 million voters. This proves that this ruling does not improve voter turnout. I believe that my opponent is trying to accuse me of the Fallacy of Miscausation, but we must realize that my opponent has committed three fallacies in one argument: Over Reliance of Authority (based on what people say and not true, hard evidence), Priori Fallacy (looking at moral instead of evidence), and Begging the Question (making unsupported claims). Proof that he has committed these fallacies:Over Reliance of Authority: Instead of using statistical evidence to prove that this is increasing voter turnout, he uses a quote from a man that thinks it may increase voter turnout. Dr. Hillguys himself says \" exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points\", but it never proved that they did vote. Intentions means the thought to do something, but that doesn't mean they actually voted. Priori Fallacy: he is denying the evidence that proves that voter turnout is not increasing, but yet decreasing voter turnout. Also, voter suppression was to target African American and Hispanic voters. There are over 200 million white people in the United States. So, lets say 75% of them are able to vote. There will still be about 150 million white people that can vote, give or take a few. They could have in fact voted. Why did they not?Begging the Question: The evidence that he provided trying to prove that it increases voter turnout didn't even prove voter turnout. It said they were likely to vote. That means there is still some uncertainty that they will probably not vote.I am actually winning this argument because he has not proven with statistical evidence that it is increasing voter turnout, because it isn't.His second contention says that because of Citizen's United, voter's are more informed, but I proved that because corporations are treated as people, they are given the right to not tell you information. On wikipedia, they say \"The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as \"persons\" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.\" Because. they are treated as people, and people have the right to not reveal any information, then corporations have the right to withhold information. That doesn't help inform people. I am winning this argument because corporations don't have to reveal information because of corporate personhood, which is a direct contradiction to his argument there. His third contention says that it will increase transparency by allowing corporations to disclose financial information,but this is simply not true. Because of my refutation to his second contention, they are treated as people. Therefore, they don't have to disclose anything because they have the fourth amendment on their side, which prevents searchs without a warrannt. In fact, Kim Barker, reporter of reportergary.com, says, \"Instead, this is the disclosure world that exists. Someone who gives up to $2,500 to the campaign of President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney will have his or her name, address and profession listed on the FEC website for all to see. But that same person can give $1 million dollars or more to a social welfare group that can buy ads supporting or attacking those same candidates and stay anonymous.I am winning this argument because corporations aren't disclosing their information. In fact, Forbes magazine tried to find out how much money does the Koch Brothers give to politicians, and they told them no! In the recent magazine, all they have is a big ? because they can't force them to tell the information. Now to counter refutations. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparencymy oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respondThis is a very weak counter refutation. I have now provided evidence that proves that people will not be able to find out how much a corporation gives to politicians. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.again my opponent provides no evedince or justification for this claim and if tou cross apply my third contetion you see this statment is patently false.Question: So just because your contention says it does create more transparency, even if it doesn't, we are supposed to accept it to be true. He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote \"does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party\" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation fallshere my opponent straw mans me and completly misinteprets my statements. what i was essentialy saying is that corporation can't donate money to politicians thats itAs you can see, my opponent decided to not clarify what he meant. As I said, he contradicts himself because as I said earlier, corporations can get people, that could be from the corporation, to donate to politicians. The superPacs, in his statement, are the middle man. At the end of the day, corporations can still donate money to politicians and that is where he contradicts himself.my oppenent claims i straw man him and asks my to give his exact quote so here are his words \"because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it\" im sorry if you belive i minsterpreted your words but regardless essentialy what my opponent is saying is that televisions ads are the predominante voting factor and thus i feel my prevous refutaion still stands. My opponent fails to realize that I didn't say they will believe what came on TV, but they will most likely, which means there might be a chance they wont believe it.My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.Here my opponent purly speculates and provides absoloutly no warrant to justify his puly speculational claim while in my second contetion i demonstrate how a free media creates a more informed voter thus my second contetion stands. Here is a link of a slanderous campaign ad.I ran out of characters. Sources in comments. http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 32, "docid": "8875a70d-2019-04-18T17:56:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6766012907028198}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don", "qid": 32, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6765196323394775}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes Content: Thanks to CriticalThinkingMachine for his arguments. To win this debate Pro had to show that the DDO voting system contains many easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. It shall be apparent to voters that my esteemed opponent has failed in fulfilling his burden. 1. Who did you agree with before/after the debate: Pro concedes that he has no problem with these questions per se. He also admits that these questions are beneficial. However he argues that before/after questions are not asked in presidential elections. Voting in election is different from voting at DDO. One of the important purposes of DDO voting system is to provide feedback to the debaters, which makes these questions important. Important questions cannot be considered as irrelevant. 2. Who had better conduct / spelling and grammar: Pro admits that spelling, grammar and conduct are important in debate and should contribute to the debate. However he insists that these should not contribute to \u2018voting system\u2019. He fails to explain in what way these factors should contribute to evaluation of debate. It is clear that including these factors in voting provides incentives to debaters to maintain high standards. I am not saying that this is the best way possible. However Con has not presented any better way, which means this cannot be considered as an error on part of creators of debate. Pro says, \u201cThe number of points (or lack thereof) for each question appear in parenthesis next to the questions in the voting section but not on an actual page of a debate.Why the inconsistency?\u201d. I cannot respond to this since I could not understand the objection. 3. Who had better sources: Pro argues that sources can be incorporated into arguments themselves. That is a matter of personal opinion. Keeping points for sources separate emphasizes its importance. This cannot be considered as an error. I also pointed out that my esteemed opponent is free to provide overall votes based on arguments. He did not respond to this point. 4. Reason for voting: Pro concedes that inappropriate votes are being combated. However he is unable to understand the rationale behind 3 debate requirement before voting. The measure is intended to hinder and expose mischievous trolls intent on breaking our voting system. Users have to take part in three debates before they can start voting. This requires some patience. Most trolls don\u2019t have patience. On other hand for serious debaters (like my opponent, I hope), this is not a serious issue since they complete the three debates soon enough. My opponent wants to know why the voting system waits for a ineligible voter to cast his vote before informing them. I agree that it would be desirable to inform the voters beforehand. However this is clearly not significant issue as it has no bearing on integrity of voting system. In any case, this issue ceases to exist for sincere debaters once they complete 3 debates. 5 & 6. Self Vote and Indefinite voting period: Pro has conceded these points. 7. Won vs. Winning / Lost vs. Losing: My esteemed opponent escalates an obviously insignificant issue into a question of \u2018falsehood\u2019, \u2018honesty\u2019 and \u2018logic of time\u2019 (sic). After the debate is over and the winner has been declared, the section under the debaters still says \u2018winning\u2019 and \u2018losing\u2019 rather that \u2018won\u2019 and \u2018lost\u2019 respectively (for example [1]). However in the centre of the page, the winner of page is clearly displayed. Thus there is no chance of any confusion. This is clearly a trivial issue which does not merit attention. Similarly in statistics of individual debaters, it includes the trends from current debates into debates which have been \u2018won\u2019 or \u2018lost\u2019. This makes a difference of barely one or two debates for any debaters. This issue too is clearly insignicant. As an aside from the debate, CriticalThinkingMachine complains that some of his arguments have been defeated since he did not know about history of site and consequently his timing was off. I sympathize with him. On other hand, new debaters are unlikely to face issues like indefinite voting period since this is a feature of old debates only. This clearly shows that my esteemed opponent is not like a typical newbie on this site. He clearly explores, investigates and questions whatever he encounters. He should consider visiting DDO forums (specially the debate forum http://www.debate.org...) where such queries will be immediately answered by our experience members. In the meantime, the resolution has been negated. References [1] http://www.debate.org...", "qid": 32, "docid": "d07a0a9e-2019-04-18T18:11:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6755416393280029}, {"content": "Title: The Internet is more useful than frustrating Content: As this is the last round, I will defend my arguments and refute the Pro's arguments. I will first respond to Pro's criticisms of my arguments. 1. I agree that there are numerous sites on the Internet that provide true, accurate information. However, due to the inaccuracy of some sites, it is unwise for users to simply generalize that the information found on the web is accurate. This creates a necessity for users to spend significant amount of time further researching and verifying the results, adding to the frustration level. Also, the statements about the universities actually support my arguments. Universities or schools in general teaches solid, valuable, and up-to-date information unlike the Internet. As I stated earlier, schools provide resources that are not web-based that could do better jobs than the Internet, undermining the usefulness of the Internet. 2. First of all, I did not deny the fact that some functions provided by the Internet are for professionals. However, in order for professionals to use those complex functions, they still need to learn how to use them. Learning how to utilize the complex functions of the Internet is frustrating. In addition, I agree that Microsoft Excel is more complicated than using the Internet. However, this does not disprove the fact that the Internet is very frustrating. Like the Internet, programs such as the Microsoft Excel also frustrates their users. 3. I do not see the differences between the Pro's definition of voting and mine. Online voting only has minimal effect on voting. First or all, there are other means of voting as I mentioned such as the televoting. Secondly, if people do not have or cannot afford any kind of transit, including public transportation system), it is almost certain that they do not own a computer nor have access to the Internet. Third, I am not familiar with the Malaysia Airlines's online voting debate. Pro should have given a link or describe the event for all. He failed to indicate the idea of usefulness by mentioning this ambiguous event. Fourth, I also do not understand the last statement with the definition. How does this tie into the usefulness of the Internet? What are you trying to say? 4. First of all, I question the statistics brought up by Pro. Does the 80% of the population refer to the 80% of total human population? How can one determine the total online population? Secondly, online shopping does not save time. Costumers have to wait for the ordered products which may take weeks or even months for products to arrive. Third, less tax actually may have negative impacts. Less tax means less government revenue which means fewer services offered by the government. Also, many people find online taxation extremely confusing. [1] 5. First of all, I brought up the topic of dangerousness of the Internet as companies and governments have to constantly combat online terrorism as I stated in my previous arguments. Secondly, I would have like Pro to provide information as to how the US government test technologies against hackers as each hackers uses their own methods and tools. Third, as the technology evolves, so will the hackers. As human beings, they will adapt to changing circumstances and will also develop. New hacking softwares and methods will arise. As Pro stated, I spend numerous hours on the Internet for diverse uses. This does not necessarily mean that I find Internet useful. I do find the Internet useful in some aspects, but the frustration of the Internet far outweighs the utility of the Internet, which is, ultimately, what this debate is about. In conclusion, Pro failed to respond to my refutations, failed to provide stable sources to support his arguments, and did not develop his points to substantiate his arguments. The Internet IS useful, but the frustration from using the Internet is greater than the satisfaction felt by its users. Thank you and vote Con! [1] . http://news.cnet.com...", "qid": 32, "docid": "2232031-2019-04-18T16:30:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6754971742630005}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org voter data should be publicly available Content: My opponent brings to light the Vote Removal System (VRS), which is certainly something this site needs. However, the resolution did not state that Publicly Available Voting (PAV) was the only means by which the site is to be improved. In fact, ideally, both improvements should see the light of day. I present four scenarios ranked in order from most improving to least improving. 1. VRS and PAV. 2. PAV. 3. VRS. 4. Status Quo. By far, the best approach would be to institute both programs. The VRS has the excellent virtue of reversing malicious voting practices, which is vital in deterring would be abusers. However, abusers have to be clearly exposed before such action can be executed. Without PAV, the admin (and there is only one at the moment) would have the burden of monitoring dozens of debates everyday all on his onesie (savvy?). However, the addition of the PAV means members can spot suspicious activity and report it to the admin, allowing the admin to examine and--if appropriate--fix the debates as they come. A perfect synergy between the web master and its constituents. If, for some reason, both systems cannot be implemented and only one must be chosen, the PAV is the better solution. As it currently stands, the only deterrent against abusers is banning. Of course, as my opponent pointed out, this does not prevent abuse as much as slow it down. But then again, it takes weeks for the admin to single out the abusive accounts and ban them. With the PAV, abusers could be much more quickly identified and reported. Sure, abusers could still create new accounts, but if they were banned every other day rather than every other week, it still proves more effective than the status quo. By itself, the VRS suffers from the same slow response time as the status quo. A single admin cannot be expected to simultaneously improve and police this site with any significant degree of efficiency and accuracy. It is far better to get the community involved in the process. In fact, it's the community through a LOT of hard work (askbob) that is exposing the worst abuse this site has seen. Lets give them the tools they need to work with the admin in making this site what we all would to see it become. In conclusion, I like my opponent's VRS suggestion, but I think it's effectiveness is limited without the PAV. And if we could only choose one, the PAV should be that choice. It transfers the burden placed on a single webmaster to the shoulders of a community dedicated to this site. Therefore, my resolution stands, no matter how you slice it, Debate.org voter data should be publicly available.", "qid": 32, "docid": "ca54c9e4-2019-04-18T19:32:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6754153966903687}, {"content": "Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks Zarroette. =Neg case=AVoting complexityZarroette needs to provide some kind of empirical evidence on the quality of votes going down due to the lack of categories. My harms are tangible and widespread, hers we cannot be sure even exist; if the new voting system is as bad as she says it is she ought to be able to provide some tangible evidence of the decrease in votes under the new system. My impacts should be preferred because evidence of their occurrence is manifest and widespread. She argues that a voter cannot express their \"true thoughts\" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous. Not only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate. Indeed, things that are extremely important to debate like word economy, argument prioritization, and case structure are ignored under the old system. Zarroette argues that the old system is easier for newer voters. First, this is an easily turnable argument. I've literally handed a lay judge a ballot and briefed her on how to judge on the way to the room--contrast this with the old DDO system where to teach a new member how to judge would be impossible as DDO members have wildly different paradigms on when to vote on each category. She argues that the tool-tips on the side of the point allocation provide an objective criteria on when to vote but this is flawed for two reasons: First, there's no indication that people even read them let alone abide by their suggestions--quite the contrary, my arguments show that they do not. Secondly, if you actually read the tool-tips they heavily imply that the judge is to vote on each category as it gives no quantification of when to vote, it just says \"vote for the debater that does x better\", even if they won the category by an extremely slight margin. This is a paradigm that most DDO voters *reject*. It's *rare* to see someone fill out the full ballot. Thus the tool-tips succeed only in misleading new voters into a voting paradigm that is contrary to the one most DDO voters hold, teaching them to vote incorrectly by adding 33% of the argument value to someone's count because they used the wrong \"your\". Fraudulent votes This argument is completely false. Zarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system. I would contend that contrary to the voting on debates with the new system has vastly increased. Zarroette is right that bad votes will still occur and they do--the difference is that under the old system a bad vote is often worth *two* good votes as opposed to one in the new system. Deletion of votes can only go so far--being overeager to delete votes led to a prominent member, Drafterman, leaving the site. Determining which RFDs are fraudulent is a lot more difficult than it sounds, this is why Airmax adheres to a policy of leaving votes unmolested as long as they explain each point awarded. By now, the vast majority of people wishing to vote dishonestly know how to structure their vote to keep it from being deleted, the best solution is to mitigate the power bad voters are allowed to grant themselves. Zarroette sells new members short when she argues that they can't figure out how to vote without a specific template. The tool tips are, at best, irrelevant and at worst mislead new members into a voting paradigm that clashes with the majority opinion on DDO leading to increased hostility to new members voting. The old system is infinitely harder to explain than the new one.B. Incentives Zarroette argues that things such as spelling and conduct are important in a debate. Sure. First cross apply the argument I made in response to her complexity argument--taken to it's full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate. Zarroette shoots herself in the foot here--if these things are important in a debate than people will do them *anyway*. The goal of each debater is to win the round, and things like proper spelling and using sources help with this. Contrary to what my opponent claims, there has been no noticeable depreciation in conduct or grammar in debates under the new system. I would argue that the old system creates a perverse incentive in the debater themselves to argue points irrelevant to the arguments by encouraging them to nitpick spelling errors, to source spam, and to feign offense at minor conduct violations. While I don't dispute that some of these things are important in a debate, I question greatly the degree they're emphasized in the old system. Remember, a debater can win the arguments point and still lose the ballot as a whole. I can award 66% of the value of the arguments point by counting the sources used without reading the debate and the mods are powerless to stop me. What's really lacking here is empirical evidence--in my case I gave specific examples of bad voting. We all know that strategic voting occurs, which is why DDO members voted 17-0 when asked if someone had ever strategically voted on their debates[1]. I also offered (and performed) instances of poor voting under the old system and offered a comprehensive rationale for why we see these kinds of votes and how they are inherent under the old system. Comparatively Zarroettes arguments are baseless conjecture, my arguments should be preferred due to their sound basis.NegationZarroette agrees that people will compete for the points under the old system. This is a tough fact for supporters of the old system because it gives incentive for debaters to use all means of abusive tactics. As a typical example, before he reformed 16kadams would spam as many sources in a debate as he could even if they were unnecessary so that his friends could claim that he had better sources and increase their voting power. Remember, either these things are important in picking up ballots or they aren't and if they are people will do them anyway. Zarroette gets no advantage from these aspects being important in a debate. C. BiasThere's no evidence of bias being worse under the old system--we shouldn't look to the tool-tips on the old system, we should look to how people actually voted. I find it hard to believe that Zarroette would be comfortable with losing one of her debates because a voter \"[wished] to choose a winner\" and arbitrarily decided that \"sources on Con's side aid his argument more.\"[2] Zarroette argues that \"Who do you think won?\" is too vague but it is just as vague as \"Who had better conduct?\". This disadvantage is nonunique. The old system increased the capacity for inherent bias because bad voters are given the power to outweigh good voters. We need to prefer whichever system best mitigates bad voting, not the one that hands them a blank check.=Aff case=Zarroette entirely misunderstands the strategic voting argument. What's important is not the nominal point value of votes, but their value in relation to eachother. While votes under the new system might nominally be worth seven points, for all practical purposes they are worth one. Compare this to old system where a poor vote can often be worth two good votes--look to GWL's vote as an example. Strategic voting is completely eliminated under a one judge, one vote system because voters can't fudge their RFDs to increase their value. She also misunderstands my argument regarding guidelines--the tool tips might exist but they don't say *when* to vote except to heavily imply to fill out the full ballot. When I say there's no bright line, I mean that DDO members are undecided on when to vote on each category. Thus some peoples votes are worth more than others because they have differing paradigms. The resolution is affirmed. We need a system that mitigates the power bad voters have, not one that hands them a blank check.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 32, "docid": "d48f82ad-2019-04-18T16:09:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6751710772514343}, {"content": "Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: Throughout this debate, my opponent has failed to provide any real argument against the concept of automatic voter registration, and has instead chosen to focus on the completely irrelevant topic of whether or not democracy should be the main system of governing a society. The question of automatic voter registration assumes that democracy remains the principle form of governing a society that adopts such a measure. As such, the question of whether or not democracy should be upheld or not has no place in a debate where maintaining democracy is already the presumed outcome of both sides.", "qid": 32, "docid": "a83c80fd-2019-04-18T14:13:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6742698550224304}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: I agree with Cosmojarvis that \"low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle.\" However, as I previously stated, I believe that there are better ways to do this than doing what would probably lead to a large collection of meaningless voters, troll voting, and vote bombing. Even with a highly capable moderation team, there may just be to many cases to handle. Pro says that, \"there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code...\". When you sign up on debate.org, you already give your E-mail address so that you can see notifications. The Debate.org moderators need a method to hold voters to accountability. Making voters give a phone number is a way to make sure that they are serious voters. Pro also says that, \"I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective...\". I am not so certain. I think that a diligent, well designed campaign to teach people how to vote and streamlining the look, appeal, and process of registering would increase the number of voters. I think that by doing nothing about this problem , Debate.org risks losing popularity to other debate forums. However, there are other ways to boost usage that do not lower the quality standards of this great website.", "qid": 32, "docid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6739922761917114}, {"content": "Title: We Need To Complete 3 Debates Before Voting Content: I feel that this system only creates less involvement from an actual spread of people, and blocks real results. Those who have the time/need/want to participate in this website are the ones who will invest the time and will end up voting, creating a smaller sample size for results and causing the entire structure to lean in surprisingly predictable ways. It also causes a bunch of \"Plz vote/approve so i can vote\" debates. I think that the criteria for being able to vote should be reduced.", "qid": 32, "docid": "6a239086-2019-04-18T13:57:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6736568212509155}, {"content": "Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Con argues compulsory voting creates a \"false democratic representation\" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens. I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government. *side note* Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout", "qid": 32, "docid": "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6732025146484375}, {"content": "Title: Voting Reform Content: I just want to bring one quick thing up that wasn't contested when I mentioned it in round 1. Remember this quote. \"This is a debate over who should be eligible to vote in DDO Presidential elections.\" The voter harassment issues are for a different debate and I think those will be solved through a way more simple and easily enforceable method of just only allowing 1 vote and no unvotes or change of votes. FACTORS NOT CONSIDERED The only factor considered in my opponent's plan is how to make the most informed decision as to who the president is, and I'll undermine a lot of those premises for why his system achieves that in the next round. For now, I just want to say there are other things that need to be factored into this. One factor to consider is how the systems affect Juggle's (Owners of debate.org) bottom line. So I'll explain how this system does that. The reason this is important is because the more profitable this website is to Juggle the more they can allocate resources to it and make this place a better experience for all of us. THE STICKY FACTOR There are exceptions to every rule, but do me a favor and look around at the users who have stuck around for a while and those that are here for 6 months and move on. I don't think my opponent will contest this but the users that stick around are the ones who interact a ton, especially in the forum. The first thought that might come to your mind when hearing this is \"Duh that's why they should be the only ones to vote\" \"They are the only ones to reap the reward or suffer the punishment of electing a bad/good president\" It misses the point to say that though. It's in the site's best interest to encourage more members to become more engaged. Having a big sticky factor will increase regular users to the site which in turn creates a bigger user base with more fresh blood. This bigger user base increases profitability and in turn increases the amount of resources that can be allocated to this site. HOW IT INCREASES STICKY FACTOR I kinda went into why sticky factor is important without showing why my system increases sticky factor more but it was important to discuss things in this particular order. Not requiring forum posts give presidential candidates a bigger pool of potential voters to interact with. It's way easier to contact a voter while the voting is occurring than to do it a little before hand. Let me give you the 2 alternate scenarios for drumming up votes. Wylted's scenario, during the voting stage: PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind voting for him in the following thread by bolding his name......? BSH1's scenario taing place prior to the election: PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind making 100 forum posts and voting for him by bolding his name in a few weeks when the presidential voting thread is up? Believe it or not that first PM is going to get that noob to make his first forum post a lot better than the second one. Once that forum post is out the noob has already stuck his toe in the water and is more likely to engage in the forums more. Here is just a fraction of the people who got more involved with the forums after the previous election. Many of these people's first post was a vote for Mikal or Bladerunner. The voice of Truth: http://www.debate.org... Atheist Independent: http://www.debate.org... SeBuk: http://www.debate.org... Zyloarchy: http://www.debate.org... Geographia: http://www.debate.org... Kawai Krazy: http://www.debate.org... Kyle The Heretic: http://www.debate.org... Tabula Rasa: http://www.debate.org... Valkrin: http://www.debate.org... This guy got attatched so fast after the election that he even created a thread to announce a temporary departure something typically reserved for senior members. That's a list of people who wouldn't be participating at all or as much in the forums without being reached out to. This is a list of people who wouldn't be participating as much if it weren't for this election and the current voting rules (with possibly a couple of exceptions). MORE EFFORT During a close and heated election like the one that just occurred, there is going to be a tremendous effort to recruit qualified voters, more so than a few weeks before the election under my opponent's plan. Late in the voting when bladerunner was close but still behind there was a furious effort by his supporters to reach out to new voters. This type of effort is simply not going to take place prior to an election and outside of the heat of battle and if it did the turnout wouldn't be the same which would considerably effect sticky factor. If we reach out in future campaigns it will be even better. In this election Bladerunner's team was taken off guard by the dramatic amount of new barely qualified voters entering the pool and when his most loyal supporters caught onto the strategy Mikal's side was using, several of them adopted it. Unfortunately you'd have several members of their team contact the same person and it would annoy them pretty bad negatively affecting the voter turnout for them. They actually could've employed the same strategy late if they were more organized about it and won despite a later start with it. In future elections, voter recruitment will be more organized and less frantic for both sides, which will present a friendlier more warming outreach to people who rarely or never participate in the forums. The recruitment may start earlier by building friendly relationships with new users prior to requesting their vote. This friendliness will lead to experienced members (most likely recruiters), having more mentor relationships with new people, thus being able to show them the ropes. This new engagement is certain to create a bunch of new friendships and participation in the site significantly affecting the sticky factor and emotional attachment to the site. This bigger more engaged user base is good for Juggle's pocket books and likely to lead to more resources being dedicated to the site. PRESIDENT IS JUST A TITLE Before my opponent starts discussing the importance of the presidency let me address just how relative the presidency is in the words of some people who've been around debate.org a while. Quotes by Danielle: \"The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do.\" \"While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members.\" http://www.debate.org... Quote by YYW: \"Juggle is a corporation, and what interests them is making money. .......... Juggle, as a corporation, does not allocate resources based on who they like or don't like -and there is ample evidence to support that. Juggle allocates resources based on what it perceives is in its interest \" http://www.debate.org... I agree with all these statements and believe that the presidency isn't important because of who's in office but because the process it's self brings DDO to life and it really brings us together in so many ways, particularly people who before the election didn't get to interact with us asmuch", "qid": 32, "docid": "b33077f-2019-04-18T15:26:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6730107069015503}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org should reform its voting criteria Content: The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.", "qid": 32, "docid": "1f2335a0-2019-04-18T18:41:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6726167798042297}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.", "qid": 32, "docid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6724700927734375}, {"content": "Title: A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence. Content: I'm con on this debate.Today we're going to be debating over whether we should change the voting system to count your vote differently based on your intelligence. The arguments will start in round 2. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.", "qid": 32, "docid": "80906e76-2019-04-18T17:11:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.672400951385498}, {"content": "Title: Abortion and murder are not morally equivalent. Content: Extend my arguments, but be aware that since Pro has forfeited two rounds, they should concede a significant portion of voting advantage. Unless Pro can really hit it out of the park in their last round, they have essentially forfeited the debate.", "qid": 32, "docid": "6104986b-2019-04-18T16:02:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.67205810546875}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: My opponent points to these things in trying to rebut my arguments, here is what I have to say about his responses. 1. My point was that it reduces the quality of elections. He said: (1) There will always be uninformed voters. (2) Even if someone is not informed as much as others they should still vote. (3) Quality increases because of the loss of possible voter suppression and a full range of voters not just a \"noisy minority.\" I say: (1) There will always be uninformed voters, however, steps should be taken to encourage better informed voting as opposed to expanding an already large group of uninformed voters who have previously shown little to no interest in being an active voter. (2) If someone is not sufficiently informed, they should work to learn more before voting because the votes of uninformed voters can have serious negative impacts on everyone. Perhaps some would see it as a reason to become more informed but there are plenty of people who vote in voluntary elections that are not well informed and so I see no reason that people would decide all of the sudden that they need to be fully informed to vote if uninformed votes are cast frequently already. (3) It is true that there are many voter suppression efforts going on, however, to say that those who go to the polls are a noisy minority is false. If that were the case, they would no longer be a minority because they would currently hold power. This minority is balanced by a larger portion of voters who oppose and I am not understanding how this noisy minority would be any less of a MINORITY if voting were compulsory. The quality of elections WOULD be reduced due to uninformed votes being cast much more often than in a voluntary system. Eligible voters who would normally choose not to vote would likely go into elections with far less knowledge than the voluntary voter previously had since those who currently do not vote are mostly those who are not interested in politics in the first place. 2. My point was that Compulsory voting infringes upon individual rights. He said: (1) CV is another duty like jury duty and paying taxes. (2) They do not have to pick a candidate, there is a none of the above option. I say: (1) Voting should be a right, since making it obligatory forces people to perform a duty they may not want to perform without it being fully necessary. I am not going to say that voting is not important, however, jury duty is an essential service that would not be possible without making it a duty. At the same time, taxes are essential to the government being able to fund important programs, and therefore not paying taxes is not an option. However, in a democracy, voting can be a right because a large enough and better informed voting base will turnout whether it is a right or a duty. Voting can be done without a mandate since enough people voluntarily vote in order perform the necessary job, electing our leaders. (2) Getting to the polls is an unwanted detour for many and even though there is a \"none of the above\" option, it is still a hassle for many to turn up, wait in line, and finally fill out an unnecessary ballot all to choose none of the candidates and basically discard their vote. 3. My point was that there are other factors to polarization. He said: (1) More voters would go to primaries. (2) politicians must get out their base instead of being moderate and CV would solve this. (3) This issue is not just about the US and would have a larger impact in other countries. I say: (1) More votes would not necessarily go to the primaries since this would not be mandated. (2) There is little to no proof to show that eligible voters who do not commonly vote would be more moderate than current voters. (3) While this is not US specific, voluntary voting is not the only reason for the polarization in other countries either. After reading over my arguments, I hope that it is clear that Conpulsory Voting does or would do, depending on how you are looking at it, many negative things in elections. It reduces the level of information that voters posses, therefore harming the quality of elections, it infringes upon our rights, and it would do little to fight polarization. When voting on this debate, think about the fact that even if only a little more than half the eligible voters vote, this is still in the millions for most democracies, it is still an accurate assessment of the will of the people, and it is done with a larger percent of well informed voters. This is why voting should NOT be compulsory. Thanks for debating me and I am interested in seeing the result.", "qid": 32, "docid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6714645624160767}, {"content": "Title: \"should voting be done online\" Content: Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it\"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that \"if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote\". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away \"do not deserve to vote\". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks \"Old people run the country\") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...", "qid": 32, "docid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6712652444839478}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org should Change their voting system Content: Thanks to my opponent for posting the challenge on this interesting topic. The challenge makes clear that we are only considering two alternatives, either to change to a system in which voters only cast a single vote for the winner of the debate or to keep the present system of awarding up to seven points in categories for each of the two debaters. I suspect that nearly everyone would like to make some improvement or other in the voting system, but what we are now debating is only whether a system of a single point would be an improvement. 1. Vote bombing won't be cured The change advocated by the resolution wouldn't solve the problem of vote bombing. With the voting categories for awarding points and required reasons for decisions, it's usually easy to see who is vote bombing, and we have quite a few DDO members who systematically counter vote bombs. Awarding all seven points is rarely valid, and the lopsided vote is a giveaway. There's a thread for reporting vote bombing, and most new members find it quickly. If voting is reduced to single point win or loss, a vote bomber will have an easier time of concealing a poorly reasoned vote. He can say, \u201cThe debate was close, but Con failed to rebut Pro's most important contention \u2026 blah, blah.\u201d With unreasonable voting harder to detect, the number of bad decisions is as likely to increase as decrease. 2. Having categories improves the debaters skillsMany people who use the formal debate feature on the debate.org site are trying to improve their skills as debaters. If they just want to give opinions and seek reinforcement they can use the Forums or the Opinions features of the site, or they can just blog or post on facebook. The formal debates are for people who are more serious about structured debating. Reducing the serious-debate component of debate.org diminishes the feature that makes the site distinct from other social networking sites.The elements of a good debate are effective communication, logical presentation, avoiding the distractions of bad behavior, and backing up opinions with good sources. The site article \"Tips for a better debate\" makes these points explicitly. [1. http://www.debate.org...] The site article \"How to Vote\" specifically relates these criteria to voting. [2. http://www.debate.org... ]Having points awarded by category encourages the debater to pay attention to each aspect of the debate for fear of losing points in a neglected category. Having categories of judging is typical of competitions in which the judging has a substantial subjective component. Sports like artistic skating [3. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] and gymnastics [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] have elaborately detailed criteria for judging. The performer is thereby made aware of what he must do to win the competition.3. Having categories improves judging skills A reader can casually evaluate a debate based upon a general impression of who did a better job of making a case. Having judging categories, however, demands a more thorough analysis of exactly why one side did better than the other. There is an adage that a person does not really learn a subject until the person teaches it. Accordingly, critically analyzing debates helps build understanding of good debate practices. If anything, the site should have a more detailed template for judging debates, spelling out the different types of conduct violations, the elements of argument (structure, logic, and rebuttal), what constitutes good sources, and so forth. My point is that to develop debate skills, the direction might be in having a more detailed categories, but it is certainly not in having less. We want the best possible judging by the great majority of members who are not vote bombing. The best judging is a product of the more careful analysis fostered by having point categories. Abbreviating the process in an attempt to foil vote bombers is likely to reduce the quality of analysis by members who want to do their best in fairly evaluating the debate. ---------------- Changing to a single point system will make biased voting easier to conceal, it will obscure the requirements for winning debate, and it will make honest voting less thorough and accurate.", "qid": 32, "docid": "b9365fa5-2019-04-18T17:26:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6710405945777893}, {"content": "Title: The option to make the voting time \"Indefinitely\" in debates should not exist. Content: Thankfully, my opponent has maintained the order of the arguments and rebuttals, making this an easy read for all. 1. Allows for More Accurate Judging Pro claims that letting more people vote on debates decreases the accuracy of the voting. If this sounds illogical, that's because it is. Just as studies tend to increase in correctness as their sample size increases [1], so too would debates be judged more fairly if more members get the opportunity to vote. Indefinite voting periods allow for such opportunities, thus increasing the accuracy of judging. Pro's second claim that only members who vote early actually read the arguments is an unsubstantiated assumption. One may postpone voting due to time constraints or may search through older debates out of interest for a particular topic. Ironically, it is placing time restrictions on debates that encourage blind-voting, as members hurry to participate while they still can. 2. A Defense against \"Bombing\" My opponent suggests shorter time periods prevent vote bombing more so than longer ones. However, given that most bombing occurs shortly after a debate ends (especially since one culprit is usually one of the debaters using multiple accounts), time restraints work only to lessen the likelihood that the situation will be corrected. Swaying votes over to the rightful winner takes time and a large audience, both of which are restricted by Pro's proposition. 3. An Incentive to Participate My opponent is correct in stating that all debates eventually lose their popularity with time. Please note, though, that he does not deny that indefinite voting periods do much to maintain such popularity for far longer than would normally be the case. By allowing new members to participate and continue the discussion, indefinite voting periods benefit the debaters, readers, and the community atmosphere of the site at large. ::Rebuttals:: My opponent only somewhat addressed my rebuttal of his original argument, so I will reiterate. Wins granted by limited voting periods may actually do more harm than good; by capturing only a snapshot of potential voting, limited voting periods reduce community input and increase the likelihood of unjustified wins. Given that debates with indefinite voting periods already provide wins in the form of point totals, Pro's proposal is simply unnecessary. That's all for now and I eagerly await R3. ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 32, "docid": "65e2a29a-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6706243753433228}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org Should Have A Stats Page. Content: Tisk Tisk... what a shame. I extend my arguments^. i will simply say that a Stats page would help the voting problems. It doesn't have to delay the new version of the site, it could be implemented in an even later version.", "qid": 32, "docid": "1bcd64a-2019-04-18T19:39:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6700562238693237}, {"content": "Title: Voter ID's Content: My final rebuttals and conclusion: In the opening paragraph of the final round, Pro contradicts herself. She states that \"I don't claim to get rid of all fraud\" by supporting IDs, yet she then states that IDs will \"help to stop fraud\". With the point having been conceded to me in round two that voter fraud is rare, this does not make much sense to cite as a benefit, with such a minimal impact. Pro repeatedly states throughout the entirety of the debate that voter IDs will protect the integrity of elections, but never states how the minimal amount of fraud that rarely ever affects elections is hurting the integrity; her only sources in this regard simply state that it does hurt that integrity. Cost: I did in fact quantify the argument. I stated that it could cost a single state \"millions of dollars\", and in the source I had linked, a more exact figure is given. It's interesting that Pro accuses me incorrectly of having not quantified the argument, when she drops a point due to not quantifying it. Pro states, \"Con said, \"Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source\". Well here's my source . http://www.protectmyvote.com...;. Beside the fact that this source was added in late, the irony is that, with regards to cost, it simply says \"investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly. \" Pro does the very thing she accuses me of, dropping the point by not quantifying the argument. Discrimination: Pro did not rebut any of my factually backed up claims about discrimination with any sources. She simply dismisses the study and disparity of ethnic groups registered to vote that I cited last round, going on an tangent about registered voters not being relevant to the argument. The fact is that if legal Hispanic voters are disproportionately not registered to vote, they will also disproportionately not obtain voter IDs; therefore, that source is completely relevant; as well, Pro does not even respond to the study I cited, so Pro drops this point to me. My opponent then attempts to state that her arguments are better because I only made one argument against IDs and she made five arguments for it. I clearly have made more than one argument; in addition to discrimination, my argument about the cost of IDs is completely relevant and documented. More important than the quantity of arguments, however, is the quality. Pro has been completely unable to refute the two major premises of my argument, those of cost and discrimination. On the other hand, Pro's arguments have all been debunked. Pro has provided 5 points, as she said: A) \"voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud thus providing voters with more assurance in their political system\", B) \"voter fraud is generally only detected after the fact, if at all and investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly\", C) \"people support voter ID's\" D) \"requiring a state-issued photo ID enables the use of common technology to further improve the integrity and efficiency of our election system\", and E) \"ID's will ensure integrity in our electoral system while reducing fraud\". She dropped point B by not providing a source until a round later, which was also not quantified in any way. I rebutted point C by stating that popular support doesn't make a law necessarily right, and she didn't respond to that rebuttal. I've already illustrated repeatedly the fact that A is a non-issue. Point D was responded to with the Help America Vote Act. Point E is almost identical to point A, and was rebutted in the same way that Point A was. As such, Pro's arguments do not stand, while mine do. My final rebuttal is of Pro's hypothetical example. Voter fraud is nothing like a car crash. One fraudulent vote is nearly never the margin of victory. As well, I've shown that fraud is often successfully detected. As well, Pro already admitted in Round 2 that \"even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud\", yet now she makes a U-turn and states that, \"Maybe voter fraud is rare, maybe it's common. We don't know. .. \" Pro thus has demonstrated a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject; if she cannot trust herself to present the facts, no one else can trust her to present the facts. I have shown that voting is protected very well already, and that voter IDs are far more cumbersome than any minute benefits they might provide. Pro, on the other hand, has failed to back up many of her claims with specific, factual information, and has even admitted a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject.", "qid": 32, "docid": "3e2e5609-2019-04-18T15:55:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.669171929359436}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Content: Some parts of con's argument were confusing, such as when they referenced electronic voting with block chains would be better, and when they said \"...more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt.\" I read the source, and I don't understand what this portion of their argument is referring to, and what they mean by saying anarchic and trusting people who are corrupt. When I mentioned that the electoral system prevents corruption, I was referencing that it allows for electors to choose what candidate they elect, which was intended by the founding fathers to prevent wide sweeping waves of corruption that would allow for corrupt politicians to exploit the system and gain office [1].Why do you think Hillary won the popular vote? Because she is a corrupt sociopath who manipulated the public, but we were saved from her wrath by the electoral college, that prevented her from winning the election [2][3]. The electoral college protected us from this corruption because it balances the effects of widespread manipulation. Hillary was able to manipulate people all across the country, but since she didn't manipulate all the people in specific states, she couldn't win the electoral vote. Her sociopathic tactics allowed her to convince many people, but the electoral system requires states to be influenced, not just the general. nationwide populace. Make sure to read my sources to better understand what I'm talking about, if it doesn't make sense to you.Again, I don't understand what block chains have to do with the electoral college. From what I saw, the method of obtaining the votes is what the block chain system con referenced pertains to. The electoral college itself has nothing to do with HOW the votes are counted, just the way that they are used for determining the president. This part of con's argument is irrelevant, and definitely doesn't pertain to this debate. Con stated that it is \"more trustworthy\" to use this \"modern system\". Again, they are making no sense, as this doesn't pertain to the topic, but con words it to sound as if the vote collecting system and block chains are relevant. My opponent states that the electoral system is unfair, because residents of certain states will have larger says than others, which I referenced in my own arguments. Con believes it is an infringement of democracy. However, the electoral college gives advantages to minorities who would otherwise be less useful to candidates. As I stated before, candidates will only visit urban states to gain votes, and not rural ones in a popular vote system. This shows a disregard and bias against these rural state votes, and gives all the power of the election to large states. This means that these states will be hotpots for lobbyists, propaganda, and supporters of candidates. The increased lobbying will allow for the companies in these states to have far higher chances of profit, as lobbying often leads to corporate profit [4]. With this in mind, the rural states, and lower population states in general, will never be visited and be devoid of presidential politics, which makes lobbying impossible. The larger states will not only have more political say, but gain valuable political activity that promotes profitable lobbying and campaigning, which is unfair to the smaller states. Only a few states in the nation would be benefiting, and the others would hardly be effected from this imbalance caused by the popular vote. How does this tie back to democracy? Well, the balancing of the states restores power to smaller states, which gives those regions their needed advantage. An individual in Wyoming may have more voting power than a Californian, but the state of Wyoming only gives a puny 3 electoral votes, compared to California's 55. And if it were a popular vote, Wyoming would still be even punier than California in terms of influences to the presidential election. Democracy doesn't just encompass the equality of the people, but the states too. Our country is composed of many different people, who should be represented as each one out of many, not just many [5]. We need states to have rights and be more balanced, rather than the federal government having all the power. The popular vote system basically is letting the go of the reins of the election. It leaves it in the hands of corrupt politicians (such as Hillary) and destroys the influence of smaller states. Only large states will participate, and they will benefit from campaigning and lobbying. The popular vote creates mass media chaos, and will make the elections far more corrupt and chaotic [5]. The electoral system may seem to violate democratic principals of equal vote weight, and I will concede that it does in some ways, but the benefits, balancing, and protection it provides to the elections out way this negative result of the electoral system. I did not say that the system is perfect, as no system can be perfect, but that it is at least far better than the popular system [5]. Thank you for participating in this debate, and I look forward to your closing round. Happy debating.P.S. Please review my sources, as they contain lots of information that backs my arguments. Sources : http://www.thegazette.com... [1]http://www.wnd.com... [2]https://pisoproject.wordpress.com... [3]https://hbr.org... [4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] Additional Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://pisoproject.wordpress.com...", "qid": 32, "docid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6691379547119141}, {"content": "Title: DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories Content: Con must show that there is a significant problem with the present system and that changing the voting system will fix the problem. Every debater who has been around for a while will say they think they should have won a debate they lost, and they are right at least some of the time. So how do we improve judging? Con argues that by eliminating all standards as to what is good and bad in a debate, voting will improve. I think it should go the other way. Better voting comes from having common standards as to what is important, and in making debaters and voters aware of that. Judges of academic debates are presumed to have a good understanding of what's important. We cannot safely make that presumption here.There are no clear examples of bad outcomes from strategic voting on DDO Voters sometimes shade their voting strategically. If a voter believes strongly that one debater ought to win a debate, he will tend to award more of the seven points to the side he thinks should win. The voter may be correct in his judgment about who should win. He may be enthusiastic about the subject and read the debate very carefully, making a reasonable judgment about each category. Or he may not be so careful and just make a subjective appraisal of by how much he believes the side he favors won, which could be unfair. A vote counted as suspect by one side is likely to be counted as unusually perceptive by the other side. How many debates have been wrongly decided by strategic voting? In a close debate strategic voters will tend to cancel automatically. If the suspect votes make no difference in the outcome, we should be satisfied that they either offset or do not affect the tide of voting. Con offered only one example of a debate where there was a potential that strategic voting affected an outcome. In that debate, more people voted for the losing side than the winning side. But Con just assumed the outcome was unfair, without arguing it was in fact unfair. I had voted on that debate and at the time judged it to be very close. The debate could have gone either way, so there is no cause for complaint. Without even a single clear example of an unfair vote, Con has not established either that there is a problem of strategic voting unfairly affecting outcomes, or that up-or-down voting would provide an improvement.DDO debates show the change would produce more ties Of twenty debates examined, in only one was there a reversal of the winner and loser if each vote was presumed to translate to a full vote for one side or the other. The 0-1, 0-1, 0-2 voters might have called the debate a tie instead. Again it wasn't clear whether that made the voting more fair or less fair. Con dismisses my sample of twenty debate as too small, but con offered no data at all. A sample of 20 is not definitive, but it gives a reasonable idea of what is going on. I used the Bidwell-Wilson approximation to the confidence limits on the binomial distribution to get the error bounds. [10.http://en.wikipedia.org... If found in my sample that 17 of 20 debates were unchanged by up-or-down voting. The 95% confidence interval is that between 13 and 19 debates would be unchanged. The increased number of ties is put between 1 and 7. The number of reversals is between one debate in five and one in 120. Since Con only cited one reversal, even when pressed, it's likely the number is on the rare end of the interval. Clearly more debates would end in a tie because of the quantization, in my sample twice as many. I think it is less fair to the debaters to declare a tie when voters considering the categories thought that one side had won. How many debaters will say, \u201cThe new voting system is terrific, I'm getting more tied scores now!'? All subjective judging benefits from standards Con argues that the analogy of debate voting to judging subjective sports is invalid because debating is not an athletic competition. But the object of the competition is irrelevant to the logical process of scoring a subjective competition. In terms of judging, subjective sports, dog shows, flower shows, and pie baking competitions are alike in having subjective judging. The goal is to establish both for competitors and judges guidelines for what is better and what is worse, and how much each category counts. Con claims that because academic debate uses a primitive up-or-down system so therefore, DDO debates should use that system. The subjective sports moved to more sophisticated voting systems as a result of voting scandals. If academic debating became a competition having general interest and suffered a scandal from biased voting, academic debate would have no alternative but to move to more sophisticated point system as well. Despite the use of a point system, the Olympic figure skating in Sochi still had a voting scandal. But there is no effective Moderator checking on judges in the Olympics. A moderator could examine each point addition and deduction, and an inflated score would then be very difficult to defend. Reverting to an up-or-down system wouldn't cure the judging problem, because that was already tried at the Olympics without success. Having standards doesn't work if there is no threat of enforcement.The silly poll Con points to a poll of debaters that revealed that each debater thought that strategic voting was used on their debates. That's a standard bit of nonsense used all the time by poll takers. It's along the lines of \u201cAre you satisfied with current government policy on X?\u201d No one is completely satisfied, so there will a high percentage saying \u201cNo.\u201d Upon getting the expecting \u201dno,\u201d proponents then proclaim that they have a ringing endorsement for policy Y, which was not mentioned in the poll. I would have answered \u201cyes\u201d to the poll as well. However, my remedy is to better educate voters and to improve the ability to moderate voting. That choice wasn't posed.Not simpler, better Con said I wanted a simpler voting system. I don't. I want to keep the present system. I allowed the weights on categories could be tweaked, but I think they are now about right. What I'm proposing is a more elaborate system available as an option to help voters who want to know more detail on how to vote decide who should win each category. The same guidelines would be used by moderators. Saying \u201cVote for whomever you thought did best.\u201d doesn't work, because \"best\" is undefined. It doesn't say, for example, that the relevance and quality of sources is far more important than the number of sources. It doesn't say what is a serious conduct violation and what is not. It leaves everything to the intuition of the voter, and that is not a good idea, particularly with the highly mixed character of DDO voters. When everyone uses there own standards, there are no grounds for claiming bias. It is officially arbitrary.Academic debate is not the real world I did not say that academic debating was worthless. I said it does not reflect the real world of jobs, community organizations, and politics. A gave a list of the significant differences between real world debate and academic debate. Con ignored every item I listed without giving counter arguments as to why the difference was unimportant. Con asserted that everyone wants to live in the world of academic debate forever. That's impossible. For example, conduct is a problem in academic debate, because debaters know that bad conduct is sure to be punished. Academic judges are individually selected. Con did not address any of the differences. My study of randomly selected debates showed the categories were working well. People were, to perhaps a surprising degree, considering each aspect of the debate. Making voting simpler makes it unpredictable, because each person has complete freedom to decide what is important and what is not. Judging can be improved only by making the standards more clear, not moving closer to polling.", "qid": 32, "docid": "71eb347c-2019-04-18T16:29:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6686607003211975}, {"content": "Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less", "qid": 32, "docid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6682541370391846}, {"content": "Title: i will get the fewest votes in this debate Content: Pro has seemed to overlook one glaring hole in her argument:Not all votes have the same weight.Pro takes only of votes, not points.Thus, it is perfectly possible to receive a greater number of votes, yet lose the debate due to lack of points. Consider: 5 single point votes for Pro against 1 six point vote for Con.With this in mind, Pro can no longer rely on logical paradox to determine a future outcome and Pro must provide some other argument or reason for somehow knowing the future outcome of this debate.Indeed, vote wisely.", "qid": 32, "docid": "46bac06d-2019-04-18T18:16:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6668475270271301}, {"content": "Title: Quiz before Vote Content: I am not talking about voting on online debates... I am talking about the United States voting system. For example, voting for a president, or voting on laws.", "qid": 32, "docid": "18a26ffe-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6667072772979736}, {"content": "Title: This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Content: 1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.", "qid": 32, "docid": "615e029c-2019-04-18T19:03:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6664885878562927}, {"content": "Title: Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting Content: Thanks to tylergraham95! In this round, I will address framework, the Pro case, the Pro Con, and provide some reasons to vote Pro. FRAMEWORKSimply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable; yet, my example of slavery goes un-rebutted. By extending my argument, we can see that we cannot blindly accept VV as inherently desirable. Con is \"begging the question. \" Voting is desirable in a democracy, but what type of voting is most desirable is up for debate. Con must prove the desirability of his voluntary system just as much as I must prove the desirability of my compulsory system. PROs CASESub-point A: CV boosts TurnoutCon does not deny that CV boosts turnout. His only argument here is that boosting turnout decrease voting quality--I will address this assertion later in this round--but for now, Con DROPS that CV will increase turnout, and we can extend this point. Sub-point B: Low Turnout BadI made three assertions here: (1) that high turnout was \"one legitimating factor\" of a government, particularly as it regards the need for a mandate; (2) low turnout harms the socio-economically disadvantaged; (3) there should be a \"minimization of elite power. \"Con also makes three arguments: (1) that forcing everyone to votes pollute the polls with low quality votes; (2) that turnout alone does not boost credibility; and (3) that having people vote who want to vote legitimizes government more so than compulsion does. First of all, none of Con's points address my 2nd and 3rd arguments--they're DROPPED. Extend that low turnout harms the disadvantaged and that elite power should be reduced. These two points on their own are enough to show that low turnout is bad, even if you don't believe that compulsion is necessary for legitimacy. Now, let's take a look at Con's three claims. Firstly, Con repeats his \"quality of votes\" assertion, which I will address later. But, I will make one point here of importance. Italy does not enforce its CV laws. [1] Therefore, Silvio Berlusconi was elected VOLUNTARILY. Con makes a huge deal about how uneducated voters pollute the polls; yet we can turn his own example against him and say that this SAME phenomenon occurs in a voluntary system. I made this same argument in my last speech when I pointed out that this was a non-unique claim. Secondly, I stated that \"high turnout is one legitimating factor,\" which is not the same as saying that \"numbers ALONE do not add credibility. \" Never did I claim that high turnout was the ONLY metric, but it is nonetheless an important one, for legitimacy. Thirdly, if only a small group of people vote, they are the ones molding the government and the ones elected officials will focus on. Politicians wanted to get reelected, and so will make policies favorable to those who are likely to vote, and this means that leaders will pay less attention to other groups. This only entrenches socio-economic disparities and leads to elitism. When only a handful of people control the government it seems more oligarchic than democratic. So, low turnout is also bad for legitimacy too. Sub-point C: Free RidersCon's big claim here is that nonvoting is not free riding because people can still contribute without voting. Thus, nonvoters are not exploiting the system. This is wrong largely because of Con's interpretation of the social good that nonvoters are exploiting. The actual people who make up the government is the social good--not the community at large. Nonvoters may contribute to the community, they may protest against bad legislation, they may do community service, and so on, but they don't actually participate in electing the members of the government. Con argues, throughout this debate, that we want good, competent leaders. If good, competent, non-demagogic leaders are a social good, then when 10 of us vote for them, but some else doesn't vote, that person is enjoying that social good, i. e. those leaders, without having done the act of electing them; they are free-riding. Extend my argument. Sub-point D: PolarizationI argued that people who are more likely to vote tend to be more extreme (extremes have higher enthusiasm, loyalty to a cause, etc. ). The corollary is that moderates tend to vote less. Therefore, by instituting CV, we force moderates to vote, checking against polarization. Con DROPS this argument that nonvoters tend to be moderates. Extend it. Con's only attack here is his \"quality of votes\" point, which I will address later. Con also asserts that nonvoters do not comprise the majority in the U. S. However, there are many other democracies in which nonvoters aren't just the majority, but the vast majority. Even in the U. S. , non-presidential elections tend to hover around 40% turnout (60% don't vote), and even in 2012, around 43% of registered voters did not participate. [2] That is still a MASSIVE margin. Sub-point E: CV reduces violenceI am asserted that when voting norms atrophy the system is seen as being controlled by elites, and that the leaders cater to that group. This leads people to seeing the system as corrupt, and to use violence to express themselves. for example, the miners in South Africa who felt that they weren't being heard, the protests in Afghanistan when Karzai was reelected, the violence in Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan was reelected, etc. . It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it's actually happened. Groups that lose at the polls and who simultaneously see the system as skewed or corrupt often resort to violence. When the GOP lost to Obama, there wasn't nationwide violence because the average Romney voter had a higher level of confidence in the physical polling system itself than people elsewhere. CV, inasmuch as it promotes good voting norms and reduces elite influence, does reduce violence. CON's CASEPoint 1: Right to Inaction(1) Con DROPS this argument that not all positive rights imply negative rights. We have the right to educate our kids, but we don't have the right not to educate our kids. Extend this point. (2) Con misinterprets my use of the jury example. I was arguing that some rights that take precedence over others. So, my right to due process is more important than your right to your free time; therefore, I can compel you to serve on the jury. Apply this to voting. My right to a representative government trumps your alleged right to not vote; thus I can compel voting. As Con misconstrues my point, we can extend it. The impact is that if I can show the CV benefits democracy, than your right to not vote is not enough to stop me from compelling you to do so. As my sources said, \"If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. \" [3](3) Con DROPS my point that CV is not a violation of human rights. Extend it. (4) Con DROPS my arguments against his religious objections. He loses this. Point Two: Uneducated Voters(1) This is non-unique. As Con's own example of Italy shows, even with VV twits can be elected. So again, unless Con is willing to ban every single uneducated person from voting he cannot claim that I am the only person who might include uneducated voters in the system. And, if Con did ban those people, he would be infringing on freedom, which he says is a bad thing to do. (2) Con states, \"the idea that. .. CV translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. \" Con says that I have no warrants, yet this quote has no warrants. Saying that something's nonsensical is not SHOWING that it is nonsensical. Con's second source offers no citation for the numbers it gives, nor does it provide any methodology by which it attained those numbers. This source is questionable too. Furthermore, Con only addresses my point A argument, that people will educate themselves. He never addressed my point B that parties will educate voters. It's DROPPED, extend it. Point 3: QualityCross-apply my point B re: educating voters here. (1) Con agrees that only 1-2% of voters cast bad votes. Half of these, my source notes, will be spoiled or invalidated by their authors, so they won't be counted. So few donkey votes are counted then, that with an increase in voting of between 15-30 points on average, the effect of bad votes is negligible. They are \"incapable of distorting outcomes. \" And, regardless of how many actually turnout, CV still boosts turnout by large margins. (2) Con defines a \"quality\" vote as one that \"would have been cast without compulsion. \" This would mean that all compelled votes lack quality--which isn't true. When voting was first introduced in Australia (1925), turnout increased by nearly 33%. [4] So, 1-2% of poorly cast votes is a drop in the bucket. So clearly many votes cast only because voters are compelled to cast them are quality votes, judging by Con's own source and judging by the fact that people made a premeditated effort to vote well, as Lisa Hill describes. CV does not endanger quality. VOTING ISSUES1. Low turnout is bad: it hardens socio-economic divides and elitism. Con dropped these points. CV boosts turnout (Con dropped this) and so it solves for this.2. CV reduces free riding and violence; it brings moderates to the polls.3. Voting can be compelled insofar as the benefits to society outweigh the objections. con misinterpreted and dropped this point.4. CV promotes education as I show in point B, which was dropped.5. Con uses his quality claim against all my sub-points. Yet, the impacts of bad votes are negligible and non-unique. Thus, we can dismiss MOST of Con's attacks on my case just by taking out this claim. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3 - Harvard (previously cited)4 - . http://www.aec.gov.au...Thank you to Subutai, Tyler, and the Judges!", "qid": 32, "docid": "be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6664667129516602}, {"content": "Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for \"every\" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.", "qid": 32, "docid": "5d4778b5-2019-04-18T16:33:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.665937066078186}, {"content": "Title: In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished. Content: - Introduction I am going to once more tear down my opponent's arguments and rebuttals and show why my case remains firmly unscathed. - Regarding My Opponent's Initial Arguments 1. A coin analogy wont work as it does not embody Pro's original sentiments about how once a 50% threshold of votes is reached the others do not \"matter\". The fact remains that more people that vote for a specific candidate, the higher the chances of that candidate winning. Regardless of whether or not every vote is directly responsible for a win, every vote still counts from a probabilistic standpoint. Ergo, Pro's arguments here still fail. 2. I never once stated that giving more power to smaller states makes it more democratic, just that it makes it more fair from a holistic standpoint. Also, my opponent cited no sources or reasoning for his 19.4% calculation so it can be disregarded. I provided sources for my claim that half of the country populated only 146 out of the 3000 counties in the country in my first round. If half the population resides in only 4.86 % of the the counties, then if the winner was decided by popular vote, and everyone from those 146 counties voted one way hypothetically, a candidate could get half the votes just from just 4.86% of the counties that exist in the whole country. Since deciding the winner by popular vote isn't fair to the vast majorities of counties in the US, it should not be implemented as a replacement to the Electoral College which works so well. 3. An objective court could prosecute electors for biased voting if there was proof of such conduct. However, it is next to impossible to prove as biased electors could conjure up multiple reasons for the bad vote. Also, there is no reason to think the non-practice regarding my opponent's issue will not continue in the future so his concerns are unfounded. Pro still hasn't shown why a pure democracy is better than the Electoral College, just stating \"Democracy is the best system\" doesn't cut it. 4. Most of the time simplicity is a form of efficiency, especially considering how long it would take to calculate votes if the FPTP was abolished. Pro has not proven that his reasons against the FPTP system outweigh the efficiency of easily calculated votes. His argument still fails. 5. Pro argues against my teleportation example because the universal laws would have to be re-written to make it possible. This is false, teleportation is possible in this universe via quantum entanglement. Either way, third-party candidates have an little chance of winning presidential elections anyway, so if the Electoral College makes it even harder for that to occur there is no practical difference as the outcome would most likely be the same regardless. 6. My opponent's calculation involving population distribution this round wasn't backed up by anything; mine was. Pro implies that the democratic aspects the Electoral College embodies are exactly what it hurts but offered no argument for this. My opponent's baseless assertions can be graciously ignored. 7. I never implied that some people are more important than others, just that some voters have more motivation to make an educated vote than others. Since my opponent straw-manned my position he fails to establish any relevant point. 8. One of the main reasons those 43% of households don't pay federal income tax is because they didn't make enough income to qualify. This isn't the same as being exempt from income tax because they live in a territory; my opponent is drawing a false equivalence. So, Pro's objections miss the mark once again. - Regarding My Initial Arguments 1. This objection has been addressed in this round already. 2. Pro claims the STV is still a simple system but it is not; all one needs to do is look at what happened in New Zealand in 2004. It took over a month to calculate the votes because of the complexity involved in vote calculations. As New Zealand party MP Nick Smith writes: \"STV is a system designed for political scientists and mathematicians not voters. .. The local government elections were a disaster and an international embarrassment. \" The STV is not practical in any sense. 3. A rebuttal is a form of arguing so one cannot rebuttal without making a \"new argument\". Either way the no new argument rule only applies to this round according to the rules outlined. My opponent also once again states that if the Electoral College doesn't match with the popular vote that it is not \"correct\", in order to argue for deciding the winner by popular vote. However, this assumes already that deciding the victor by popular vote is correct. Since Pro assumes his conclusion to argue for it, this amounts to nothing more than begging the question and circular reasoning. 4. The Electoral College is not anti-democratic, it is just less democratic than other potential election methods. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because a pure democracy would force us to deem a handful of counties and states as more important than most of the country. That is unacceptable, because issues like the water crisis in Flint, Michigan would go largely ignored. 5. My opponent says that the efficiency comes at the price of more democracy. However, a pure democracy isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread like my opponent implies, as majority of the country is vastly uneducated on political issues. So, leaving important choices like who becomes the president to the majority of Americans is more scary than anything. Therefore, just because an election done via the Electoral College doesn't match with the popular vote doesn't mean it wasn't successful. If anything, in many cases, it could be considered a good thing. 6. What my opponent fails to realize is that the idea of the Electoral College is inherent to American Federalism, so his reasons for wanting to abolish the Electoral College are irrelevant to my point here. It still stands that we might as well get rid of Federalism and states in general if we get rid of the Electoral College, because the Electoral College is the only system which can embody those principles accurately. 7. My opponent argues that the Electoral College has caused more bad presidents to win the election than good. Thus, in his mind, this point alone shows why the resolution has been proven. This fails for two reasons: (i) It is debatable whether or not the presidents he mentioned were actually bad presidents (ii) It invokes a quantity over quality logic which is flawed With regards to (i), Benjamin Harrison for example did much good, like forcing Chile into paying reparations to Americans. The War on Terror stopped many terrorist cells from causing harm to American cities. Also, what Trump said before he got elected does not dictate what he will actually do once president. With regards to (ii), it could be argued that abolishing slavery trumps whatever bad a handful of presidents might have done. Therefore, based on (i) and (ii), Pro's logic falls flat. 8. Again, just because X is not as democratic as Y, that doesn't mean X is less desirable by default. This is a false axiom Pro uses in many of his arguments that simply hasn't been shown to be true. - Conclusion \"Equal voting rights\" would mean a handful of counties and states would have half of the voting power, and it would be a crime to ignore the needs of the majority of states because they have less people; this would be catastrophic. My opponent simply doesn't realize that the US was never meant to be a pure democracy, and there is no reason to assume a pure democracy is to be desired.", "qid": 32, "docid": "45570f76-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6657368540763855}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: It seems obvious to me: anyone can set up an account on DDO, search for their favorite topics, and easily vote on whatever they want, without even reading the arguments. The resolution is that SOMETHING must be done to improve the voting system on this site. I will give a few ideas that could be incorporated by the DDO creators, but am open to any other suggestions: 1) Show how each person voted. 2) Moniter the votes more closely. 3) Show a feed on each account's page that reveals what they voted on and how they voted. 4) Have each voter write a short, detailed paragraph on why he/she voted that way, which fellow members can see and report if they find something wrong with it. Also, I am not able to vote, even though I have a cell phone. Why? I do not know. I have sent in my number multiple times, and have never received an approval text. This must be remedied as well. Remember, this debate is focusing on whether or not the DDO Voting System is flawed, NOT on whether or not my specific ideas are \"the best\". I await an opponent", "qid": 32, "docid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6654453277587891}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: Hello Cosmojarvis, I will be taking the con side, arguing against the resolution. Good luck, Cosmojarvis! Main Argument: Although it is not good to see lower voter turnouts, and is concerning, I believe it is no cause to lower the standards. Think of the potential consequences that could arise from removing some or all of the voting qualifications. Instead of having only those who are experienced debaters (three debates) voting, removing this requirement could cause many non-serious voters to cast biased votes, or \"vote bomb\". Although it would be nicer to have many voters, we would risk causing a degradation of the quality of material on Debate.org. When debating, we should consider the opinion of one person who is vetted and experienced more valuable than the opinion of one who is not. In addition , there are other ways to attract voters that are not so dangerous. For one, Debate,org could advertise its debate voting feature more. It could also remove the most privacy invasive requirement that asks for a phone number Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.", "qid": 32, "docid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6648088693618774}, {"content": "Title: Mandatory Voting Content: I. Uniformed PublicFirstly, my opponent said that he presented evidence to prove that voting would increase public knowledge and awareness. However, I believe that I properly refuted that argument, as he didn't respond to my rebuttals. .Then, my opponent questions the accuracy of my source to prove how uniformed voters are. However, here's a paragraph taken directly from the article I found my information in. \"The poll was conducted by Conquest Communications Group, a professional polling firm located in Virginia. The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 700 likely voters across the continental United States on Dec. 15\u201320, 2015. Likely voters are those who say they vote 'every time there is an opportunity' or 'in most elections.'\" [1]Lastly, my opponent says that every voter will have blind spots when voting. I will concede a bit to this. Yes, every voter will have blind spots, but let me reference even more data to share how uniformed voters are.\"Despite years of public controversy over the budget,surveys consistently show that most of the public have very little understanding of how the federal government spends its money. They greatly underestimate the percentage of federal funds allocated to massive entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security\u2014which are among the largest federal expenditures\u2014and vastly overestimate the proportion that goes to foreign aid (only about 1 percent of the total). Voters are also often ignorant about the basic structure of government. The Annenberg survey found that only 36% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: the executive, legislative and judicial.\" [2]This is a huge problem. If most voters don't know about issues like Medicare, Social Security, or even the basics of our government, then why bring even less informed people in instead of focusing on bringing accurate information to the masses?II. Freedom of Choice and SpeechIf we skip ahead a little bit in his rebuttals, my opponent quotes Harvard Law Review notes. With my defense, I'll pick parts of it to really dissect.\"[C]ompulsory voting is a legitimate infringement upon individual liberty for the purpose of ensuring that political outcomes reflect the preferences of the electorate...the very idea that a right, by definition, can be waived is false. Numerous rights cannot be waived; and, although many others can, this still does not imply the general existence of inverse rights.\" [3]It isn't that the right is being waived necessarily, they just simply aren't being exercised. Let's say that we have a man. We'll call him Jim. Jim is unregistered to voter and is simply not interested. Let's say a few years later that Jim wants to register to vote. Just because he didn't vote previously doesn't mean that his right was taken away. He still has the right, he just didn't acknowledge it.III. Universal Declaration of Human RightsI will concede to this rebuttal.ConclusionI still stand by the fact that mandatory voting would be harmful to Democratic societies. To end this debate, I'd like to thank ThinkBig for his participation. Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you luck. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://www.theblaze.com...[2]http://www.forbes.com...[3]http://harvardlawreview.org...", "qid": 32, "docid": "c0900fa2-2019-04-18T13:00:22Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6644687652587891}, {"content": "Title: The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system Content: 1) You claimed it would have issue such as vote manipulation \" rigging systems, psychological trickery, bandwagon, untrustworthy individuals, or causing social dilemmas\" but I don't see how it would. You didn't really explain how a direct democratic system would be susceptible to those things, you merely claimed it would be. 2) Well, it was a suggestion for instant run-off voting. Like I stated, it is not necessarily what I would have, as I'm still thinking about the idea itself. However, you say it's susceptible to tactical voting, but our current voting system is already too. How many people do you think votes for the lesser of two evils because they think that they can't vote or a third party candidate because they believe it is a wasted vote? Instant run-off voting would help third parties come to power because people will more likely put a third party as their first choice since the wasted vote argument is invalid under instant run-off voting since your vote transfers to someone else if your candidate came in last. So, while it is susceptible to tactical voting, our current system already is. I consider instant run-off better since it would help third parties and get more opinion out there. 3) Well as I said before, it would be up to the political party to decide how they choose their representatives. It would vary from party to party most likely. 4) But why does the federal government need to be the one to solve these issues? Local governments would be better at it because they are not as partisan. In the federal government, there is so much partisanship we've had two government shut downs looming before because one side wants to block what the other side does. For local governments, this partisanship almost doesn't exist. Mayors and cities can get things done where the federal government is still debating on things. For example, with man-made climate change, there is a huge debate between republicans and democrats over if it's real. Science says it is real, and because of this partisanship, hardly anything is getting done about it anyways. See this ted talk for more reasons why it would be better to have local governments empowered [1] 5) I did back up this claim, as I pointed out in the first round, studies have been done to show that economic elites and businesses are the ones with the most influence over legislation. Since representatives are susceptible to corruption, whereas the people cannot be susceptible to corruption nearly as much, it is better to replace congress with the people. I showed above how donations influence specific items that congress passes, this issue would not exist in a democratic vote since there are just too many people to try to bribe. 6) I think this is malarchy because we had tyranny from congress to begin with. We had so much discrimination in the past occur when we didn't have a majoritarian system, for example, we had the gag rule in congress where slavery should never be discussed and slavery continued under the congressional system. What difference does it make if a few hundred people are passing legislation to discriminate against a minority, versus the majority of people doing it? In fact, if we had a majoritarian system, we probably would have ended slavery sooner since the north had more population than the south did, so majority supported getting rid of slavery while a minority wanted to keep it. In the case of our current system, it protected a minority of people to keep slaves and even after we ended slavery, it protected them to continue discriminating against black people. Sure, there may be a case where the majority will discriminate against a minority, but that already happened in the current system, and it was worse since, as I pointed out, the government allowed a minority of people to discriminate against another minority. In popular rule, it would get rid of that aspect, and only majority can discriminate against a minority. Minorities wouldn't be able to discriminate against minorities like they could in our current system. No system is perfect, but I think a majoritarian rule would be better than our current system for that reason. Sources: [1] https://www.ted.com...", "qid": 32, "docid": "b75dc9f-2019-04-18T12:39:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.664305567741394}, {"content": "Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: As an indulgence, please notice the following reiteration: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for \"every\" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.", "qid": 32, "docid": "5d4778b5-2019-04-18T16:33:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6640888452529907}, {"content": "Title: The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Content: Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, \"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.\" [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]", "qid": 32, "docid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6640545129776001}, {"content": "Title: All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. Content: I'll start with my opponent's case, and then my case. 1. Ineffective and time consuming. RESPONSE: SO my opponent is arguing that it would be too time consuming, and a vote would count for little to no points. First off, if anything this system would remove any illegit votes, since everyone would have to post a RFD, and people would know who voted where and why, and those voting illegiitimately will be obvious. My opponent states that what if both sides had good speelling and grammar, and sources, and conduct. He claims that this would make voting meaningless. WRONG. If anything, it would make it more meaningful, since the voter has voted honestly. If the Spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct are really the same, then it makes the debate that much better. Its no fun to have a debate where one person decides to forget about any sense of manners and swears every other word. So that part of my opponent's argument has been refuted. My opponent then goes on to say that biased votes will inevitably happen, due to the first 2 criteria my opponent brought up. However, those 2 criteria have no bearing on the debate. The only votes that actually give points are the last 4 criteria. So that argument has been refuted. 2. Unfair and can't be enforced RESPONSE: Look. You can easily get around my opponents argument in the following way: Who says everyone see's the votes? Nowhere have I said that everyone will see everyone's votes. I say that the only people who need to see the people's votes are the debaters. So I propose the following system: Debaters debate. Voters vote. Voters see RFDs, and only voters The votes can be posted, but the RFDs can only be seen by the debaters. That takes care of the first half of this argument. For the second half. So my opponent is arguing that it would be incredibly difficult to monitor all the votes in a debate, and that not all votes will be read. RESPONSE: My opponent is trying to argue that it would be too difficult to monitor all votes, and therefore we should reject my system. The problem with this is that there are a bunch of responses. We could: 1. Get more moderators to handle it. 2. If Webcorp doesn't want to hire them, the current moderators can get a group of people willing to do this. These people would be relatively experienced, and the veterans of the site. They could help and monitor all the votes. 3. After a while, the moderators will be able to do the job quickly and easily, as they begin to learn voting habits of people. CONCLUSION: So my opponent hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not post RFDs when they vote. He has only said that it would be difficult to monitor, it would be ineffective, but he hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not be allowed to know why they are winning or losing. You can extend all my arguments. BURDENS: The only burden my opponent has set before me is the one to answer all his questions. I have done so. One more reason for an affirmative ballot My opponent has not fulfilled the burden that I gave him, the one to prove why we should not be allowed to know why we won or lost, only that we won or lost. One more reason for an affirmative ballot. I await my opponent and the voters, and I ask that everyone post an RFD. You should be proud of who you voted for and why, and you have more than enough reason to let me and my opponent know about it.", "qid": 32, "docid": "56845746-2019-04-18T19:32:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6636443138122559}, {"content": "Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: My main problem with the voting system is the lack of accountability concerning votes, not on how the votes are distributed. For instance, I recently finished a debate on a rather controversial topic. I posted my final argument, and the voting time began. Literally less than a minute later, I noticed that someone voted on the debate. The result? Three points given to my opponent, none given to me. I would not particularly have had a problem with that. .. if it were not for the fact that the person voted less than a minute after I posted my final argument. There is absolutely no chance that someone could have noticed that the debate was open for voting, read my final argument, reflected on what was being said, then voted, all in less than a minute's time. Even if she/he happened to be looking at the debate just as I posted my final argument, I still find it incredible. Also, in this debate, my opponent did not use ANY citations whatsoever, all the while \"quoting\" facts. I backed up my arguments with citations, and when my opponent claimed that my sources were biased and unreliable, I gave other sources (showing the same exact facts, thus proving my original sources WERE reliable, by the way) that no one could logically claim were \"unreliable\" (Major newspaper articles, government health instituions, etc. ) The first three voters (I checked periodically) gave me absolutely NO POINTS. Once again, if I were simply losing in that debate, that would be one thing. But to give citation points (or at least give a tie) to a person who cited NO SOURCES while making arguments that absolutely had to be backed up by sources? That is preposterous. Also, the voting system is different from what you described it to be (not to count against you; I was under the delusion that the system worked the way you stated as well). My main reason for bringing up this debate is to try to get people to talk about the voting system; whether or not they believe that it needs improvement. Is the voting system fine (minus the lack of accountability)? Yes, I find the point distribution to be adequate. But what good is a voting system for a debate site if it merely reflects people's predetermined thoughts on the given subject? 1) The tab indicating that they are \"redesigning\" the site has been there for quite a while; as long as I have been on (a few months). Nonetheless, it is something that is not incorporated into the voting system yet, so that would be considered an \"improvement\". 2) I do not know if anyone tracks the voting on this site. If they do, they need to stop what is called \"vote bombing\", where a group of people (for various reasons) vote for a specific side en masse, always as a concerted effort. Granted, it would be hard to determine that without question. However, when iLikeRepublicans, nObama08, fashistNeocon69, and reaganBaby! (all fictitious usernames, by the way) are constantly seen voting (around the same time) on political debates (and giving ALL of their points to the more conservative side), well, one can wonder. .. 3) I may or may not be the minority on this point, but I would not consider (nor do I believe that DDO should consider) it an invasion of privacy if someone were able to see my voting record, because: A) No one knows who I really am. B) It is required that the age, city and state (country, for internationals) be shown. I find that a greater invasion of privacy. If privacy is important to DDO, then they should not require that this information be shown. C) If DDO is genuninely trying to accomplish what it says it means to accomplish (\"This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username. \"), then why not put that information right on the page of each voter? Remember, accountability is key here. 4) I was thinking of having the voting comments put on the voting tab, once it is up and running. No one would be able to start a \"comment war\" on that tab, as you can only comment when you vote. I initially did contact them about the situation, but never received a response. I just sent another e-mail to them. Hopefully they will respond this time. I await your reply.", "qid": 32, "docid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6635833978652954}, {"content": "Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Resolved: The new DDO voting system is superior to the old one. I am affirming.The new DDO voting system is a system of up/down voting where the judge selects a single winner for the debate. The old system was a categorical system weighing Spelling and Grammar, Conduct, and Sources as well as arguments. As a courtesy to my opponent, we'll use that system for the round. Round 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the last round. Good luck.", "qid": 32, "docid": "d48f82ad-2019-04-18T16:09:11Z-00007-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6635637283325195}, {"content": "Title: This debate will, with 100% certainty, be won by con. Content: I am from the future, and can tell you with 100% certainty that Con will garner more votes than Pro. Don't believe me? Once this debate enters the voting period, you can see the proof for yourselves. I'll probably forfeit the rest of the debate to cement Con's win. Do note that Con can get more votes but fewer points.", "qid": 32, "docid": "2bfa9762-2019-04-18T17:51:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.663377046585083}, {"content": "Title: Direct democracy Content: Introduction is not relevant to the debate. R1) Only voting MAACs often need internet. Other MAACs will only need few minutes on internet, to give their election point. More then 80% Americans reportedly uses internet. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, voting is also done trough internet. Voting MAACs would of course, allow non-voting MAACs to use their PC for few minutes. If someone can not handle the computer, it is good thing if he doesn't vote. I thank my opponent for making an argument for my case. My opponent obviously does not know that access to servers can be limited to specific countries. In other words, it could be hacked only from America. Since it doesn't benefit American people to crush their own system, programmers would only have to deal with several individuals. R2) It makes ruling impossible for individual politicians. That is the whole point of direct democracy. It makes it possible for people to rule. What does my opponent mean by educating whole country? It is absurd. People will just thrust other people who are already educated on each specific issue. There would be no totally new government. Every congressmen who done well would remain in congress. Election points are never automatically reset. If non-voting MAACs are satisfied with how their representative(voting MAAC) is doing, country's politics wouldn't change at all. R3) We are talking specifically about America(which is to be concluded by number of congressmen(535), I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough). I don't see any wars over religion in America. There would be too much voting MAACs to kill them enough to change vote. It is much easier in America's current system to kill few congressmen. - They can possibly be re-elected each time, as long as they are alive. - There are not meant to be any campaigns. Most of the people would give their election point to their friend or family member who knows what he wants. Then that person checks out which voting MAACs are voting for what he wants, and then that person gives that voting MAAC his election points. I hope my opponent now understand proposed system better.", "qid": 32, "docid": "2d2c209d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6627637147903442}, {"content": "Title: There needs to be a faster way to get to voting Content: I accept and wish to argue that requiring users to debate 3 times before voting is a benefit to the website. First, Pro has created a short, limited 500 character debate (most likely to satisfy is debate requirements to vote on further debates. I will indulge you. The biggest, and most likely only reason this requirement is in place, is to prevent users from creating multiple accounts and voting on their own debates. Ina way to 'boost' your Win %. This is a reasonable request to verify users", "qid": 32, "docid": "5b1dd7e7-2019-04-18T16:01:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6624048352241516}, {"content": "Title: Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting Content: Cheers! WE AGREE THAT IT IS BETTER TO VOTE MOST OF THE TIME I am glad that my opponent agrees that it's better to vote most of the time. However, he posits three claims in negation of my resolution. I will refute each of his claims with the following contentions. [1] IT's BETTER TO BE COUNTED THAN DISCOUNTED My opponent suggests \"not voting can be a way to send a message in times of great injustice. \" What message can be sent when someone chooses to NOT vote? A non-voter hopes that those in high office and other observers will realize that her lack of participation reflects a grievance that must be addressed. There are a few problems with this. (A) Election observers cannot understand what the grievance is if the only message is silence in the form of a passive non-vote. Political observers are likely to assume that the non-voter is lazy or apathetic. No subversive message will be received. (B) But what if a non-voter writes a letter to a representative explaining why she chose not to vote? A politician has little incentive to listen to someone not interested in voting; politicians can discount what cannot be counted on election day. In this case, this move would be strengthened if she chose to back up her convictions with a vote. A letter is more persuasive if she explains, \"if you do not support X then I will vote for your opponent. If you support X then I will vote for you. \" Voting is a better way to send a message than not-voting. When you vote you send a message that you support a candidate and or the ideas she stands for. In a direct referendum a person can communicate her support for a particular policy, and possibly help it get passed into law by voting for it. If you do not vote, you lose your chance to make that difference. In each case one\"s vote is a clear sign that a policy or particular leader has a certain level of support among the people. In a democratic society, it is in the interest of the leaders to be receptive to those ideas with support so they can win reelection. EXAMPLE: SOUTH AFRICA, 1994 South Africans had been living in times of great injustice. They lived under a policy of apartheid in which they were treated like second-class human beings. What message would have been sent if they chose to NOT vote in that historic \"94 election? Would observers understand that they were expressing their dissatisfaction after decades of oppression by not voting? Probably not. The white Frederik Willem de Klerk would have been re-elected and continue to be the face of South Africa after blacks earned suffrage. Instead, despite decades of injustice, they chose to vote and elected the nation\"s first black president, Nelson Mandela. [2] EVALUATE ELECTIONS THROUGH THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF A VOTER My opponent asserts \"I don't agree that more voters produces a more democratic result or even a good result necessarily. \" First of all, if more people vote, whether or not you favor the results, the election is by definition more democratic and more representative of the constituency (body of eligible voters) being represented. But do more voters produce a better result? How should my opponent and I consider this contention? If one provides a partisan historical example in the affirmative or negative it will prejudice one\"s consideration of the proposition. If I argue a low voter turnout led to a BAD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice conservatives against my position. If my opponent argues that a low voter turnout led to a GOOD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice progressives against his position. And I assume my opponent, like me, does not wish to explode the topic by debating the virtues of progressivism over conservatism and vice-versa. Therefore, let\"s consider this question from the Original Position first posited by John Rawls. In one's current shoes, it's easy to assert that the world would be better if your ideological opponents stayed home on election day while your people vote in big numbers. But imagine if you could be any voter in any democratic election throughout time and space. To vote or not vote? That is the question. It will always be better to vote your conscience. Let\"s say you are a Republican in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in low taxes, low regulation, and traditional social values. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. In 2000, if you are a sincere Republican then you should vote for Bush. Not voting would decrease the likelihood that your values will be promoted in high office and increase the likelihood that a candidate will be elected who is antithetical to your values. Therefore, you should vote. From the point of view of many Republicans, Bush was a success. Under Bush, taxes were cut and traditional social values were championed. OR Let\"s say you're a Democrat in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in a strong social safety net, regulated capitalism, and social liberalism. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. From the point of view of a Democrat, more Democrats should of voted, especially in Florida. Under Bush more people fell into poverty and civil rights were pushed back a decade. In 2000, suppose you are a Nader supporter. It would still be better to vote than not vote because by voting you (1) increase the probability that your candidate may win, and (2) increase the apparent support for Nader and his ideas. By not voting you (1) have no impact on the election for either party, and (2) forsake your duty to express your point of view in a democracy. Imagine you are a voter in a fledgling democracy where there may be some election fraud. You want to live in a stable society represented by honest leaders. In this case it is better to vote than not vote. If there is a high chance of fraud what will not voting accomplish? It will only make the ballot-box stuffer's job easier and the corrupt politician may cheat to achieve a legitimate win. If you do vote then there is at least an initial record of your choice. The corrupt leader might try to destroy this record or crowd it out with fake votes, but the corrupt leader will still have to expend energy, money, and resources to cheat. Voting is still better because voting provides a chance that the corrupt leader could be ousted. If he cheats, voting is better because the international community may discover the fraud and pressure him to perform a re-count. If there is a re-count you will want to be among the counted. Lastly, voting is better because it will make the corrupt leader aware that a sizable percentage do NOT support him. With this new information he may consider instituting popular reforms or even consider a graceful exit in the near future so that he will not be embarrassed in the next election. Therefore, even in the case of a corrupt election, voting provides at least some marginal advantages while not-voting provides no advantages. [3] CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PREVENTS GREATER EVIL OR SEND A REAL MESSAGE WITH A WRITE-IN or THIRD PARTY VOTE My opponent said that non-voting may be better \" when there is no good choice available. \" Not voting accomplishes nothing. If you dislike the two mainstream party candidates then vote for a third party or write-in a candidate! Your candidate could win. List of third party wins: . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 32, "docid": "c4f7d17e-2019-04-18T16:45:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6623779535293579}, {"content": "Title: the governance of the United States should be split between the two major US political parties Content: Effect on democratic participation", "qid": 32, "docid": "5f7fe684-2019-04-15T20:22:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6623424291610718}, {"content": "Title: Voter photo id laws. Content: Rebuttal round (1) Photo ID laws place a severe burden on a significant number of voters. \"Studies indicate that 11 percent of American citizens, more than 21 million people, don\"t have a state-issued photo ID.\" The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment. Claiming that 22 million people are cut off from voting as a result of a few common sense laws to eliminate voter fraud is extremely dishonest. My opponent cites a few studies that show voter ID does effect voter turn out, but let's take a look at what these citations, actually say. \"Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture of the relationship between voter identification requirements and turnout.\" http://www.brennancenter.org... \"Indiana passed its voter ID law in 2005, and it is among the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a state or federal government-issued photo ID with a valid expiration date.47 If the voter does not possess an ID, they may cast a provi- sional ballot. In order for the ballot to be counted, the voter must appear before the circuit court clerk or county election board within ten days eitherto present ID or to execute an affidavit declaring that the voter is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed.48 Indiana does provide a free voter ID card, but obtaining it requires identification documentation. The district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote. \" http://journalistsresource.org... Even my opponents citations, support my position. \"note that photo ID laws impose much more than a small cost; low-income individuals simply cannot afford to pay $75 to $175 just so that they can vote. That cost virtually guarantees that they won't vote, given the perception that their \"one vote\" won't matter.\" I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them. I think we can all afford free. (2) Voter-impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare and doesn't justify photo ID requirements. Voter impersonation fraud happens, and it happens frequently. We can use Occam's Razor to know this. People will get away, with what they can, and when it comes to idealogues, the ends always justifies the means. I think we can all agree that idealogues are quite attracted to the political realm. The reason it is so hard to detect in person voter fraud is because it is almost untraceable. It is not like the person showing up, shows ID and that ID to prove their identity. We just have to have the honor factor, without voter ID laws. Do you guys actually trust the guys on the other side of the aisle not to cheat? We know in voter fraud occurs, because every time a watchdog organization attempts to do it, they are successful. According to the National Review: \"But New York City\"s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a \"John Test\" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest.\" http://www.nationalreview.com... Even if one of these voters were caught (highly unlikely), it would still be difficult to prosecute them. \"Lawyers say that fraud is the most difficult crime to prove because showing that the act complained of actually happened is not enough. It must be proven that the perpetrator had intent to defraud. Like any fraud, voter fraud is by its nature generally very difficult to detect and prosecute. Voter fraud in the form of actual fraudulent balloting is especially hard to demonstrate in court. A prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person voted without having the right to vote, used fraud (deception) in the process, and intended to defraud the victim (in this case, the public). These facts can be hard to establish after the voter leaves the polling place.\" http://www.americanthinker.com... If this was election time, I'd take a hidden camera into a polling place and commit voter fraud to submit for evidence, right now.", "qid": 32, "docid": "1a2ffdd3-2019-04-18T15:08:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6622998118400574}, {"content": "Title: There is significant proof of election fraud in New Hampshire as of 1/11/08 Content: My opponent has failed to prove that there was any election fraud, citing only his own suspicions of voter fraud due to what he sees as discrepancy in the numbers. He has yet to reply to any of my arguments.", "qid": 32, "docid": "e67cefb1-2019-04-18T19:54:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6622539758682251}, {"content": "Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks for the debate. Before I begin, I want everyone to know that Pro has the BoP \u2013 in the event neither system is proven better, I win. Other logical fallacies I\u2019m really quite shocked at how many logical fallacies riddle my opponent\u2019s arguments \u2013 how much sense can you be making with this many fallacies? Slippery slope fallacies ~ A1: \u201cNot only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate.\u201d B2: \u201ctaken to it's (spelling and grammar) full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate.\u201d (For both) Just because I\u2019m arguing for the old system\u2019s voting categories being better than the new system, it does not mean that I am arguing for the extreme. Clearly, the old system did not have \u2018hundreds\u2019 of categories, and so I am not required to defend that. Strawmans ~ A1: \u201cShe argues that a voter cannot express their \"true thoughts\" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous.\u201d I argued that, \u201cthis competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form\u201d. It\u2019s not just \u201ctrue thoughts\u201d (i.e. qualitative reason), as my opponent has incorrectly stated. It\u2019s \u2018true thoughts in point form\u2019 (i.e. points delegated via true thought). ~ A2: \u201cZarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system.\u201d I argued the theoretical likelihood of being able to get away with votebombing, not this. Pro\u2019s case I. One man two votes Voting does not exist in a vacuum \u2013 simply giving your vote twice the amount of points of another does not mean that: 1. It is legitimate 2. It will survive Illegitimate votes, under the old system, were not tolerated. The GWL example, wherein he tacked on illegitimate RFDs (as I explained earlier), makes the vote null (and subject for deletion), NOT more valuable than good ones. \u201cZarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed.\u201d You can vote poorly under EITHER system. It\u2019s just that the old voting system LESSENED the potential for poorer votes, due to its structure. \u201cRemember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me.\u201d There is a difference between moderation and the voting system. II. Strategic voting These are the arguments I made against this point: 1. Under the old voting system, strategic voting wasn\u2019t tolerated 2. MODERATION of the old system was wanting, as my opponent showed with Airmax\u2019s policy of allowing votes as long as there was an RFD 3. It\u2019s much harder to detect strategic voting under the new system, because of the sheer vagueness of the voting standard: \u2018who do you believe won the debate?\u2019 It\u2019s through having the \u201ctoolbox\u201d that votes can be broken down to see if they are legitimate. \u201c\u2026given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample.\u201d The fact that my opponent thinks this poll is sufficient as evidence is an insult to everyone\u2019s intelligence: 1. It suffers from the small sample-size fallacy (17 debaters, when there are more than 35, 000 debates) 2. People are not bound by anything to be honest with their vote 3. Conversely, if you\u2019re to say that the sample size is just fine, I could flip this and say that during the old system\u2019s time on DDO (many years), only 17 people have involved themselves in strategic voting (remember all the other positives that it brings!) III. Competition and debate \u201c\u2026a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place.\u201d The moderation of illegitimate votes, and the voting system that determines what an illegitimate vote is, are different. This conflation is incorrect. (about debating irl)\u201c\u2026The vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down\u2026\u201d Writing down =/= already written down, which is what I said. Neg\u2019s case Tool tips vs. Moderation policy Why are the tool-tips better than \u2018who do you think won the debate\u2019? 1. Provides better structure. There are indicators of when to vote on the important aspects of a debate. There are even indicators of when to vote on arguments, which my opponent agreed are the most important aspect of a debate (and the new system lacks). 2. Gives new members an understanding of when to vote. \u2018Who do you think won the debate?\u2019 doesn\u2019t even come close to the tool-tips standards, in this regard 3. Gives veteran members more chance to differentiate components of the debate, rather than a \u2018winner takes all\u2019 outcome 4. Provides less creative licence to justify what is essentially a vote-bomb. Under the old system, I must justify the voting according to the tool-tips. Under the new system, I can justify however I wish, as long as it\u2019s who I think won \u201cZarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote.\u201d Wrong. I made it several times. I showed the tool-tip in which it tells you when to vote. I worked through your S&G point of when S&G points should be given, as you refer to in the sentence after the one I\u2019m quoting. \u201cIf Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands\u201d Having the potential of this extreme (it\u2019s unlikely that both debaters will only make one mistake, altogether, S&G wise) is better than having: 1. Less of an incentive to spell and apply grammar well 2. Having the excessively vague voting standard of \u2018who do you believe won this debate?\u2019 \u2013 it essentially allows you, under the new system, to justify the vote with whatever you think, as long as it\u2019s why you believe someone won the debate. \u201cmoderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy.\u201d We\u2019re debating which voting system is better, not whether moderation policy should be binding over voting system rules. \u201cif her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine.\u201d Not unworkable, since DDO had it for a long time. Besides, it will be worth the extra moderator or two. Voting complexity It\u2019s not \u201cinfinitely harder\u201d to explain the old system (no proof from opponent to the contrary), and that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s hard to explain (it\u2019s really quite simple, thanks to the tool-tips). The new system is over-simplified: \u2018who do you think won the debate?\u2019 does not pertain to the level of depth required to vote with quality on a debate. Why the increased complexity is good: 1. Allows competent voters the chance to better differentiate the debate 2. Allows newer voters to gain an understanding of how to structure a quality vote 3. Easier to detect fraudulent votes \u201cZarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories.\u201d Slippery slope fallacy. Fraudulent votes I\u2019ve explained this elsewhere, in terms of old voting rules not allowing this and requiring more complex RFDs. Incentives My opponent has conceded that the voting point allocations of the old system gave points to important components of a debate. If your arguments are better, you won\u2019t lose based on S&G. \u201cZarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points.\u201d It\u2019s not permitted in the old voting rules \u2013 this is not encouraged. Bias \u201cVote Con only if you want your debate to be decided by an RFD like \"sources on Con's side aid his argument more.\" That\u2019s not a legitimate vote, under the old system. Interestingly though, such a vote would be permitted, under the new system. Thank you for reading :)", "qid": 32, "docid": "d48f82ad-2019-04-18T16:09:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6621538400650024}, {"content": "Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: \"I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate.\" Pro The technology is already present, its called the internet. Con will contend against the resolution on the grounds that not everyone should have a vote. Babies, mentally handicapped, and comatose patients should not get a vote. Next, a lot of the legal language is incredibly complex and even if the common folk could understand, many would opt not to understand and vote anyways. This is just Con's opening statements. Con will make a full argument next round. Note the resolution could be more clear.", "qid": 32, "docid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6619774103164673}, {"content": "Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Content: I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of \u201cI wish to abstain from voting\u201d. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are \u201cnot particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party\u201d. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that \u201cthe duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.\u201d This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was \u201cthe point of democracy\u201d. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con\u2019s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con\u2019s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.", "qid": 32, "docid": "84367233-2019-04-18T17:20:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6619175672531128}, {"content": "Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the \"regular\" First Past The Post system we used today, found the \"early predicted winner\", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... \"Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything.\" - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's \"Hacking Democracy\"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.", "qid": 32, "docid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.661709189414978}]}
{"query": "Should people become vegetarian?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.", "qid": 33, "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00007-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.863772451877594}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Humans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.", "qid": 33, "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8566247820854187}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that \"humans should become vegetarian\" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that \"vegetarian\" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word \"should\" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.", "qid": 33, "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00006-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8565093278884888}, {"content": "Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.", "qid": 33, "docid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8471170663833618}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.", "qid": 33, "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8377397060394287}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.", "qid": 33, "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8198516964912415}, {"content": "Title: THW become Vegetarians Content: Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more \"styles\" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as \"food\". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "qid": 33, "docid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8193289637565613}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word \"should\" and ditched the word \"is\". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.", "qid": 33, "docid": "a82d5442-2019-04-18T11:23:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8150666952133179}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should become a vegetarian Content: I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.", "qid": 33, "docid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8148651123046875}, {"content": "Title: People should eat much less meat Content: Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .", "qid": 33, "docid": "f67363ae-2019-04-18T17:04:18Z-00006-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8136189579963684}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)", "qid": 33, "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8120194673538208}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.", "qid": 33, "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8108484745025635}, {"content": "Title: A healthy debate for two. Content: I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.", "qid": 33, "docid": "d1edb1b6-2019-04-18T14:21:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8103663921356201}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: A vegetarian diet is healthier for humans.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00025-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8094745874404907}, {"content": "Title: Humans should be vegetarians. Content: Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!", "qid": 33, "docid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8085641860961914}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.", "qid": 33, "docid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.804168701171875}, {"content": "Title: humans should endeavour to become a vegan species Content: I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, \u201cWe should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?\u201d http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.", "qid": 33, "docid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.801575243473053}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?", "qid": 33, "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.79767906665802}, {"content": "Title: The farming of animals causes suffering. Causing suffering is wrong. The farming of animals is wrong Content: The issue is whether people should eat meat or not. From a nutritional and free choice standpoint, the answer is people should be able to choose whether or not to eat meat, and not be subject to any law which would ban the eating of meat. (See the arguments for nutrition in this debate). Those who say \"no\" from an environmental/moral standpoint are extending this argument which, in my opinion, belongs in another debate. However, to answer the rebuttal to my argument (to the right), his/her argument is more about the practices associated with (in particular) factory farms. I have studied and viewed documentaries concerning factory farm practices, and agree with many of the things my opponent has to say. However, we tread on dangerous ground when we offer the simplistic solution of not eating meat. There are many who would legislate what we put into our own bodies. Freedom in this country means the freedom to eat what we choose to eat (other than cannibalism). We go down a slippery slope when we begin to legislate what people can eat. We are already on a slippery slope, in my opinion, as more laws are passed and government gains more control over the lives of citizens. The answer to the problem outlined above, and by my opponent, is to go through the proper legislative channels to improve regulations concerning how factory farms operate. In the meantime, you can choose not to eat meat, or to buy meat from those corporations and farmers whose practices you approve of. Personally, I choose to eat wild game because it comes from a natural environment in which the animals have eaten natural foods. These range of choices allow us to preserve the freedom to choose what we put in our bodies, including the freedom to do business with those who engage in humane farming practices, as well as the freedom to present legislation to change the inhumane practices of factory farms.", "qid": 33, "docid": "adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00025-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7950403690338135}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live. Content: There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.", "qid": 33, "docid": "d0e3a01f-2019-04-18T19:52:17Z-00008-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7916479110717773}, {"content": "Title: Being Vegetarian is the healthiest way to live. Content: Sure, being vegetarian is the healthiest way to live, but it isn't healthy for the environment. If we all stopped eating animals or animal products, Animals would overpopulate and destroy the ecosystem. If that happens then we would have to kill mindlessly.", "qid": 33, "docid": "dd59ecf8-2019-04-18T12:29:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.787122368812561}, {"content": "Title: Should People Become Vegetarian Content: Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren\"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.", "qid": 33, "docid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.786042332649231}, {"content": "Title: The World Should Become Vegetarian Content: Vegetarianism is much more \"natural\" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.", "qid": 33, "docid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7856844663619995}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet. Content: Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else. The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.", "qid": 33, "docid": "f3baef00-2019-04-18T19:20:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7852246761322021}, {"content": "Title: go vegetarian Content: There are problems with being vegetarian", "qid": 33, "docid": "b801a11e-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7848925590515137}, {"content": "Title: Everyone should be vegetarian. Content: Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS\"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong.\" Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?\". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets.\"Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat.\"Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;", "qid": 33, "docid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00006-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7828723788261414}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle. Content: Thank you for accepting the challenge. Here is a list of the arguments I will outline in the following paragraphs. 1)Health benefits of being vegetarian. 2)Global benefits of vegetarianism. 3)Environmental benefits of vegetarianism. 4)The ethical question behind eating meat. Argument 1: There are numerous health benefits that a vegetarian diet can have. First of all, studies have shown that vegetarians are at least %25 less likely to contract chronic heart conditions, the biggest killer in America. Heart disease has plagued western civilization since the dawning of mankind, and perhaps a vegetarian diet is one of the keys to a final solution. Vegetarianism is healthy for the cardiovascular system as it reduces the amount of animal fats and cholesterol that people consume, instead replacing it with antioxidants and fiber. Furthermore, vegetarianism has been linked to a decrease in the likelihood of getting cancers. A study in Germany found that vegetarians have a decreased likelihood of getting colon cancer, for one. Lastly, vegetarian diets have been shown to help people lose weight, which explains why there are very few obese vegetarians out there. The diet essentially decreases the amount of saturated fats and excessive calories that people consume. Meat has very condensed calories, and our brains simply can\"t figure out when we are full until about 20 minutes after our stomachs say ENOUGH. So condensed calories, plus a brain that can\"t read if we are full or not fast enough, essentially spells out bad news for the bathroom scales. Plants, on the other hand, have very minimal amounts of calories, meaning that more of them can be consumed without causing weight gain. The major issue that people have with a vegetarian diet is the belief that vegetarianism can be linked to nutrient deficiencies, and in some cases, this is true; however, when the diet is well planned out well, then malnutrition rarely poses much of an issue. The major nutrients that vegetarians lack are vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, iron, and protein. The only one of these nutrients that cannot be found in plants is vitamin B12; however, this is found in many supplements available to essentially everyone. Many people say that iron cannot be taken from plants as animals have a different kind of iron known as heme-iron; however, this is simply not true. Although it is harder for our bodies to process iron from plants, it can still be done fairly easily and efficiently, and for the person who can\"t process it, there are cruelty-free supplements of heme-iron out there as well. In summary, if the vegetarian diet is planned out well, the effects can be remarkable, including lower risk of heart disease and certain kinds of cancer. Argument 2: A vegetarian diet can have many positive effects on many current, global issues. A recent study found that nearly %40 of corn and %67 of soy produced in the United States is going towards raising livestock for the meat and dairy industry, essentially meaning that about 13 pounds of grain goes into one pound of edible meat. Doesn\"t add up, right? In a society where approximately 805 million people live in starvation, does it really make sense to essentially throw away that much food? No, it doesn\"t. But it gets a lot worse than that. Not only is food thrown away to the livestock industry, but water too. We\"re talking about the raising of over 56 billion farm animals every year. That\"s a lot of water. To put it into statistics, that\"s about %27 of the freshwater deficit. Thus, vegetarianism not only has a positive effect on an individual\"s health, but also the current state of global affairs. Argument 3: The livestock industry has a horrible effect on the environment that only a vegetarian diet can really fix. Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce about 89,000 pounds of excrement per second. Where does it all go, then? Well many places, places that people probably don\"t want feces. One of the ways to dispose of waste is to sell it as fertilizer, and all though this makes apples in the supermarket extra sweet and juicy, it also causes a run-off effect. This means that when it rains or water is sprayed on the area, the excrement flows into surrounding rivers and lakes where it kills fish and other wildlife. The other disposal method is throwing the excrement into lagoons and waiting for it to decompose. This too causes a seeping effect. So what does seeping actually do? The EPA reported that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid hog urine and feces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14 million fish died as an immediate result. Aside from water, animals grown for livestock also contaminate the air. A Consumer Union Study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the United States produce approximately 14 million pounds of particle dust each year, dust that contains harmful pathogens and toxins. Another way that the livestock industry gets rid of animal feces is turning it into a mist like substance and having it carried away by the wind. Unfortunately, unsuspecting citizens of neighboring towns inhale this toxic air and can become severely sick from it. There really isn\"t a way to stop the industry from doing this, as what are their other options, contaminating more water and damaging the environment even more? The only real way to ensure that these horrible things don\"t happen is to cut all funding to the meat and dairy industry by going vegetarian or vegan. Argument 4: Whether or not it is right to kill an animal for the purpose of meat has been an ethical question for decades. The simple fact is that no, it isn\"t. Nature dictates that killing an animal is okay when it is absolutely necessary. This is usually not the case with people. The simple fact of the matter is that in the general population, meat is consumed because of convenience and taste; however, what most people don\"t realize is that the animals that the animals that they eat once had a face, a mother, maybe a son or daughter. We know that animals feel familial connections maybe even stronger than people do, so the idea of a baby calf being torn from its mother\"s arms only moments after birth to be shipped off to some veal factory is simply horrendous. Or, it can be spun the other way, where the mother is torn away to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. To cause an animal so much pain for the sake of a hamburger or a piece of steak is simply wrong and unethical. What a vegetarian diet does is stand up for the animals and essentially say that people don\"t want to be a part of such cruelty. Furthermore, the meat industry has shown time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be allowed to care for animals. It seems like every month a new case of animal abuse comes out. Two months ago it was chickens drowning in their own feces, while last month it was ducks being forced to walk on wire floors, breaking their feet and smashing their faces against the iron wiring. These cases pop up all the time and no matter how many lawsuits are filed, nothing changes. The only way to fully end this kind of cruelty is to go vegetarian and stop giving money to torcher. In summary, vegetarian diets have many positive effects on everything from a person\"s diet, to the state of issues like world hunger and pollution.", "qid": 33, "docid": "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.782567024230957}, {"content": "Title: Eating meat is right! There is nothing wring with it. Content: In this debate, the opponent (Con/Against) must prove that eating meat is wrong and should not be done. Basically, why be a vegetarian (besides health-related issues)?", "qid": 33, "docid": "a025d617-2019-04-18T18:45:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7819315195083618}, {"content": "Title: Going Vegan Content: Con, please excuse my forfeited, I have been busy these past days with school. I will now respond to both of your arguments. Con, I did not mention anything about health issues. So I guess you should see that we are not talking about dietary vegans here. \"In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by \"people.\" Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take \"people\" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.\" I am very sorry for this, and I would like you to refer to me as a she, if you may so. Anyway, I am not comparing veganism to any other type of lifestyle. I was trying to say, it is healthier and safer. by people, I mean people. Not all people on Earth, because as you stated, that would be boring. And I doubt everyone would be vegan anyway. There is always a rebel, don't you agree? People as in unhealthy people, people who need a healthier life. People who are against animal cruelty. If you don't want to become vegan, its your choice. After all, God did give us freewill. I am sorry for being brief on my last argument. http://earthdivasblog.com... ^ in the link above, it says \"There are no silkworms left in the wild; all of them are raised in homes and farms\" How many more animals do you think are living like this ? I bet if I research some more, I would find alot more animals like these silkworms. My reasons for becoming vegan : 1) Its healthy. Obviously. Here you get to eat more vegetables and fruits. No fat. People wouldn't suffer from cholesterol, diabetes, strokes, and some cancers. Many people wouldn't die from heart problems. 2) Its kind. It is unnecessary to be killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves. Plants can keep us alive. Some slaughter houses, are really cruel to animals. http://www.youtube.com... 3) Better for the environment . Meat production uses up alt of land and water. Cows expel amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their hooves pack the dirt, making it less likely for it to absorb the rain. Manure from animal industrial facilities leaks into waterways, and gets into the groundwater. 4) Its delicious. People from all over the over the world have created plant-based dishes. Many familiar foods have a vegan versions, such as pizza, casserole, even chocolate cake! The real question here isn't \"Why go vegan?\" but instead \"Why not?\"", "qid": 33, "docid": "9eb1940a-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7815091609954834}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a good idea. Content: Thank you to Leekatya for what looks to be a promising and respectful debate. Good luck to you. I'd like to start out by stating my position on the subject of vegetarianism. While I certainly don't think it is bad, I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone who wants to (or does) include meat in their diets and believe that that position can be supported from both an ethical and health perspective. I will attempt to prove that an omnivorous diet is just as good, if not better than a vegetarian lifestyle. I will start by addressing some of Leekatya's comments and adding support for my position. \"...most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians.\" Before commenting on this statement, I need you to provide me with reasons as to why you believe it is wrong in order that your concerns can be properly addressed. Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position? \"According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease.\" I did google KEDEM, but did not find any results for vegetarian research. Perhaps you could supply a link for that? The information that did come up, however, seemed to contradict at least one of those points. According to a study done by the JAMA Internal Medicine, \"Eating plant foods didn't seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure.\" 1 As for diabetes and heart disease, when they are caused by dietary issues, it often stems from an imbalanced nutrition. Meat eating is not the primary cause of such diseases, but rather (and note the difference) *too much* meat can play a role. As with everything, moderation is the key. Just because someone eats more meat than is healthy for them and they get sick does not mean that the solution is to abstain from it entirely. \"Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" \" An important point to mention here is that a primary concern of those who don't eat meat is health. *Which means that they are already aware and conscious of health issues in general*. It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not. Of course they are! When someone is proactively taking steps towards a specific goal, they will be more likely to achieve it than someone who does not. While people who exercise have a greater chance of being healthy, that does not by definition mean someone who does not exercise is not healthy. So too with vegetarianism. And proof of the fact that vegetarians are more conscious about a healthy lifestyle is the following statistic: \"75 percent of vegans abstain from alcohol, as opposed to 8 percent of omnivores; 94 percent abstain from smoking, as opposed to 67 percent of omnivores; and 80 percent of vegetarians exercise in their free time compared to 70 percent of omnivores.\"2 (it is significant to note in those statistics that only about 5% of Americans identify as vegetarians. 3) All those factors, especially abstinence from smoking also contribute to being healthier in regards to disease. And once again, just to reiterate my point, the above simply means that vegetarians are more conscious about living a healthy lifestyle. It reflects a lifestyle but does not mean that the plant-eating itself is what causes one to be healthy. Though I personally have no problem with people being vegetarians, for the sake of completeness here is an argument concerning health issues in a vegetarian lifestyle: The lack of certain nutrients in plant-based foods requires many a vegetarian to take additional supplements such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, just to name a few. If a vegetarian lifestyle was truly what we were intended to be living by, we would be able to source all the necessary nutrients in plants. In addition, studies have shown that there is a slightly lower bone mineral density in vegetarians as opposed to omnivores. 4 Thank you for taking the time to have this debate with me and I look forward to your response. Here are my sources, in order: 1) http://www.news-medical.net... 2) http://weanuhaske.wordpress.com... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org... 4) http://ajcn.nutrition.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7804231643676758}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: Being a vegetarianism is NOT for health, which I think you forget. People become vegetarians for animal rights. I am not a vegetarian, but I see nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Vegetarians can get their sources of protein and iron from other sources, such as vitamin pills or thinks like nuts. There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. Another reason why being a vegetarian isn't wrong is because consumption of meat is the #1 way to get food poisoning. Many religions have discovered this, such as Muslims and Jews. They banned consumption of pork because it can result in diseases. Nobody wants food poisoning, so realistically being a vegetarian isn't all that bad for your health.", "qid": 33, "docid": "2e8edb11-2019-04-18T16:22:57Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7787731885910034}, {"content": "Title: Being Vegetarian Helps the Environment More than not Being a Vegetarian. Content: I explicitly specified in the instructions that rebuttals were suppose to be in the 3rd round and 4th round. The 2nd round was solely for main arguments without rebuttals. 1. Since when was my argument implying everyone to become a vegetarian? This debate is simply focused on how being a vegetarian helps the environment more than not being a vegetarian. -These implications in your argument, \" If everyone was a vegetarian, the amount of cows and deer roaming the earth would be FAR to much for planet earth to maintain, and we would (eventually) end up dying because we didn't eat meat (Daniel_B)\", are irrelevant to the topic. Besides, arguably if we just slaughtered a good portion of the populations of livestock and processed the meat without breeding more livestock, then that would not be an issue at all. 2. What are these \"many ways\" that you are referring to that would actually significantly help more so than lowering the water supply for livestock farming? -\"As for the water usage there are many ways in which we could cut down on this water shortage in other ways without disturbing the 90% of people who aren't vegetarians.\" California already has implemented fairly strict regulations now concerning private and public water usage because of the drought, so people are less likely to use as much. However, those policies are an insignificant aid to lowering water usage because of the amount of water that I discussed earlier that is used per pound of beef. 3. Your argument that vegetarians will eat unhealthy food is irrelevant because we are discussing the environment in this debate.-\"And, of course, not all vegetarians eat healthily. If a vegetarian replaces meat with high-fat cheeses, junk food and so on, they\"re unlikely to reap many health benefits (Daniel_B)\". This is indeed irrelevant because as the topic statement says, \"helps the environment more\", not people more. 4. Your argument that vegetarians will have a lower nutrient intake is irrelevant because again, we are discussing the environment in this debate.-\"Replacing meat with poor substitutes can lead to nutrient deficiencies in protein, iron, calcium, zinc and vitamin B12 (Daniel_B)\". Besides, certain types of meat have a high amount of fat and eating this meat too often can create a higher chance in cardiac diseases. Restating the main issue at hand though, the concern in this debate is over the environment and not people's diets. There are many other angles of arguments that could have been made, think carefully in your next input for this debate.", "qid": 33, "docid": "ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7782875895500183}, {"content": "Title: People should not eat animals. Content: This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7769899368286133}, {"content": "Title: Animals should be protected, within reason Content: If you accept this then I am not arguing until round 2, so please just use this round to state your personal opinion on the subject. Animals should definitely be protected, and by \"within reason\" I mean not all becoming vegetarians but by improving farms and animal shelters.", "qid": 33, "docid": "304074fb-2019-04-18T12:43:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7748426198959351}, {"content": "Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.", "qid": 33, "docid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7723406553268433}, {"content": "Title: The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian. Content: I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.", "qid": 33, "docid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7719371318817139}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: Thank you for setting out a plan, though I thought such guidelines were assumed, and I only expect you to follow them loosely. I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is good for moral and ethical, healthy, and environmental issues. My First Point: Vegetarianism is good, because it is moral. The causing of pain, or the ending of life on a whim, as we do not need meat to live, is deeply immoral. Some say that animals are somehow lesser than us, and this justifies our people from eating their flesh, but such a desperate claim holds no water. Would we butcher people if they were of the same mental capabilities as an animal? Or perhaps meat eaters are actually intolerant of different species. When it comes down to it, such a theory is just an attempt to justify the murder of another race of creatures, and in many ways an outdated prejudice. Society over time has changed to embrace the different. Why then condemn many races that share more than 80% of their DNA with us, and are in a way, our evolutionary cousins? There is, frankly, no way anyone can justify the ending of lives without a good reason. There is no good reason to kill animals, as humans can live without eating meat. Therefore, no one can justify the eating of meat. Now many meat eaters claim that somehow it is unhealthy not to eat meat, as one would have less iron or protein in one's diet. This could be true, but only assuming I simply removed meat from my diet. In fact, most people who give up meat in their diet are sure to make up for it in other foods, like beans, nuts, seeds and apricots, that replace needed iron and protein. People can live like this very easily, and have in parts of the world for thousands of years, as part of the culture. Not only is vegetarianism healthy, but it is also more healthy than the eating of meat. [1] Scientists have now connected the eating of pork, beef and other types of red meat, with cancer and heart disease, and recommend cutting, if not removing, meat from the diet, and meat is a major cause of food poisoning. So frankly being a vegetarian is good for one's health. Finally, the meat industry is a major source of pollution, cutting down trees for grazing space for cattle, catching fish to extinction, and breeding cows that produce methane that is harmful to the ozone layer. To support the meat industry is to support the giant business that is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly. This is why vegetarianism is good for the environment. I hope you too understand that all of us must take a stand prejudice and cruelty, obesity and disease, and of course the destruction of our beloved world, and for these reasons, it is indeed good to be a vegetarian. Thank you, and please vote Pro! [1] http://www.time.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "61b66cc4-2019-04-18T18:12:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7718843817710876}, {"content": "Title: Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Content: I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)", "qid": 33, "docid": "ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7715746164321899}, {"content": "Title: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian Content: I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7710195779800415}, {"content": "Title: go vegetarian Content: Vegetarianism is healthier", "qid": 33, "docid": "b801a11e-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7702059745788574}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet. Content: I accept. I would like to point out pro has not said I couldn't take the stance of being omnivorous, as omnivores are meat eaters as well. Point 1- You need fat sometimes. Fat is not bad for you in controlled quantities, and especially when you exercise. Also those who eat exclusively vegetables are at a higher risk for vitamin B12 deficiency. Point 2- Taking the stance of being an omnivore, I see no reason you cannot eat meat for the benefits it has, and vegetables for their benefits as well. Point 3- Your point is valid, however the survey conducted would have had skewed results. First off most people eat meat, so there is obviously more heart problems found among them. Second, we also have to remember that vegetarians are not gaining any good cholesterol. Thank you.", "qid": 33, "docid": "828ec24d-2019-04-18T17:17:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7697785496711731}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: Good luck to both of us! :) My opponent begins by pointing out the human teeth structure. While it's true that we have teeth suited for consuming both meat and plants this doesn't necessarily mean we have to. Humans are, by nature, considered to be omnivores. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Due to this nature we are able to survive by consuming only plants. We have the teeth structure that we do so if we do choose to consume meat we can. Secondly, my opponent mentions the higher rates of animal reproduction among certain species that are bred to be consumed by humans. However, one can also assume that this wasn't always the case. For example, humans probably didn't always eat the animals they eat now. One prominent example is the Cro-Magnon man which survived largely off seeds, berries, fruits, nuts, and some smaller prey such as insects and bird eggs. . http://studyingsocieties.wikispaces.com... Another point I'll like to mention is rabbit reproduction. Rabbits are not bred primarily for human consumption, yet have a notorious rate of reproduction. One female rabbit and her offspring would be able to produce about 64 billion rabbits in seven years. . http://www.quickspay.com... Thirdly, my opponent goes on to talk about nutrition. Following a vegetarian diet can carry quite a few health benefits including lower medical costs and lower risks of disease. it is estimated that the medical costs in the United States attributed to meat consumption are about $30-60 billion a year due to a higher prevalence of hypertension, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... It has also been observed that vegetarians live about seven years longer than the average meat-eater while having lower risks of dying from diseases such as cancer. On a low budget? Vegetarian diets are much cheaper than an omnivore diet, being able to save about $4000 a year. You'll also be slimmer too. . http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... I'll pass this on to my opponent. Thank you and I look forward to my opponents rebuttals. Good luck . :)", "qid": 33, "docid": "f283044b-2019-04-18T19:04:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7686653137207031}, {"content": "Title: Advocating Vegetarianism Is Not A Solution To Animal Cruelty in Slaughter Houses Content: hello Kevin. as a vegetarian, i will happily take up the arguments of my own cause. I understand your confusion. I agree that tougher standards need to be pushed for in animal slaughtering - that would be a good first step. But first, I want to establish why someone ought to be a vegetarian. it may seem a little off-topic at first, but as i make my point, i think you'll understand why/how it works. To be brief, there are three main reasons to advocate vegetarianism. 1. killing animals is morally wrong. if we can help it, we should not end life. pretty basic. 2. the way in which animals are killed (varying of course by country) is morally repugnant and cruel. Animals ought to be treated better because they have nervous systems and are capable of suffering. 3. raising animals take up a huge amount of resources - food, energy, water. raising animals producing huge environmental waste products - feces, remains from processing, (sometimes dirtying water, etc. as a side note, which creates tons of environmental problems) and also (don't laugh just yet) animal farts and burps. believe it or not, animal farts and burps are the number one cause of global warming gases - more environmentally damaging than cars or buildings. 4. vegetarianism is healthier because animals are the primary source of saturated fats, which most doctors agree is bad for you. Ignore reason four, it doesn't really pertain to this debate, (I encourage you, of course, to pick up a copy of the book \"The Way We Eat, why our food choices matter\" and learn more about all these problems). How would one subjectively respond to reasons 1-3? Not eating meat is not necessarily the answer, with that I am with you, but not *purchasig* meat is essential. By not purchasing meat, we do not contribute to the problem - by buying meat, one is literally putting money into the hands of those that encourage the problems i offer in 1-3 and telling them \"take this money, and keep doing what you are doing. then I'll buy more from you, etc.\" Thus, vegetarianism is not necessarily about not eating meat, but rather it concerns boycotting an industry that is corrupt, cruel, and harmful to society. In this way, vegetarianism is in fact an effective method of pushing for higher standards and discouraging the industry. For example: If many people suddenly stopped buying pork because they thought the way in which pigs are castrated before being slaughtered (without sedative, etc) the industry would take notice because \"wtf? where'd the money go?\" they would listen to the activists, and the objections, and they would seriously need to consider giving a little so that they could continue to sell meat. In this way, the vegetarians (those boycotting pork) have stopped the inhumane treatment at least a little bit, despite the fact that many other people ate meat anyway. To respond to your case more directly - you're right of course there will always be meat eaters. but the question is, can we educate enough of them that their human reason shines through and make progressively more and more of them realize that by eating meat they are promoting an industry which is unjust. You really need to warrant this argument more - it is your case's greatest weakness. without showing how vegetarians will never get enough recruits to make an impact, your argument doesn't support itself. good question though!", "qid": 33, "docid": "39ecbe5b-2019-04-18T20:01:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7686344385147095}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet Content: Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By \"ethical\" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a \"meat-eating\" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say \"you can't survive without meat\" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)", "qid": 33, "docid": "872fb369-2019-04-18T17:52:20Z-00008-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7683546543121338}, {"content": "Title: Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial Content: Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis. Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend? I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial. I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition. About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea. Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money. My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens. When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help. CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.", "qid": 33, "docid": "1d882e9c-2019-04-18T19:40:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7679476737976074}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: No questions, then lets get this party started! A few definitions. Vegetarian: \"a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.\" [1] Meat: \"the flesh of animals as used for food.\"[1] First of all, why are some people vegetarians? some people think its because they are doing the animal a favor, but they are hurting the animal by not eating it. Now to my 4 points 1. The meat is already there. 2. It's a huge waste. 3. It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. 1. The meat is already there. The basic outline of how a cow becomes a hamburger, a cow is raised and then when it gets big they kill it and turn it into ground beef and then it gets packed and sold. One reasons why vegetarians choose to be a vegetarian is because they think they killed the animal by eating it, so in an attempt to save it they choose not to eat it. It is common sense that the vegetarian didn't kill the cow and that cow that they admired not to eat will go to waste if they don't eat it. 2. It's a huge waste. It's a huge waste to say no to eating meat. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will preserve the animal, but it would make the animal die for nothing. Lots of grains, and other resources are needed to raise animals to slaughter them to make meat, if they don't get eaten all of those resources go to waste. 3.It is healthy to not be a vegetarian. Meat contain a lot of needed nutrients such as iron. Meat is very easy to get and it contains protein and iron. Not eating meat can lead to unhealthiness due to not getting enough iron or protein or any other important nutrient in meat. 4. Not eating meat wont change anything but make waste. Some vegetarians think that not eating meat will make it so that the slaughter houses will stop making meat. Not eating meat will not change anything, but make some meat go to waste. That is my case on why vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat. Vote Pro! [1] = Dictionary.com (just search the words)", "qid": 33, "docid": "fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7678281664848328}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: Given the hilariously vague opening statement of my opponent, I am forced to simply define my own ground for this debate in negating the topic of 'vegetarianism'. I will do this, with a very particular slant: I will negate that Vegetarianism is a moral imperative. But, I will not disagree that if you don't want to eat meat you should have that right. Most theories of rights tend to assume that human beings have rights that other creatures do not. For example, if I am sick I can commit bacterial genocide by taking antibiotics to remove the infection, but if I take the life of a single person I have committed a truly heinous action. I argue that this distinction is derived from the vastly different cognitive capabilities between humans and animals which create different desires that must be preferenced accordingly. This leads to animals not having a fundamental right to life because their cognitive capabilities do not allow them to understand the abstract concepts of life and death. To do so requires the uniquely human concept of self-awareness to allow one to understand existence and the possibility of an end to existence. So, animals do not have a right to life and their desires are worth less than our own so eating meat is morally OK. This reduces vegetarianism to a matter of preference making it no more weighty a decision that deciding which flavor of ice cream to order", "qid": 33, "docid": "2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.766434907913208}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguing and clash, and Round 4 will be for summarization. Please abstain from semantics, introducing arguments in the last round and ad hominem attacks. Feel free to ask questions in the comments, but please do it before you accept.", "qid": 33, "docid": "2e8edad3-2019-04-18T18:39:06Z-00007-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7659239172935486}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Pro Statement : 1. \"Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. \" a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. Rebuttal : 1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what. ( no offense ja, Hehehe. .) a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals. If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan. b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good. Arguments : 1) Freedom of Choice i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight. 2) Comparing method i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method. a) doing a \"fast\" (no eating in full a day or half a day) b) Meditate c) Yoga d) body exercise, workout e) etc. .. all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle 3) Pro's Burden a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle Thank You :D", "qid": 33, "docid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7657179236412048}, {"content": "Title: Going Vegan Content: Thank you for the great debate topic. Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com... You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans. I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions. Pro's argument is that \"people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals.\" In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by \"people.\" Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take \"people\" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.", "qid": 33, "docid": "9eb1940a-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7650180459022522}, {"content": "Title: You can't be a meat eating environmentalist. Content: Clearly, pro has blinder's on. I would much rather have everyone recycle, regardless of they're choice to eat meat. So now that I have efficiently proven that you don't HAVE to be a vegetarian to help the environment, I'll tackle your theory or eating animals hurting our world. If you want to be 100% environmentally friendly you can eat meat. Going to farms that give they're animals special attention, open pastures to graze in, and no chemicals is the key. These animals live healthy lives, and animals fecal mater can be gathered, and used as natural fertilizer for vegetarian's vegetables. Also, think of ALL the land that would be monopolized if every single person in the world went vegetarian. Not to mention the equipment used to harvest, process, and deliver the veggies. To live a totally comfortable life, no body is going to be perfect, environmentally. Our job should be to do everything possible to make sure we're thinking about our impact, and take steps to make our world cleaner. Beef is the animal that releases the most carbon into the atmosphere. Human's release more. What about the carbon chickens, or chicken eggs release? The chicken close to none, and the egg absolutely none. Should we all stop eating poultry and fish because beef releases carbon? Carbon is a natural gas, and in moderation is normal. Man made production of carbon is what we need to watch out for and moderate. Would vegetarian's want to kill all of these carbon releasing animals for the ozone? I don't think so. If human's weren't polluting, then we wouldn't have to think about the carbon released from animals. This, to me is a step off the path of making our world environmentally friendly. Thinking this way is a big deterrent for meat eating people to want to be involved in doing they're part of keeping the world clean. Don't mark meat eating people as hater's of the world. Why don't we all work together and think of feasible ways to help. Having everyone stop eating meat is impossible, and naive. Recycling meat eater's aren't \"posers\"... they're regular people that recycle. No one can be perfect, I'm sure that you have driven in a car... so that makes you slightly a hypocrite. What's important is that EVERYONE does something they feel helps the environment. So, in my saying that no one environmentally perfect, living a normal life in America. We ALL should be environmentalist, and notice things around us and take steps to better our world. We're never going to be envirnomentaly perfect. What our job is, is to make sure we do what we can to be healthy, and keep the world clean. So, my opponents thoery of not being a envirnomentalist and eating meat has been proven 100% false.", "qid": 33, "docid": "91a31cf-2019-04-18T19:47:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7649798393249512}, {"content": "Title: Animal Rights Content: Rebuttal: According to research in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, a properly planned vegetarian diet is \"healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.\" Following a vegetarian diet reduces the mortality rate from ischemic heart disease by 25% (20% in females, 30% in males). Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, metabolic syndrome, dementias such as Alzheimer's disease, obesity, and other disorders. A study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian adults, conducted in Taiwan, showed that there was no major difference in the bone density of vegetarians and non-vegetarians, and showed that non-vegetarians are at equal risk from Vitamin B12 deficiency as vegetarians. The China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study conducted by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the government of China has established a correlation between the consumption of animal products and a variety of chronic illnesses, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and various cancers. Vitamin B12 can be consumed by vegetarians in the form of tempeh, collard greens, leafy greens and tofu; Omega-3 fatty acids can be taken through walnuts, edible seeds and flaxseed oil. Milk can be consumed in its organic form by ethical vegetarians in certain countries, especially India (where beef is very rarely sold and is an unprofitable business) and some other countries. Milk can help in calcium and B12 deficiencies. Ethical reason for animal rights: Most people are unaware of the horrendous abuse that animals endure everyday; lab tests on animals have been proven unnecessary and are yet practiced by a variety of companies; animals are killed for ENTERTAINMENT (Spanish bullfighting) et cetera. Animals have the same ability to feel pain as humans, and many can even feel emotions. To help forge society, humans created a concept of ethics, based on the stronger psychology of human beings. While one can argue that ethics is only mutual, and meant for intra-human relationships, why do animals not deserve similar respect from humans? All sentient beings deserve respect. An animal may kill a human, and yet that animal is psychologically made to do such a thing; ethics is too complex for animals to practice. Humans, though, have the ability to extend compassion, and animals deserve this compassion. Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, \"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.\" Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect? 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. 4. Animals cannot commit \"crimes\". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of \"ethics\", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain. Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights, and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories that practice animal testing. Sources: The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Mortality in Vegetarians and Non-vegetarians; BBC news, \"Rejecting meat 'keeps weight low'.\"; Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets; International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders: Lower Body Mass Index in Non-meat Eaters; Diabetes Care Journal; Diet-Brain Connection: Impact on Memory, Mood, Aging and Disease - by Mark P Mattson; Proceedings of the Nutrition Society; Public Health Nutrition: EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK; Environmental Values: Why the Naive Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive; Journal of Popular Culture: Configuring the Human in Western History; The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity; The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University)", "qid": 33, "docid": "daece4f8-2019-04-18T15:18:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7649686932563782}, {"content": "Title: Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so. Content: To get the formalities out of the way;Resolution\"Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so. \"As Con, I will be arguing against this resolution. As Pro pointed out, this resolution does not cover those whose bodies cannot sustain such a diet due to, what I assume Pro means, a sort of sickness or disease stopping them from being able to survive without meat specifically. Definitions1. Vegan- One who does not eat meat, dairy, eggs or use any animal products** This debate seems to be about diet specifically, so non-edible animal products will most likely not be discussed, but since it is part of veganism I've decided to include it in the definition anyway in case it does come up.2. Ability- The capacity to do something3. Diet- The kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eatsBurden of ProofPro will have the BOP as he is advocating a dietary shift from the current status quo. Given that the scope of Pro's resolution includes \"everyone\", it falls unto Pro to argue for the sustainability of a vegan diet relative to both the individual and society, meaning Pro must show that a vegan diet can be just as healthy (if not moreso) than a non-vegan diet and show that such a diet could be economically adopted by society. Pro has also opted to argue for the morality of veganism, but unless Pro also intends on arguing for objective morality, the \"morality\" of veganism becomes relative to the form of morality being discussed, which defeats the purpose of arguing for the morality of anything. Given this, I recommend that Pro does not predicate his case on moral grounds and instead focuses on health and environmental reasons, less this becomes a debate on morality rather than veganism. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e3a0218d-2019-04-18T18:09:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7646747827529907}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: I will be arguing against vegetarianism from a health standpoint. My opponent must argue that a vegan diet is healthier. Please begin your argument.", "qid": 33, "docid": "2e8edb4f-2019-04-18T15:53:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7637367248535156}, {"content": "Title: go vegetarian Content: Being vegetarian helps the environment", "qid": 33, "docid": "b801a11e-2019-04-15T20:24:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.76318359375}, {"content": "Title: Eating Meat is Ethical Content: Thank you Byndam for creating this debate, I will defend the position that eating meat is unethical for human beings who are wish to consider themselves civilised....... Eating meat in ethical in some cases where human beings must survive, but in such cases the human being must consider themselves as uncivilised, because in circumstances where a human being is civilised it is completely unnecessary to eat meat and the myth that humans need meat to obtain certain nutrients or vitality is easily busted by observing how the Shaolin Monks who are vegetarian by requirement can perform super human fetes and display strength and skills which are way above the average person who does eat meat....One monk called Shi Yan Ming even boasts the worlds most deadliest punch by far even breaking the record held by Bruce Lee, http://www.history.com... it is no secret that these monks perform super human fetes. and none of them eat meat to get the strength to perform such amazing skills is easily refuted by observing how strong and healthy the monks are able to live. I would like to offer some quotes by very famous and intelligent people concerning the matter of eating meat....The first quote I will offer comes from a well loved scientist, Albert Einstein. \"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet\". ~Albert Einstein This quote is not said whimsically or off the cuff, I believe Albert knew very well what he meant when he stated this and that is that the greatest chance of survival we have is to become a vegetarian race....My opponent states above in his first round how methane from cows is damaging the ozone, well that could be reduced significantly if we humans never bred the poor animals simply to kill them for their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and to supply fast food chains all across the planet. No more characters allowed. Thanks.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e27c1724-2019-04-18T17:32:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7628986239433289}, {"content": "Title: Pro's choice Content: During the course of this debate three points will become abundantly clear to the reader. 1. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more healthy for humans. 2. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more humane. 3. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is better for the ecosystem. It is my hope that the reader and my opponent see the clear advantages to vegetarianism as a more reasonable way of life. In his opening statement my opponent makes the claim that vegetarianism doesn't provide humans with enough nutrition, specifically protein. I submit that this claim is patently false. Most foods contain at least some protein. Sources of protein for vegetarians include nuts and seeds, pulses, soya products (tofu, soya milk and textured soya protein such as soya mince), cereals (wheat, oats, and rice). The lack of protein argument is one made up by flesh eaters and is not at all supported by nutritional studies. In fact in relation to human health, studies have shown that vegetarians often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer, and actually tend to have longer life spans. . http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... Vegetarianism is morally superior to the carnivore lifestyle. My opponent makes the claim that it is 'unnatural'. Many of the things that modern humans choose to do with their lives are 'unnatural', but serve to create a better, more humane experience for those around us. For instance much of modern medicine is not at all natural, yet we participate in it because it is more conducive for living a longer life and more empathetic towards other humans. I submit that as humans we have a moral responsibility to maintain the well being of other species around us. All life should be valued, and the practice of slaughtering animals, when there are valid alternatives is simply barbaric and backwards. It is something you would expect from an undereducated society, two thousand years ago, but in this day and age, we should evolve morally to avoid killing other things for our own pleasure. If there are alternatives to meat, then in essence humans are only killing for pleasure, which is similar to watching cock fights, bull fights, dog fights or inflicting pain on animals for entertainment. We all agree that inflicting death and pain on animals for pleasure is morally reprehensible, (I hope), so it is time that we acknowledge what the carnivore lifestyle is TRULY promoting. I will save my third point for round 3. .. . http://search.playlist.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "16f3dc63-2019-04-18T19:39:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7628766894340515}, {"content": "Title: It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons Content: Vegetarianism for the reasons of morality and health concerns are sound arguments for vegetarianism. Before I begin to break down my opponents ideals I will first point out the vegetarians that I will be defending today. The simplest definition of vegetarianism is a diet free of meat. At the other end are vegans, who reject eating all animal-based products, honey included. Raw foodists are vegans who eat mainly raw fruits, vegetables, legumes, sprouts, and nuts. Lets now look at the moral reasons for vegetarianism.1. The vegetarian centre states,\"Nobody would argue that animals don't feel pain, fear or enjoyment. This gives them the basic right to be treated in ways that respect their own personal value, just as humans are. This includes the right to live, not to be slaughtered or treated unjustly.\"This argument is sound. No animal deserves to be killed over another or to be deprived of life. No animal deserves to be raised in a cage all its life to be slaughtered at any moment. Vegetarians realize these moral facts. They sympathize with these animals and imagine if humans were breed to be killed that our quality of life would be terrible. It's almost equivalent to the ideal of treat others how you want to be treated. Im aware that everyone might not agree that they want to be vegetarian because humans are naturally omnivores. Humans are also naturally violent, but that doesnt necessarily mean that we are bound to being violent. We can change who we are and what we do in life with the injection of strong moral values.Let us now move on to the ideals of my opponent.\"Now, I am strictly against cannibalism.\"In the paragraph I received this statement from pro he is trying to compare humans eating meat to humans eating humans. Obviously majority of humans don't care about eating animal meat as opposed to human meat. Sane humans would most likely be disturbed by eating the meat of our own species. Wait now that I think about it I see what my opponent means now. But he fails to realize that humans eat food that are in the shape of humans and or human organs. Examples being sour patch kids,eyeballs and arms on Halloween, or maybe pictures sprayed on a cake. Are all these acts then cannibalism? No. Neither is it morally wrong. So making tofu into animals is not immoral. Following my opponents line of logic then when we eat sour worms we are then actually eating real worms. This is basically what my opponent is trying to suggest her. We all commonly know that this isnt the truth. As a famous philosopher once said, Looks are deceiving.Health reasons\"Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy\"It seems my opponent attempted to say that eating meat is unhealthy. Here's what the data says....\"Most doctors and nutritionists agree that a low-fat diet high in fruits, vegetables, and nuts can be a boon to health. There is also widespread acknowledgment that reducing or eliminating red meat from the diet cuts the risk of heart disease.\"\"Research also has shown that a plant-based diet can improve the health of people with type 2 diabetes. A study in 2004 and 2005 showed that people with diabetes who followed a low-fat vegan diet had less of a need for diabetes medications. They lost weight and their insulin sensitivity increased. They had improved glycemic and lipid control.\"http://www.webmd.com... It would be absurd to say all vegetarian diets are healthy. This is obviously not true many people only eat potato chips and are still considered vegetarians. Is that type of diet healthy in this situation? NO. Vegetarian diets have the potential to be very healthy. Most vegetable servings have less fat and calories than meat. Obviously meat has fat in it often times alt of fat and possibly cooking oil. You also have the risk of contracting E.coli and other meat-borne diseases. So yes the status quo of being a vegetarian can be more healthy than a meaty diet.", "qid": 33, "docid": "64748291-2019-04-18T18:18:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7628552913665771}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: Hello. Firstly, let me compliment you on a well presented and well researched debate. Unfortunately I do not have either the time or the inclination to be as fastidious in my response. As I stated previously, what you are actually referring to is not preference. My dietary preferences are as individual as yours and as individual as everyone else's. What you are actually suggesting is that a vegetarian diet is better than an omnivorous diet. Better with regard to physical health, environmental impact and human morality. But of course, an individual will always have a preferred dietary regime, irrespective of what may or may not be good for them or good for the planet or good for their mental wellbeing. Therefore, it is not possible to question individual preference using scientific data or third party subjectivity. However, statistical evidence does prove that approximately 78% of the world's population has a meat inclusive diet, which conclusively backs up my assertion that globally an omnivorous diet is thought to be preferable by the majority of people. Nonetheless. Are increased health benefits and consequent longevity, beneficial to society and the environment? Population growth as it is, is exponential. Further adding to this problem will only increase human pressure on the environment. The expectation of an ever increasing life span, could be regarded as being just as immoral as eating meat. Food production is one of many human actions that impact on the environment. I would suggest that maintaining our energy dependant and materialistic lifestyles, has a far greater impact. Morals are subjective and human-centric and a cannot be subjected to a greater judgement. That is to say, it is arrogant to proclaim that killing and eating sentient creatures is immoral. Ultimately eating meat is a personal decision, based on personal interpretation of acquired knowledge and acquired conditioning. Lifestyles vary greatly and nutritional requirements vary accordingly. A \"well balanced\" diet for one person may not be a \"well balanced diet for another. Health problems are as much a consequence of lifestyle choice as they are about food choice. In simple terms, a sedentary person, who consumes a poorly balanced diet excessively will inevitably have greater risk of long term health problems and a shorter life expectancy. Whereas an active person who eats a sensible well balanced diet has a much greater chance of leading a healthier, longer life. But of course that does not take into account all the many other non-dietary factors that may or may not impact upon our physical wellbeing and life expectancy. On a level playing field where all people are equal, it might be fair to suggest that a vegetarian diet could in the long term be marginally healthier and therefore better than an omnivorous diet. But as things stand at this moment in time, all people are most definitely not equal, therefore nutritional requirements vary greatly and cannot be judged or set using one standard. One final consideration: Is vegetarianism a lifestyle choice, based on sound scientific information. Or is vegetarianism primarily a moral judgement, that uses appropriate and selective scientific information to back up that judgement? I would suggest that vegetarianism is quite often a very fickle moral judgement, with little or no regard ever given to scientific information or dietary implications. Of course, we must not overlook the fact that in certain regions of the world people are vegetarians out of necessity rather than choice.", "qid": 33, "docid": "a82d5442-2019-04-18T11:23:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7626532912254333}, {"content": "Title: Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism Content: Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an carnivorous (or omnivorous) one for healthy adults in modern civilization. By \"modern civilization\" I'm essentially referring to the fact that alternatives exist. We are not referring to a hunter-gatherer society where food is constantly scarce and man and beast are frequently pitted against each other in an evolutionary show down.I will be taking the PRO stance and the burden of proof is squarely on me. First round is only for acceptance and definitional qualms from Con. Additionally, although we'll try to make the debate quick as I am on a deadline - August 13th through August 20th I will have no internet access. I have made this clear and in the event that the debate does go overtime it will not count as a forfeit, but rather be continued when I come home. Regardless, I will try to respond quickly but thoroughly to meet the deadline.Good luck, Con.", "qid": 33, "docid": "2784f2ae-2019-04-18T18:43:12Z-00007-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7624155282974243}, {"content": "Title: It is healthiest to eat a balanced diet with both meat and vegetable products. Content: We should eat five or six portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but without adding some meat or fish it is hard to make sure our body is getting the protein and iron it needs to be healthy. It might be OK for adults to choose a vegetarian diet for themselves, but should we allow vegetarian parents to impose such a diet on their babies? Meats are an easy and reliable source of protein, an essential building-block for the human body.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00137-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7624151706695557}, {"content": "Title: People should stop eating meat. Content: One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.", "qid": 33, "docid": "c6d799ed-2019-04-18T14:24:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7617912888526917}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals. Content: The type of vegetarian that we are debating about is someone who is lacto-vegetarian that means they eat dairy products; but no eggs or meat. There are many reasons for being vegetarian and not only because you feel that have had the animals deserved a better life. There are health benefits from being vegetarian as well as solving many world food shortages. Also becoming vegetarian would help the world as well as you, like global warming could e reduced (assuming this is an accepted theory), and if everyone became vegetarian there would be better water supplies throughout the world, being vegetarian can also save you money. Being vegetarian is healthy, Vegetarians are usually lean and strong, because knowing that they cannot eat some things, the watch their diet more than the average person does. Vegetarians rarely have vitamin deficiencies because the foods that they are leaving out don't have many vitamins to start with. Also within meat there are bad things such as fat and drugs that the animal has taken in. I an average stake contains 9.5 grams of fat [1], that is over half of your daily guidance, which clearly is a good reason for not eating too much meat to start with. On top of this the animals that you are eating as a non vegetarian are being filled with drugs and chemicals to make them grow faster, these when consumed in large amounts can make you feel ill and drowsy. There are many other illnesses that you can get from meat, like Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones and Gallstones, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Arthritis, Gum disease, and acne can be caused. This is all because of poor animal fodder. If you were under the impression that meat is good for you there is another problem that faces you which is an excess in protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein which can cause excess nitrogen in the blood that causes host of long-term health problems [2]. If you are a vegetarian and you don't eat meat, then you also save money, meat is more expensive than vegetables and other vegetarian foods. Also because you are healthy, for the reasons of being healthy see above, you don't have to spend as much money on healthcare as you otherwise would have had to. Reasons to become a vegetarian based on environmental factors is that the production of meat costs more fossil fuel emissions and other bad gasses then producing vegetables. We can also conserve water by eating more vegetables and less meat. \"It takes 3-15 times more water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. \" [2]. To help human food resources we can eat more grains. This is because for 100 acres of land we will produce enough beef for 20 people the same amount of land and we can feed 240 people. With the excess food we can feed a lot of starving people. [3] [1] . http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk... [2] . http://www.britishmeat.com... [3] . http://www.flex.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "8aed976f-2019-04-18T19:15:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7617616653442383}, {"content": "Title: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian Content: I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian!Debate Rules:1) Accept the debate first2) Then watch the video (hint: You do not need to watch the whole video)3) If you forfeit or become overly abrasive - you shall lose the debate4) List further opinions-arguments in the comments**Voters Must Read Comments Before Voting**http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7617303133010864}, {"content": "Title: Pro's choice Content: First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation. My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything. . http://naturalmedications.com... This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods. My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life? No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry. This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round. . http://bodybuilding.com... Thank you ladies and gentlemen.", "qid": 33, "docid": "16f3dc63-2019-04-18T19:39:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7610757946968079}, {"content": "Title: A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet Content: I accept, absolutely, Sir. A vegetarian diet is not to be preferred over an Omnivorous diet. Meat contains certain ingredients which simply cannot be found in a stick of celery. In addition, the two dominant protein substitutes- nuts and beans- taste like garbage. In addition, vegetarian human diets are not even natural. cavemen ate meat, and did not flinch at the concept of devouring animal flesh. Why torture yourself? One cannot subsist on legumes alone. Meat is best. http://www.meatpoultrynutrition.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "a82d5461-2019-04-18T11:23:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7604901790618896}, {"content": "Title: eating meat is not immoral Content: My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate. The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so. 1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores. 2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral. 3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer. 4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods. 5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality. For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON. Over to you, PRO!", "qid": 33, "docid": "40330c65-2019-04-18T16:05:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7604665160179138}, {"content": "Title: To be suggested by the contender Content: My opponent stated that vegetarians have \"a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits.\" Therefore, it is a logical connection to link vegetarianism with the said health benefits. Obviously, vegetarians do have significant dietary control, it is their diet that leads to the health benefits. I'm not entirely sure why that is a logical fallacy. My opponent then suggested the argument of including lean white meat and fish. Certainly, this is a better option than continuing to eat fatty meats; however, for the benefits to be received in full, you must practice a pure vegetarian diet. Not only this, even lean meat and fish have significant health threats. According to the Department of International Health, \"The US population typically consumes diets high in meat and saturated fat and low in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This dietary pattern increases the risk for heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke and diabetes- four of the leading causes of death in the USA. The costs due to poor diet for just these four diseases are estimated to exceed $33 billion per annum. On the other hand, high intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and 'Mediterranean' dietary patterns, typically high in plant-based foods and unsaturated fats, lower the incidence of chronic diseases and their risk factors, including body mass index and obesity.\" Now, I don't mean to repeat myself, but combine those facts with the following: According to the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, \"Demand for meat in the USA continues to grow, particularly for poultry. The American Heart Association recommends an upper limit of 138 lb of lean meat per person each year, more than 80 lb less than the current average US consumption of 222 lb. Americans consume about 10 billion animals each year, not including fish, averaging, for a family of four, 120 chickens, four pigs and one cow.\" As we can see from these statistics, the average American family eats significantly more chicken, which is considered to be lean meat, than red meat every year. However, they are still experiencing the health problems associated with meat; certainly, not all heart disease can be attributed to the single cow. As the demand for poultry rises, it is clear that more people are being swept up in the \"lean meat\" trend, but the health problems are not decreasing due to their change in diet. Also, the American Heart Association would not recommend a limit for something they found to be inherently good. As you can see, the average American already well exceeds the recommended limit. Undoubtedly, they would exceed it significantly more if they were to cut out all none-lean meat from their diet. In addition, the Center for a Livable Future blatantly states, \"Meat is not a necessary component of a well-planned diet. Ovo-lacto vegetarian diets that include eggs and low-fat dairy products can easily be nutritionally adequate. Studies suggest that diets high in animal protein, regardless of fat content, increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality.\" This statement out rules my opponent's claim that it is fat alone that causes poor health, as well as their claim that a vegetarian diet is not nutritionally adequate. My opponent's final statement for this first argument was, \"So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet.\" Apparently, my opponent thinks that taking a dietary supplement is an extreme. They chose to bring in the fact that they are a biomedical student, so I will bring in my own personal fact. I am, in fact, a vegetarian. And I am, in fact, incredibly healthy. And I do, indeed, take a nutritional supplement. It is not at all a hassle, nor an extreme of any sort. A simple multivitamin can make up for any nutritional benefits of meat, while ensuring that you do not experience any of the negative effects of meat consumption. My opponent suggests that their proposal would encourage the meat industry to process healthier meats. Simply because they are processing healthier meat, does not mean that they would produce any less CO2. The meat industry would continue to produce the same amount of carbon whether they're processing healthy or unhealthy meat. The fattening up of the animals does not contribute significantly to carbon emissions. Also, my opponent states that their proposal would increase the fishing industry to satisfy the higher demand for fish. Apparently my opponent is unaware that, at our current rate, the oceans will be depleted by 2025. An increase in fishing would accelerate this process and destroy ocean ecosystems. As a clearly intelligent person, my opponent should understand the delicacy of Earth's equilibrium, which has already been devastated by massive amounts of CO2 and depletion of wildlife. The sudden loss of an entire ecosystem would send countless natural cycles into turmoil. Not to mention that when the fish were gone, people would rely even more heavily on lean meat; therefore, making the meat industry expand and expel even more pollution. A purely vegetarian diet has resounding health benefits, while even a diet including only lean meat and fish can be threatening to ones health. No essential nutrition is lost through a vegetarian diet that cannot be regained through a multivitamin. My opponent's proposal would not, as they said, \"be better.\" It would cause over fishing to escalate, and would not encourage the meat industry to pursue more environmentally sound alternatives. A purely vegetarian diet is the only way to receive the health benefits and protect the environment by reducing fishing and pollution.", "qid": 33, "docid": "12209678-2019-04-18T19:43:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7592282295227051}, {"content": "Title: People should not eat animals. Content: Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their \u2018Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.", "qid": 33, "docid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.758721113204956}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Why i should win this debate? 1) I don't think it's a fair debate, because the government team have just found what he wanted to stand for in the 3rd Round. You are the one who created this motion. But when i rebutt your case, you just avoid some question and avoid to answer my arguments but instead try to enlarge the problem with a solution by an unlogical process to get what you wanted. 2) There are lots of my Arguments that you didn't response. Does it mean that you didn't know what to do about it? or what? 3) I already said that the point in your issue is not a Huge thing that you have thinking of. But you are inssist that it's a huge problem that have the solution by choosing a Vegetarian as \"Best Solution\". But i still didn't see the process that would take into the goal. I Wonder if i being a vegetarian, i didn't eat meat anymore. then everything change to be a lot of forests, no animal harming, everyone healthty and never get sick. It's just to something. So Illogical. It can't be a best solution if you just say about how worst this situation is. 4) I already bring up my other optional for your problems like going to Gym, have an exercise to lower the potential of overweight. Start to do reforestration, no illegal logging, save the gas emission to reduce the effect of Global Warming. I think this solution (Some already be done by some individual, organization, companies, industry, international organization, etc)would be more clear to get into the goal then by just be a vegetarian. 5) Why it's the best choice? why Vegetarian? why the big problems will come in the future for just not being a vegetarian? My suggestion is you show the process of what you want to do, into what you want to get. If not, it will be taste like a glass of sour wasabi with olive oil. Thanks for the debate.", "qid": 33, "docid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7586517930030823}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: To clarify, we are debating \"Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an omnivorous diet for healthy adults in modern day America\" Adding the adjective 'healthy' to adults does not make this debate include that vegetarianism is more healthy. However, I will still address your argument on that. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality, such as good and evil, or right and wrong. Having said that, there is no agreed on definition of 'ethics', as people can have very different views of what is moral or immoral. A couple examples of these would be abortion, and homosexuality. Now, I will start my rebuttal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a specific agency to prevent this. The Agency of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's tasks include the prevention or cessation of inhumane treatment of animals. Slaughterhouses are held to certain standars because of the Humane Slaughter Act, passed in 1958. Inspectors from the FDA or USDA are responsible for overseeing compliance, and have the authority to stop slaughter lines. I am aware that there are certain situations where animals are not killed humanely, or treated humanely. Please note that this is illegal. Pro's next argument does not actually pertain to this debate. It states that a vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet. There are certain situations where this actually is true, such as possibly lowering the risk of heart disease or obesity. Vegetables are generally lower in cholesterol and fatty acid than meat. In today's society, meat is often consider the staple food, or main course in a meal. This is not healthy. The correlation is not between decreased meat consumption, rather it is increased vegetable consumption. There are also a number of health problems related to vegetarianism, including calcium, vitamin b, and fatty acid deficiency. \"by buying something, you are supporting it\" Buying meat or animal products does not cause the death of these animals. If you were to stop buying animal products, this would not stop the animals from being killed. As for buying these products being financial support of them. This isn't really true, I mean obviously you are buying it, but this suggests that there is a correlation between the numbe of animal products you buy, and the number produced. If you were to stop buying these products, there would not be any less amount of products made. Your first and third point have now been rendered moot. The second never actually applied, and it still does not. \"Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong and something to be avoided\" Of course, I agree. However, this suggests that eating animal products causes suffering, which is false. Now I will move on to my first argument. In nature there is something called a food chain. It is necessary to keep this balanced. Humans are what is known as a tertiary consumer, or apex predator. In nature, tertiary consumers generally are carnivores. Though humans are an example of one that is not, along with bears, both omnivores. It is not morally wrong to kill and eat an animal. It is what is necessary to survive for secondary or tertiary consumers. The 3 biggest animals killed for food are pigs, chickens, and cows. Note that all of these animals are primary consumers and in the wild would be eaten by other predators. Yes, humans can survive without eating meat, but it is not wrong to eat meat. Now, my second argument. \"by buying something you are supporting it\" Vegetarianism is a vague term, as some vegetarians drink milk, eat eggs, and eat fish. Further, I would like to state that vegetarianism does not abstain from using animal products such as clothes, leather, soap, shampoo. Therefore, by your own argument you are actually funding the killing of animals as well. Note that I did disprove this argument, but I decided to reverse it anyway. I have now rebutted and disproved all of Pro's points, and made two arguments. Sources--------- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.acsh.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "2e8edad3-2019-04-18T18:39:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7581937909126282}, {"content": "Title: Funny jokes. Content: Now, if anyone here is ethically opposed to eating meat, there is a vegetarian option. You can f*** off.", "qid": 33, "docid": "c852a521-2019-04-18T17:12:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7577046155929565}, {"content": "Title: Cowspiracy Content: Have you watched the documentary \"Cowspiracy?\" I have, and it was a eye opener for me. It made me realize that the meat eating is a major reason for the global warming. Not only that, but what a difference we can make by reducing our carnivorous. Belive it or not, it helps our future generations, children, grandchildren, and perhaps our great-grandchildren, to be able to live on this earth. Me personally, do not want to stop eating meat completely because I love meat. But, I could imagine eating vegetarian once a week to contribute to the global warming reduces. Imagne if everyone in the world would do that. We do not need to become vegetarians or vegans, but we eat incredibly much meat today and we can make a change. Together we can recude our impact on global warming. Even though it is a small change for us to do in everyday life, it will be a big change for the world. There are many other small things we can change in our lifes that also reduces our impact on the global warming. For example, we can choose to take the bike to school, work, the gym or locations relatively close instead of taking the car. By taking the bike, you get free exercise and at the same time we reduce the carbon emissions. I think most do not know how serios global warming is and what consequences are. I really recommend all of you to watch \"cowspiracy\", not it purpose for you the become vegans or vegetarians but that more people will relaize how serious the situation is. More in order to you to learn than anything else. We can make a change, do what YOU can to save the world. What are your opinions on meat eating and the environment issue?", "qid": 33, "docid": "c86f0978-2019-04-18T13:29:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7576688528060913}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: I will now conclude the debate with a few final rebuttals. I'll begin by addressing my opponent's statements about the Cro-Magnon man. He claimed that they were one group of people living in one small region. However, this is not entirely incorrect. When they roamed they were THE humans, evolving from earlier humans, and then finally into the modern human known as \"Homo Sapiens Sapiens\". . http://www.elephant.se... Cro-Magnon were all part of the same species so generally all lived similar lifestyles regardless of where they came from. Next, my opponent addresses the point about different trends of meat consumption in different areas. While it's true that fish is consumed on a massive scale worldwide, it's still more widely consumed in coastal societies. . http://www.fao.org... . http://www.fao.org... Next, my opponent addresses technology. It would be very much possible to import and eat tiger meat if people suddenly decided to eat it. The same technology used for processing other kinds of meats would be used. As for rabbit meat, it generally isn't transported as it's consumed on a lesser scale than more mainstream meats such as beef, poultry, and pork. My opponent then goes on to state that humans are the largest predators. However, many animals in the wild die naturally without exposure to humans thus they don't need exposure to humans in order to kill them off. We could get away with not eating meat as other natural elements would kill these animals. As for the neutering, that was intended to bring up the point that animals in captivity are often kept in controlled conditions to prevent reproducing. Nutrition was also addressed. As addressed in the previous round, vegetarians do suffer from health problems, just not to the same extent as meat-eaters. However, many vegetarian health problems result from vitamin deficiency which is easily preventable by taking vitamin supplements. . http://www.essortment.com... Lastly, by giving this debate the title of \"Vegetarianism is wrong\" it is implying that you're intending to argue from a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective one. I have countered this by stating that saying something is \"wrong\" is a matter of perspective, which vegetarianism is. There are many facts out there supporting both sides of the argument. Finally, thank you again to my opponent for providing an interesting debate. It has been fun and I will now turn it over to the voters. Good luck to both of us! P. S- please vote fairly! :)", "qid": 33, "docid": "f283044b-2019-04-18T19:04:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7571237087249756}, {"content": "Title: Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet Content: Okay. Several things wrong with Pro's argument. Rebuttal: \"In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian.\" In what way is the environment dying off? I know that meat comes from cows, chickens, and pigs, but it's not a non-renewable resource. Just get it from farms, which let the animals breed. Also, it's not like there's only 3 farms inn a state holding only 4 adult pigs at a time. As for the vegetarian part, we eat meat because it has protein. Fruits and vegetables don't contain protein. \"We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop.\" This statement needs to be backed up. Also, are you referring to all of Earth's population eating twice the meat as from 30 years? Because population DOES grow, and that would make sense. If you're referring to a single person eating meat, give proof of this. \"Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock.\" livestock is animals on a farm. Thank you for showing that we have a sufficient amount of livestock to feed us humans. The next part makes no sense. \"One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock.\" My opponent's saying to stop eating the livestock, and eat the crops, but the crops get eaten by livestock. Therefore, we eat the crops. What does that do for Pro's case? And, again, it doesn't make much sense. Now for my argument. (Yeah, I often get into these debates and argue with new people, but take it easy.) I'll bring up the food chain as my argument: Corn -> Pig -> Human The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) Here's a food web (multiple food chains): Human ^ ^ / Corn -> Pig l l V l Chicken l l V V Cow -> Human This is a food web of cows, chickens, pigs, corn, and humans. The energy from the various locations are distributed nicely, I'd say. A tip to Pro: Do not forfeit Round 2. There's a glitch running around this site. If you forfeit a round, the entire debate is on hold until the glitch is fixed.", "qid": 33, "docid": "1ec27540-2019-04-18T14:05:01Z-00006-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7569688558578491}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is wrong Content: Thank you for an interesting response. I'll now proceed to offering rebuttals to my opponent's arguments. Firstly, I'll like to address my opponent's points about animal reproduction and diets around the world. It makes sense that one group of people would develop a diet based on their environment. To go back to the example of the Cro-Magnon man they ate much different things than what we would consider to be a balanced diet today. Why? They ate whatever they could scrounge from their surroundings. There wasn't much large game thus they didn't eat much meat. It would be the same for a society today living in a landlocked country. They wouldn't eat much seafood in contrast to a coastal or island community. People tend to eat more of the resources that are available around them. As for my opponent's point about beef being eaten worldwide, much of that has likely resulted in modern technology making it possible to raise any kind of animal worldwide. Another point to bring up is that it's now easier to import certain kinds of food due to refrigeration technology so people no longer have to rely on what is available locally like the Cro-Magnon man had to(which eventually led to more meat consumption by humans) as food can be transported over longer distances and kept safe at the same time. http://articles.directorym.com... Next, my opponent addresses the point about rabbit reproduction. Rabbits often breed in the wild which is filled with predators and other factors which would naturally lower the rabbit population. This keeps the population under control. However, the animals which are domesticated or bred for food are usually kept in controlled conditions thus aren't exposed to the conditions that would naturally lower the population. Some examples include the neutering of pets in order to keep them from reproducing(http://www.humanesociety.org...) and segregation based on the gender of the animal. Finally, my opponent goes on to talk about nutrition. My opponent mentions vitamin B12 and that it's non-existent in a vegetarian diet. While meat is the main source of this nutrient it's not the only source. It can also be found in eggs and dairy products, both of which vegetarians consume. Vegans consume neither of these products, but this debate is about vegetarianism, not veganism. There is also research being done to find possible plant sources of vitamin B12. Soya products, seaweed, and algae are all being considered as possible sources. http://www.vegsoc.org... As for the health problems caused by vegetarianism, they are not non-existent. They are just less likely to develop certain health problems such as cancer and heart disease which is the number one killer in America. Cancer is a close second. http://www.cdc.gov... Another point addressed by my opponent is obesity. This certainly occurs in larger numbers of meat-eaters than it does vegetarians. The over-consumption of meat is likely the main culprit. Lastly, my opponent talks about my point about the low-budget of vegetarian meals. It is natural that somebody on a low budget would be inclined to eat less meat as meat is often expensive due to the nature of producing it. http://wiki.answers.com... I thank my opponent for numerous interesting rebuttals. I'll now like to point out that vegetarianism being wrong is a matter of perspective just like vegetarians saying eating meat is wrong. That's also a matter of perspective. Also, certain animals are likely only bred in large numbers due to large demands as a result of the high number of people who consume meat. If vegetarianism was widespread there would be a lower demand for these animals. Good luck in round three! :)", "qid": 33, "docid": "f283044b-2019-04-18T19:04:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7568756341934204}, {"content": "Title: Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral Content: My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living to the extent that he claims we can live on a vegetarian, he even states vegan diet, and be totally healthy to justify that we aren't built to eat meat. To deny that eating meat is moral one can't simply state that we dont' have to do it. If not having to do something made it wrong to do then debating, especially on debate.org, would be immoral without a doubt. His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat. Humans are omnivores for our teeth has canines and one set of premolars is sharp, we gain weight more rapidly with meat than with vegetables (this is often twisted around to say that we aren't designed for meat but actually is was a warming mechanism that we developed in ice age where not many plants grew but there were mammoths to grab and kill), getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable. Omnivore: An animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin.[1] Sources: [1] https://www.google.co.uk...", "qid": 33, "docid": "fa87725b-2019-04-18T18:10:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7565213441848755}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is not always the right option and that we should not be enforcing Vegetarianism upon them. My first point is that in order to have a balanced diet one will require meat. Now I agree with 'Cloud's' statement that you can probably balance it out by eating other foods that are high in iron and protein. He uses the examples of 'nuts, seeds, and apricots. ' However, the things that he lists are all quite expensive. This point is more important than it first looks. When you are a family that is enduring crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, you have to prioritise what foodstuffs you buy. They have to be cheap and bring added nutrition for the right price. You have to eat a lot of nuts/seeds to replicate the benefit of a piece of meat. It is simply unrealistic to assume that these families will make great sacrifices to make sure that they get the right protein and iron intake. And meat is not only bad for your health. There are many benefits that can be drawn from eating meat. It is good for your muscle build up in a way which vegetarian foods can only do at a slower rate. One study found children who consumed two spoonfuls of meat daily in addition to their regular diet had an 80-percent increase in upper-arm muscle compared to other children in the two-year study, according to an article on BioEd Online, the website of the Baylor College of Medicine. [1] His point that meat is the cause of cancer and heart disease is irrelevant as meat is also a preventer of diseases. It is a high source of zinc and so can therefore help build up the immune system. I have proved that meat is not always a liability to a person's health and that 'Cloud' has not considered that those in our society are not very well of will not always be able to afford a stable diet if they are forced to spend a lot of money on other sources of iron and protein. This poses a serious health risk and needs to be examined in greater detail before we can claim that vegetarianism is the best option for every person. In the next round I will be tackling the morality of the issue and be examining the ethics of this debate. [1] Read more: . http://www.livestrong.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "61b66cc4-2019-04-18T18:12:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7561999559402466}, {"content": "Title: Should Humans eat meat Content: I thank Con for extending the invitation to this debate. Opening Statement. I argue the Pro position, that humans ought to consume meat, as mankind is designed to subsist on an omnivorous diet. This diet includes the consumption of meat. How our teeth are developed is a clear indication of the omnivorous design of humans, as well as is our ability to digest and process meat into needed nutrition (1). I assume the debate begins in earnest in Round #2. 1 https://www.forbes.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "e7be1f8f-2019-04-18T11:55:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7561280131340027}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is good Content: Thank you again, 'newspapers_are_cool', for your rebuttal labelled as arguments, and your actual arguments. This round as you kindly reminded us, is a round of rebuttal. Your first point was very passionate, but I feel you had ignored my points, and went over the risk of life threatening heart disease and cancer too lightly. I will not repeat myself, but I will say that meat needs replacing with minerals and proteins. You said that such a 'sacrifice' was too much to ask from the Dickensian families you described, who endure \"crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet\". I totally disagree with this, as simple changes are easy to make, and very cheap. Proteins can be found in affordable eggs, milk and cottage cheese, and iron found in baked beans, lentils and oatmeal. Lentils are not, by the way, expensive, sold at about \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd1.50 per 100g. In fact, just a cup of lentils has more iron in it than a reasonable serving (3oz) of lean beef. Such changes are hardly a sacrifice, as they are morally good, healthy, and environmentally friendly. And if you are still worried about the human immune system, local pharmacists sell bottles of zinc tablets here in the UK at about \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd3 ($4.50 US) or cheaper. One might not want to promote a pill-dependent society, but frankly they have already become ingrained into the modern way of life, from aspirin to contraceptives. Sadly, your point didn't hold water. Admittedly, some will not be able to become vegetarians, due to defects or illness, but this does not mean that vegetarianism is not preferable, just not practical in some scenarios. As this was your only point I cannot rebut any more, but I look forward to your tackling of the morality issue, as well as my other two and my rebuttal in your next round. Thank you again.", "qid": 33, "docid": "61b66cc4-2019-04-18T18:12:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7559934854507446}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the \"Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice.\" (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?", "qid": 33, "docid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7556894421577454}, {"content": "Title: Animals need to be abolished. Content: Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.", "qid": 33, "docid": "d188b434-2019-04-18T19:48:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7556402683258057}, {"content": "Title: eating meat is wrong of course Content: As PRO has chosen not to make any further arguments, or to rebut mine, all of my arguments stand.First, PRO began his debate stating that humans shouldn't eat meat, but in his arguments, he only addressed beef. Even if all of his arguments stand, nothing translates to pork, poultry or any other meat. Secondly, PRO did not source any of his claims, therefore, it can be regarded as opinion.Finally, and most importantly, PRO has not tied any of his arguments to his initial claim. Even if cows can only be happy if they are not slaughtered, and even if humans can full obtain their nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet, this still does not support his claim that it is wrong to eat meat. PRO has not met his burden of proof.", "qid": 33, "docid": "c2604c51-2019-04-18T17:20:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7555764317512512}, {"content": "Title: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian Content: Ben should become a vegetarian for three primary reasons: A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact than one which includes meat. A vegetarian diet will help him achieve his health goals. A vegetarian diet will decrease strain on our relationship. A vegetarian diet has a lower environmental impact.It's quite simple: eating 2000 calories from plants uses far fewer resources than eating 2000 calories from animals, who had to in turn eat way more than 2000 calories of plants to create 2000 calories of meat. The reason is that not all of the food animals eat is converted to body mass, as much goes into heating the body and fueling its processes.The waste of water by animals is even greater: \"The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.\"Even if that calculation is on the high end, there is no way possible that the water ratio from plant to human is equal to the water ratio from plant to animal to human. Physics denies such a conversion.Not only are land and water resources wasted, greenhouse gases are emitted into the air. \"Shifting less than 1 day per week\u2019s (i.e., 1/7 of total calories) consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers.\"I mean, check out this awesome chart: http://pubs.acs.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... http://pubs.acs.org...http://www.guardian.co.uk... A vegetarian diet is healthier.\"The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.\"Unlike the first point which is a moral obligation to promote public health, this one rests upon a personal commitment to oneself.http://www.sciencedaily.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...A vegetarian diet will make our relationship smoother.In a practical sense, this will benefit you more than me, because when I go shopping, I already purchase only vegetarian foods. Changing your diet to become more similar to mine will make it easier for you to shop for foods we can both consume, instead of focusing on \"hirs and his\". This benefit will be strongest when we eat out. As it stands, restaurants which cater to your tastes rarely do to mine, but vegetarian-friendly restaurants typically have meat options as well (which comes in handy when dining with friends).Also, there will be reduced moral strain. I'd know that we're trying to help make the world a better place together, as opposed to me bearing the load of not only my own choices but also trying to undo yours (which I can't avoid, as we live in the same house and our choices are tied to each other in many other ways as well).Ultimately, once we're on the same team diet-wise, then we can be That Couple who are so Totally Vegetarian, and further our goal of making our friends gag at how cute we are together. Aww!", "qid": 33, "docid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00005-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7550028562545776}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is a bad excuse to not eat meat Content: =Why would they get offered meat?= In reference to Pro's arguments against \"religion\" and \"personal feelings/psychology\"... Pro never limited the subject down to people who are being offered meat, so the subject is about any vegetarian even if nobody ever comes up to them and offers them meat. Maybe these people aren't being offered meat? Or maybe they went to a place that had meat in order to get non-meat items off the menu. Either way \"not wanting it\" is a perfectly good reason. =Recommendation for Arthritis= Pro says arthritis patients can just ignore the recommendation. This is true, but a person's health is not a \"bad excuse\" for something, it's a \"good excuse\". If someone has arthritis and finds the pain is reduced by not eating meat then that is not a bad reason. If even a few people have a \"good excuse\" to not eat meat then vegetarianism is not \"just\" a \"bad excuse\" to not eat meat. =Food Safety= Yes fruits and vegetables need to be washed, but that's much easier than the sorts of preparations needed for meat in many cases. Yes, people eat meat in ancient times when we didn't have modern technology. Regardless today we can make scientific estimates of risk when we eat. If a community is told their meat is tainted with salmonella but their fruits and vegetables are relatively safe it makes logical sense for them to switch to a vegetarian diet for the time being. =The Spoiling Argument= Meat may spoil faster, but other foods spoil too. Milk has an expiration date. Fruits and vegetables rot over time. As for the new people coming into the world the chance of a small number of them being vegetarians is actually quite high. For every single one of them to want to eat meat would be next to impossible. I'm sure the meat industry wants to maximize profits as much as possible, so they would try to predict the amount of \"meat demand\" in the next generation. In calculating this they would have to analyze vegetarianism and see how the population is going to grow or shrink in the future. Pro makes it sound like because only a small number of people will be vegetarian that therefore the meat industry can't take into account. That's absurdly ridiculous. Industries take into account the numbers and percentages of people's preferences all the time rather than just going on \"which is bigger?\" If they didn't niche markets would not exist. =Solution to Spoilage= There is an obvious solution to the problem of spoiled meat. Feed it to the poor before it spoils. Not only would it alleviate poverty it would give the meat industry good PR. That the meat industry forgoes this option is its own fault, not vegetarians'. =Political= There are laws, but they are not adequate. Animals are often confined in tight spaces. Some vegetarians might stop being vegetarians if the meat industry or the government would just fix this problem. In that sense the waste isn't the vegetarians' fault, it's the meat industry's. A few simple changes could make the problem go away. www.meat.org Furthermore there is now research into test tube meat and a lot of vegetarians say they wouldn't mind eating it if it was on the market. Vegetarians may be pushing ahead scientific research by abstaining from traditional meat. http://www.examiner.com... =Freedom!= I'll cap this off by saying this is America and in America people have choice, choice to choose what to eat. Vote Con! Vote for liberty!", "qid": 33, "docid": "fad42a17-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7546191215515137}, {"content": "Title: It is moral to use other creatures as resources. Content: \"Without meat many people would starve and others would suffer deficiency diseases. This statment is very true as i hope most people already know. Meat is a main source of food for humans and without it much of the worlds population would decrease dramatically and drastically. Alot of people respond to this saying we could live as vegetarians, but this is not true. For one, several vegetarians die annually because they don't have meat whether its the lack of proteins or there body simply can't handle it. In conclusion, without meat millions if not more people will die. I do see this being a moral point to use animals as meat. \"-Pro has brought up a topic which has nothing to do with morality- but health instead. Nonetheless, I will argue his point. Animal products have been proven many times to hurt, not help, the human body. The animals you get your meat, milk, eggs, and otherwise from are pumped with fat hormones and other unhealthy artificial chemicals. You can easily receive all the nutrients needed to support your body if you are a vegan. If the entire population of Earth was to stop eating meat, starvation would significantly decrease. This is because we could use the 2,500 gallons it takes to make just one pound of beef to grow crops and feed the hungry. No vegetarians or vegans have ever died because of a lack of meat. This information is entirely false and it has been undoubtedly made up. \"Hides fur and feathers are environmentally friendly, man made fibers are not. This is an obvious point, this is in realtion to our clothing the hides and fur of animals should go to a good use since we already put them down for meat so how is it not moral? For those who still believe it isn't moral i shall point out there hides and fur cause no harm to our enviorment while man made clothing does. If we only used man made fibers then it would destroy the enviorment cause harm for all species not just humans. \"-Once again, Pro has brought up an argument which has nothing to do with morality. You have not given any reason for why hides, furs, and feathers are environmentally friendly, which they are not. \"Without animal research for new products and medicine many people will die or become ill. I believe this is where many people have problems with this issue and believe it is morally wrong to use animals for research, i disagree. How can we consider it moral to watch many if our own population die off when we could use a small portion of other species. Not only does this help save the human population but also there own we cannot come up with cures for animals aswell as ourselfes without them. \"- Simply because our race would have to suffer if we did not use non-human animals does not justify us using other creatures as test subjects. If turkeys were as intelligent as humans and wanted to develop a cure for a disease only found in turkeys, would we say it is OK to use we humans as test subjects? Of course not! So why is it OK for us to use other earthlings? \"Without zoos, circuses, and other performing animals people will lose their respect for wild creatures. This is another touchy point in this issue where i believe most people are mistaken. I would like to start off on this point by explaining these animals dont go through as much harm as people think they do. It's not to often that animals are abused or hurt is zoos,circuses,etc. .. . actually other than when performing these animals live rather pampered lives. That is not the full point though, if these animals weren't in entertainment many people would lose respect and care for the animals as they would see them as worthless. \"- Firstly, animals actually go through more harm and more pain than many think they do. Circus animals are hit, slapped, whipped etc. when they do not do as told. These animals live the very opposite of pampered lives. If a human loses respect for other creatures simply because it does not ever get to see it enclosed in an area smaller than their bedroom or seeing a creature perform a magnificent trick at a circus, it is the human's problem. Why should an innocent being suffer because a child wants to see it do a trick after much pain and suffering? \"i would have to disagree with this as if we stopped using animals for resources more humans and animals would suffer because of it so is it moral to save a few and kill many or the other way around? \"Pro has posted a very false argument. No humans or other creatures would suffer if we stopped using them as resources. \"I agree that we should maintain a form of equality between all species on earth but not in the way my opponent has used it. if one life is equal to another is 20 lifes equal to a thousand? No. at least not in moral speaking terms. His case in all makes sence but not in a moral standard, we do not violate the principle of equality we enhance it. Therefor, there can only be a pro side for this topic. Thank you,\"-I never said that one life is equal to twenty. You are arguing on things that I never said. You have stated that by using animals as resources we enhance the principle of equality. How ridiculous! How does using other earthlings possible enhance the principle of equality in any way, shape, or form? Pro has not posted any firm argument for why it can be morally justified to use animals as resources.", "qid": 33, "docid": "97b5cf5-2019-04-18T18:36:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7545744776725769}, {"content": "Title: We should all be vegans Content: I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. \"Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.\" How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.", "qid": 33, "docid": "55477f4b-2019-04-18T11:29:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7544786930084229}, {"content": "Title: Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus. Content: \"I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal.\" Con An interesting point of view. Indeed there is vested interest in the meat industry. Yet, this doesn't mean change has to happen overnight. A chaotic situation would arise if massive change happened over night. A more gradual change could be implemented. As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising. \"$245 billion: Total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012\" diabetes.org To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains.http://www.diabetes.org...http://www.animalvisuals.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "baba6582-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7542322874069214}, {"content": "Title: To be suggested by the contender Content: My opponent has elected to be the instigator of this debate, and I shall respond accordingly. I say that vegetarianism is NOT the best diet one can take. Rather, a vegetarian diet that also includes fish and lean meat. I am a biomedical student, and I can very easily explain the misconceptions of my opponent's sources of health statistics. The statistics my opponent provided in all part 1 were valid, but my opponent's interpretation is an example of the \"post hoc ergo propter hoc\" logical fallacy. Cutting out meat from the diet isn't the immediate cause of the morbidity and mortality, it's just that statistically speaking, those who exercise some form of diet control tend to be healthier. The majority of us who are omnivorous also account for a massive amount of the population that has chronic health disorders such as diabetes and hypertension. I propose it is not the actual diet that excludes meat, but the fact that vegetarians have a certain dietary control in GENERAL that leads to these health benefits. Therefore, my proposal that the diet also include lean white meat and fish is just as good as my opponent's proposal of pure vegetarianism. Unless my opponent can provide data where vegetarians are compared with those who also include lean meat and fish in moderate quantities, and that this data shows that the vegetarians are significantly healthier, there is no reason to assume that MEAT causes poor health. It's FAT that causes poor health. I will now explain why the inclusion of meat is a great benefit to our diet. Human beings, in order to carry out the biochemical processes that sustain life, require amino acids. These compounds come in 21 natural types that when strung together, make proteins. Proteins are the primary macromolecule responsible for our bodily structure, and also for the structure of other animals. The body produces many of these amino acids, but there are quite a few that must be consumed in the diet. A vegetarian diet is composed solely of plant life. The structural compound for plants is cellulose, an indigestible substance that goes in one end and out the other. We cannot derive amino acids from a purely vegetarian diet, this is why evolutionarily speaking, we need to eat meat. All meat is made up of nearly pure protein, and each protein molecule is made up of hundreds if not thousands of amino acid molecules of all varieties. So including just a little bit of lean meat in the diet can make up for whatever extremes you need to go through in order to get those nutrients from a vegetarian diet. As for my opponent's part 2, I believe that my version of the diet, which includes fish and lean meat, would be better as well. The meat industry would suffer greatly in my suggestion too, but not close down completely as my opponent's suggestion would force them to do. In fact, my proposal would select for a new meat industry that processes healthier meat, and instead of fattening up the animals, they would try to keep them as healthy and chemical free as possible. In addition, the fishing industry, which is a massive industry in and of itself, would be even more efficient with the high demand in fish. Thus, my proposal has nearly all the benefits of my opponent's proposal with none of the bad side effects.", "qid": 33, "docid": "12209678-2019-04-18T19:43:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7536993026733398}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century. Content: Actually, growing the animals for meat IS becoming a huge problem. For example, McDonald's. To provide all that meat, they need several billion cows a year, and they need huge ares of land to grow all those cows. Also, there aren't much distinction between lands of nature and lands for growing animals. Forests, fields, and lots other places with the right conditions can be used for both growing nature and growing animals. Forests ARE pretty good for animals, since there is water, fresh air, basically everything an animal needs to survive. Secondly, vegetarianism might not the only way to save nature, but it may be the biggest way, don't you think? I said that you could be vegetarian, not forced to be. I meant that vegetarian would be the best choice. You can choose not to be vegetarian, but I think it's the best choice. Also, the other methods you showed me are for good lifestyles, and have nothing to do with the other problems of eating meat, so that doesn't really count (no offence), and can you suggest some things that might prevent the other problems of not being vegetarian? I think that vegetarianism is the only ethical choice because first, by eating vegetables, you can get all the minerals needed, like vitamin C, D, E, etc. Also, I don't think it's moral that all those animals are dying out only to give us food. Third, the minerals needed from meat can always be replaced by something else, like tofu or mushrooms, so meat isn't actually necessary.", "qid": 33, "docid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7531448602676392}, {"content": "Title: Argument for Vegetarianism Content: For my opponent to win this debate pro must prove all these point. first it is almost impossible to say that something like eating meat or not is morally better because morals are constantly changing from place to place and time to time. someone who lives in the desert where very little grows there main source of sustenance is live stalk, how would you possibly tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I will hold off on the health aspect till you make an argument as to why vegetarianism is healthier. How does eliminating a food source help stop world hunger. The environment is another topic I will hold off on till my next round.", "qid": 33, "docid": "7648964d-2019-04-18T19:18:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7530261874198914}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once. Content: In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.", "qid": 33, "docid": "95769c7a-2019-04-18T16:10:49Z-00008-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7523981332778931}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism Content: A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00019-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7523043155670166}, {"content": "Title: We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan Content: This debate is impossible to accept. Only want good debaters. This statement does not apply to primitive societies, nor force to achieve it. It is suggesting that if, as a society we became vegan, we would be better off from a selfish point of view. But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e546d08b-2019-04-18T15:50:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7518898844718933}, {"content": "Title: We should all be vegans Content: Humans are mostly designed to be herbivores, but our system can handle meat as well, meaning we are omnivores. What you believe is right will differ from another person's view, so if you think that everyone should be vegan another will disagree. People should choose what they eat, not have it chosen for them.", "qid": 33, "docid": "55477f4b-2019-04-18T11:29:19Z-00008-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7516518831253052}, {"content": "Title: Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg Content: Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!", "qid": 33, "docid": "ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7504746317863464}, {"content": "Title: Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation. Content: I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...", "qid": 33, "docid": "dcbaec56-2019-04-18T14:28:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7503945827484131}, {"content": "Title: We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan Content: I accept. In Pro's resolution, \"We should move towards a world where everybody is vegan,\" I find it necessary to define the term \"should\" so that the implications of the resolution are more clear. [1]*Using this definition of the term \"should\", the resolution claims that everyone in the world is obligated to become vegan. Since this is a positive statement, burden of proof lies with Pro.I shall present my arguments:Contentions:C1. Human Rights- Human Rights were created by the United Nations to have a global understanding of how to treat individuals. Fundamentally, it implies that human beings are free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not violate human rights. Of course this is not completely true, as individual nations have their own separate laws outside of the 30 Human Rights. However, since every nation has different laws, the only way to account for every human being in the world is through Human Rights, which is acknowledged globally. [2]--> Therefore, fundamentally, people are free to do what they wish as long as they don't violate the 30 Human Rights established by the United Nations. Their only obligation is to follow the Human Rights. And since not being a vegan does not violate any Human Rights, they are not obligated to become vegans.C2. Personal Preference and Right to Choose- There are many people in the world who don't want to be vegan. Why \"should\" they be something they don't want to? C3. Food is Not a Luxury (in many cases)- There are many people who cannot afford to be picky with their food and choose to be vegan. What if your in an emergency and you need to eat something or you'll die? I have a teacher who went camping once and got lost in the woods for 2 weeks and had to survive on squirrels and birds because there was nothing else to eat and many of the plants were poisonous. \"Should\" he have been a vegan then and died?C4. Food Reduction- Let's say there is x amount of food available in the world, and y amount of meat and vegan not-approved foods in the world. Should we adopt a worldwide vegan system, the amount of food available to us would be x - y. That means there will be less food available for mankind because we don't eat meat. This is tied to the previous contention.C5. Economic Crisis- Fundamentally, an economy is fueled by entrepreneurship and the buying and selling of products. Many products in the market are not vegan-approved, such as dairy products or anything with the slightest bit of meat in it. - If the world adopted a vegan system, many products would either be banned or not consumed. Many people would lose their jobs. - Take McDonald's for example. [3] McDonald's is a huge multi-million dollar corporation that provides food with meat in it. There are approximately 1,800,000 people working for McDonald's. If everyone was vegan, McDonald's would shut down and 1,800,000 people would lose their jobs. - And McDonald's is only one out of several mega-corporations that will shut down, resulting any many people losing their jobs. Every fast food franchise, every dairy company, they all get shut down. Rebuttals:\"we would be better off from a selfish point of view.\"- From a selfish point of view, we would be better off not enforcing our own beliefs and (eating) habits upon others. There are people who don't want to be vegans. It would be selfish to want others to eat the same way you do, assuming you are vegan, even when they don't want to. \"But also, that it is in my view, its the only moral option for us.\"- I request Pro explain this claim. How is this the only moral option for mankind? As explained in my last contention, millions of people would lose their jobs. Is it moral to lose them of their jobs and destroy the economy just so that everyone can be vegan?Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.samaritanmag.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s", "qid": 33, "docid": "e546d08b-2019-04-18T15:50:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.749756395816803}, {"content": "Title: vegetarian school lunches Content: Vegetarianism - the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. It costs 3.00$ to make a school lunch. the schools get 2.50 for the lunches. as i will continue to say, adding a salad bar would add .10cents, now I don't think that this will affect many people in the long run. As you may know, vegetarian foods have no cholesterol and lots of fiber; meat, eggs, and dairy products contain a lot of cholesterol and have no fiber. No wonder that meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Recent surveys show that about 2% of children under age 18 consider themselves vegetarians, about the same percentage as adults. With nearly 50 million children attending public schools, that means approximately 1 million children who don't eat meet line up for school lunches each day. \"Less than 5% of the population are vegetarian, so there's a potential that the food will be wasted when students choose meaty items instead.\" Of the 50 million children in schools you are saying 1 millions choices would be \"wasted\"? And that is only 2% of vegetarians, as you can see my opponent cannot keep their facts correct. Schools in many areas have responded by adding salad bars as well as more fruits, vegetables and meatless entrees, according to Marcia Smith, president of the American School Food Service Association. Over the past five years, some schools have begun serving a vegetarian item every day, she said. Schools must also accommodate children who don't eat meat for religious reasons. To rebut your Hindi comment, my friends, Ravi Deasi and Swetak Pradhan are Hindi. His family finds it easier to go all vegetarian then no beef, in case you dd not know this hinds don't eat beef other meats are fine. Also if some of the schools can add vegetarian maels, even if it IS just a salad bar, they still can be respected. \" \"I sit with 2 vegetarians at my lunch table AND for a week and a half they had nothing but meats in our lunch lines\" This argument really has no impact for the pro side. That's great that you sat with vegetarians for a week and a half. I'm happy for you. I really am. However, what's your point?\" If anyone would actually pay attention and read what I said iI would not need to restate myself. i did not say I had, i said and which means i continue to in the context of the sentence. i apologize for the off topic, but we do get points for things like that, and this my help you understand how that \"point\" of mine effects my topic. http://www.todaysdietitian.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.todaysdietitian.com...", "qid": 33, "docid": "69d892e-2019-04-18T19:17:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7496849298477173}, {"content": "Title: Humans don't need meat; eating it is an immoral choice Content: Humans might have the physical equipment to eat meat, but we do not have to do so. People should make a moral choice not to eat other creatures. In just the same way we know that men are capable of great aggression and physical violence, but society says that such behaviour is unacceptable.", "qid": 33, "docid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00122-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7496647834777832}]}
{"query": "Are social networking sites good for our society?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Social networking sites are good for our society! Content: Social networking sites are good for our society!", "qid": 34, "docid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9047443270683289}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.", "qid": 34, "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8722313642501831}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8266040086746216}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good Content: I am here to affirm and convince that \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!", "qid": 34, "docid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8158994317054749}, {"content": "Title: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Content: Alright, thanks radicalguy for posting an interesting topic, and lets get this started! As a sidenote, I am a bit pressed for time these days, so i'm apologizing in advance for the inevitable brevity of my case. I affirm the resolution resolved, \"On balance, social networking websites do more good than harm\" I'll start off with definitions. Social Networking Site: \"A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services.\" My value for judging 'good' and 'harm' will be utilitarianism, a value which we can both meet common ground with. My criteria will be social connectivity/harmony and the spreading of information, both of which are values intrinsic to the betterment of the human race. Without strong communities, and without common knowledge being spread amongst the people, we never could have achieved he technological and sociological wonders that we cherish today. Contention 1: Social networking strengthens social bonds, leading to a myriad of positive outcomes. Sub Point A: The strengthening of social bonds aids the development of social harmony. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are used as means to build up friendships, have conversations, and compete in small games in a positive atmosphere. This new vehicle of interacting with other people inevitably leads to making better friends and having more people to interact with, allowing people to exchange ideas even when they cannot meet in person. They also make the process of forementioned socialization streamlined and expedient. Sub Point B: These sites allow for international correspondence, leading to international fraternity. Years ago, the standard means of distant communication was by letter. Of course, the obvious flaws were the time involved and the need for a specific address. The advent of the e-mail made messaging instantaneous, but a specific destination was still requisite. With the creation of Facebook and Myspace however, it is possible to link to and find people from all across the globe and communicate in a streamlined manner. Really, all these sites are trying to do is simplify and improve the capability of communication around the globe. The implications are staggering. Bonds of friendship crossing borders, even continents is something our predecessors would not have dared dream of. But it most certainly exists. Also, it provides a medium for communication for distant people who already know each other. For example, I recently moved from MA to CA, and wanted to stay in touch with my network of friends. Would e-mail have been functional? Of course. But Facebook allowed me to stay in touch with friends with unparalleled proximity. In the negatives world, I would have been confined to stiff e-mails instead of Facebook's fluidity. In their world, NO SOCIAL NETWORKING WOULD EXIST. Contention 2: Social Networking Sites Aid in spreading information and current events. Through being updated constantly through the thoughts and musing of others on a live basis, it leads to the assimilatiof knowledge of current events. How I learned about MJ's death? Facebook. Chilean Earthquak? Facebook. Now, while the negative would say that sites like Google News or the New York Times could be used, people go to Facebook much more often just because it has a positive atmosphere. Long have educators attempted to educate the masses while simultaneously entertaining, them, and these sites do just that. They make events which would once have been nerdy to orate about socially relevant and requisite to prosper in the comments section. Sub Point A: Social Networking Sites help spread different opinions and thoughts about an issue, leading to mental diversity. By allowing near instantaneous response and analysis of world events, fresh perspectives and vantage points can be seen, allowing for lively debate and introspection. For example, I have a friend of mine who converted from Christianity to Atheism after a long and philosophical theological discussion. Contention 3: Social Networking Allows and Encourages the creation of grassroots clubs and movements. With the feature of easily being able to find mutual friends and send out messages with intuitive responses, Facebook allows for the expedient creation of clubs and organizations joined together with mutual goals such as spreading political awareness or fund raising. The expediency of recruitment and the ability to organize events and hierarchy are once again improved by social networking. For all these reasons, you must affirm. I am now ready for Cross Ex.", "qid": 34, "docid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8049588203430176}, {"content": "Title: On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm Content: Hey guys. I am radicalguy44 and in this debate I will prove that social networking websites do more harm than good. I would like the PRO to start, and please make this an LD style debate! Good luck PRO!", "qid": 34, "docid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7980751991271973}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good Content: My position should be obvious. I am here to negate the resolution, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that social networking does not cause more harm than good.My opponent may begin their argument.", "qid": 34, "docid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7934720516204834}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites boon. Content: Con has failed to continue this debate and explain as to why social networking is bad. Therefore I have explained in great amount why it is good. Thanks for the debate!", "qid": 34, "docid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7889307141304016}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites boon. Content: In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that \"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds\" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7880885601043701}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our \"cliques\" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not \"freinds\" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.", "qid": 34, "docid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7878743410110474}, {"content": "Title: Social media does more harm than good Content: I believe that social media does more harm than good for our society. It is supposedly makes us more connect; however, I argue that it actually is making us more anti-social.", "qid": 34, "docid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7851002216339111}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote", "qid": 34, "docid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7843820452690125}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub", "qid": 34, "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7809187173843384}, {"content": "Title: Facebook: A Boon For the Society Content: I do not have any more opening contentions to give. Thus, I will take this round to refute Pro's contentions.R1) Social NetworkingPro argues that Facebook allows people to meet new people and keep contact with friends. However, as I showed in C1, depending on Facebook too much for such purposes is ultimately harmful to society, due to the resulting lack of real life social skills. It is a much better idea to rely more on face-to-face communication whenever possible. Even if an in-person interaction is not possible, it is still better to use forms of communication other than online social media- forms of communication that still require verbal involvement, such as telephone.R2) Video ConferencingPro argues that Facebook's video conference future makes it a boon to society. However, video-conferencing is not anything unique to Facebook. Skype is a popular software designed *solely* for the purposes of video calling. Google Plus is always rising in popularity. Facebook having a useful feature doesn't make it a \"boon to society\". In order to make such a claim, the feature would have to be something innovative and unique, and I demonstrated it not to be so in this case.R3) AdvertisingPro argues that Facebook giving us access to company advertisement is a boon to society. However, Pro himself notes that many people do not like Facebook's system of allowing companies to have access to their personal information, meaning that Pro has essentially refuted his own argument; something which people generally do not approve of cannot be considered a positive force in society. R4) Educational PurposesPro argues that because Facebook could potentially be used as an online resource for educational purposes, it is a boon to society. This suffers the same problem that his second contention does, except even more so; there are so many other online resources that are specifically designed for education, such as KhanAcademy and EdHelper. Anyways, many of the suggestions in the link provided by Pro are terrible; take the first one on the list: \"Instead of trusting Wikipedia, ask the crowd on Facebook.\" Wikipedia is FAR more reliable as a source of information than Facebook! Wikipedia actually has established contributors, and its pages are frequently reviewed... Facebook's potential \"educational\" value is completely undermined by the fact that there are much better resources out there. CONCLUSIONI have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has yet to address any of mine. Thus, the resolution is negated.Back to Pro!", "qid": 34, "docid": "328e4b62-2019-04-18T16:00:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7804145216941833}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that \"Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes.\" Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that \"Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period.\" As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, \"I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks.\" In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org...", "qid": 34, "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7786824703216553}, {"content": "Title: Social Media is bad Content: Thanks for being my opponent on our first debate Luca. There are many reasons why social media is good for people and not bad. I would like to start off with this quote, \"Smart phones and social media expand our universe. We can connect with others or collect information easier and faster than ever.\" -Daniel Goleman. With social media we are able to see what every person on this world (that have some type of social media of course) is up to with their lives. Your able to talk to friends/family that live far away, doesn't that amaze you? I look forward to seeing your response.", "qid": 34, "docid": "a5deb511-2019-04-18T13:31:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7759600281715393}, {"content": "Title: Social networking has a negative impact on communities. Content: Social networking has a negative impact on communities. It increases cyberbullying, suicide and obesity.", "qid": 34, "docid": "f0c04fae-2019-04-18T11:22:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.769616961479187}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: I'd like to welcome my opponent to the site; to get better acquainted, I figured that I would take this debate challenge, and observe her debating style for myself; not to mention, I wanted to expand my horizons a bit, and talk about something a bit more lighthearted. To clarify one thing: If it wasn't already known, then social networking sites are things like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, as opposed to dating sites like Match.com, Chemistry.com, etc. To things manageable, I will make only a couple of opening arguments, and I will briefly refute the Con's. I - Social networking is beneficial. Man is, by nature, a social creature; that is, people need people. As technology advances, so does mankind's means of communicating and socializing; for example, we've developed things such as the telegraph/telegram, mail service, telephone/cell phone, video chat, and now, we are looking at social networking sites; thus, we can see that, because social networking has increased the ability of people to communicate and socialize, whether city, state, nation, or even worldwide, social networking sites have clearly had a positive impact on society. II - Social networking sites balance a child's privacy and a parent's right to know. A classic clash always happens when pitting the right to privacy of a child against the right to know of a parent; however, social networking sites find a happy medium, so that neither side is overlooked; for example, on Facebook, a teenager may have private conversations with a friend over the private messaging system, but the parent of this teenager will still be able to keep track of things such as posts made to other friends' walls, pictures posted, etc. Social networking sites give parents the ability to keep tabs on many of their child's online postings, such as pictures and personal information, but without having to directly invade on their child's privacy; this again proves that social networking sites have had a positive effect on society. III - Social networking sites provide a degree of online safety. While all websites and internet users are vulnerable to some degree, the openness and oversight provided by the staff of social networking sites, give or take a few situations, ensures a higher degree of safety than might be found elsewhere on the internet. While these sites don't have to take direct responsibility for their users, there's still a higher sense of security than would be found in unchecked e-mail services, instant messengers, and chat rooms full of shady characters; so, to some extent, social networking sites provide all the benefits of other services, such as IM and e-mail, but without the fear of being stalked by a predator or serial killer [though I can't account for the harmless creepers that tend to accumulate on some sites. :)]. Now, to move on to the Con's sole contention. 1. Social networking is potentially harmful. a. A lot of different things can be potentially harmful; however, simply because something has the potential to be misused does not mean that it has had a negative effect on society; prescription medication, for example, can (and often is) abused by the people to whom it is prescribed; however, this potential for abuse does not mean that we do away with prescription drugs completely, and it is the same with social networking sites. b. In the case with Megan Meier, this girl was already reported to suffer from depression, was on several medications, and since the third grade, had been kept under the careful eye of her psychiatrist [http://en.wikipedia.org...]; as we can see, Megan was already in a fragile condition; as we can see, it was not MySpace that was responsible for Megan's tragic suicide; rather, this unfortunate event can be attributed to Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and the several other people who aided in operating the account and harassing Megan; clearly, MySpace didn't intend for their site to be used in such a way, and this is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Drew, among others, was brought to trial, not the MySpace staff; for example, if someone is shot in a nightclub, nobody holds the nightclub staff responsible for being unaware that the shooting would happen; they hold the shooter responsible, as he is the one that committed the detestable act; in the same way, MySpace cannot be held accountable for the malicious acts of other people, and this instance, while tragic, is not a negative effect of social networking sites, but merely the misuse of them. I will stand down for the moment, and allow my opponent to chew on my opening arguments for a bit. Good luck, Con!", "qid": 34, "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7646514177322388}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: actually social networking is a superb thing. it keeps us in touch with our relatives in foreign and also helps to interact with our friends. it also allows us to share pics of our life and to share the joy!!!!!!!", "qid": 34, "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7644628882408142}, {"content": "Title: debate with yourself Content: Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children\"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.", "qid": 34, "docid": "528fb34-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7632027864456177}, {"content": "Title: social networks are more harm than good Content: i will start by saying this . have a fair and fun debate. i do believe that social networks help and that in the end of the day: they help!!! they help get jobs and friends", "qid": 34, "docid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7627271413803101}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.", "qid": 34, "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.759128212928772}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Unless my opponent has any objections, the parameters for this debate will be as follows: 1. \"Social networking websites\" are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 2. \"The United States\" will not be contrained merely to a body of government or a geographical region, but to society, businesses, people, etc. One last note: I would urge the consideration of anecdotal accounts to be considered in a logical rather than emotional fashion. Social networking is a thing of the future, a revolutionary concept that will transform the current world. Social networking has evolved from not only a place to meet your friends and mingle, but to a place where businesses are run, deals are made, and contracts are completed. In addition, the networks enhance communication and encourage people from different parts of the world to converse and interact. Also, the network has its educational benefits as well. Students who use social networking learn important skills to help them survive in the 21st century such as managing websites, editing videos, making use of other technological skills. The use of social networking tools as part of everyday working life has led to an increase in efficiency in the workplace. According to Dynamic Markets, Of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65% say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient. And 45% say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. Businesses use SNS for collaboration sites on intranets, internal forums within the company, company-produced video material shared on intranets, online social networks like LinkedIn and external collaboration sites on the Web and internal blogging sites. Benefits include increasing an individual's knowledge; giving access to products to problems; harnessing the collective knowledge of employees, customers and suppliers; stimulating team building; and better internal collaboration. In addition, businesses like Best Buy who use social networking increase their employee retention rates by making employees feel like they belong. There are far-reaching educational benefits of social networking. Christine Greenhow, researcher at the University of Minnesota, explains that \"[S]tudents using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today.\" Also, according to a study conducted by Childnet International, teachers and students alike could set-up online \"study groups\" and students can use them to collaborate together on group projects and assignments. Social networking helps to encourage student engagement and increase participation, encourages online discussion amongst students outside of school, and provides students with a sense of ownership and engagement which often leads to an improved quality of work. Furthermore, Social Networking sites may increase an individual's self-confidence. As BusinessWeek says, \"When people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy.\" Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in a safe, online environment. Social Networking has substantial benefits that greatly outweigh and hindrances there might be. Because of this, I ask you to AFFIRM the resolution.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7550861239433289}, {"content": "Title: that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US Content: As my opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments, I shall rebut his and advance my own. 1. Social Capital This contention has two major flaws: it is not unique to social networking sites, and its impact is relatively insignificant. First of all, all of the benefits my opponent just listed can be equally enjoyed through IM, texts, chat rooms, calling someone, etc. Social networking sites have not created these benefits, they have just created yet another place to experience them, minimizing their impact to very little. This brings me to my next point: the impact of this is relatively insignificant. When compared to any of my contentions, simply being able to talk with someone who is far away is not even close to the same magnitude. 2. Jobs \"According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. \" This is actually false, and is an attempt by my opponent to change a fact for his own benefit. Here is the actual quote from . http://www.tuboston.com...: \"Stanford University sociology professor Mark Granovetter recently conducted research that supports the value of making new connections. He found that between 50 and 70 percent of new jobs are discovered by reaching out to people job seekers only know vaguely. \" This does not mean 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. It means 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of weak ties, which *might* be established using social networking sites. As such, this statistic should be discounted from consideration. \"According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. \" As for this statistic, I would ask for an accessible source to view this. Though I cannot say for sure without an accessible source, I would like to note that \"CareerXroads\" is a site designed to help the unemployed find jobs, and as such there is a high probability that my opponent has miquoted a figure intended for that specific site, among other possibilities. 3. Business \"According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts. \" To \"use social networking sites\" that could mean merely hiring a single employee whose job includes glancing over resumes online. Thus, this point has almost no impact unless backed up by significant statistics.", "qid": 34, "docid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7541149258613586}, {"content": "Title: social media is bad Content: social media is good", "qid": 34, "docid": "b2035130-2019-04-18T11:34:19Z-00005-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7516045570373535}, {"content": "Title: users under 18 using Facebook Content: Thanks for your response. My opponent cited a study which a Doctor Underwood stated that the activities posted in FB are for everyone to see and therefore a bad thing. Not really, since anyone can edit their privacy settings. Facebook, like other social netwoking sites have upsides and downsides. Users may receive positive or negative feedback from others. But does that mean that we should totally ban them to teens? Again, no. I stated that FB can be used for educational purposes, my opponent refuting that statement by saying we have other references like the library is irrelevant. My opponent believes that FB made people more physically distant and gives people a false sense on getting better socially and makes people more closed minded. Since my no sources and accurate references were cited here and it's a he-says-she-says, let me start by introducing the study of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, where they stated that social networking sites helped 60 million people on major life issues via contacting friends and experts online. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Also, according to the National School Board Association, 59% of students use social networking sites for educational purposes. This highly supersedes my opponent's assumption that teens only use social networking sites for negative stuffs. (http://socialnetworking.procon.org...) Bottomline, my opponent just repeated her argument which I already previously refuted. Again, just because FB may harm its users does not mean we should affect the majority. Sorry for it being short, really busy IRL. No time to write.", "qid": 34, "docid": "db7b77a1-2019-04-18T18:21:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7511897683143616}, {"content": "Title: join Facebook. Content: Facebook is good for democracy", "qid": 34, "docid": "bc2b2a0d-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7499707937240601}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States Content: Social Networking sites are a tricky thing to debate because of the various pros and cons. I decided to take this debate on however. First off, many people are reunited through social networking site. Second, many people find life long companions through dating websites. Third, people can keep in touch with family from all across the world. These are a few of the pros.", "qid": 34, "docid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7497656345367432}, {"content": "Title: The internet has been more of a hurt than a help. Content: While I will agree that the internet surely has brought some new social and cultural issues to humanity, My main argument is that the pros outweigh the cons. The pro's being that the internet has improved communication has improved our education and has helped our moral standards improved. I would, However, Be delighted to hear the pro's side and I look forward to read your response.", "qid": 34, "docid": "c4ee4551-2019-04-18T11:09:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7490499019622803}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: You stated: \"social networking websites are meant to increase communication\" Although the original intentions may have been good, now they no longer increase communication in a good way. You stated: \"these sites increase creativity\" However, not all of the sites give you the power to use the layout of your choice. You stated: \"It could be private or public\" Although a person's profile may be private, whatever you put on the internet will stay there forever. That has a negative impact on the United States because it undermines the accomplishments that people have made over the years. For instance, say a kid was trying to run for president. At that time, all of his/her confidential files become a \"free for all. \" If he/she had made any sort of comment while on a social networking website, that could jeopardize their political career. You stated: \"Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends. \" However, teenagers, the main users of social networking web sites, are not at the age where they can truly determine who their friends are. Honestly, the rebuttals that you presented make no sense. Because I stated \"So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. \" You stated \"Ok to start off I do believe that the amount of deaths isn't even close to the amount of deaths that we face because of other alternatives\" The fact that people die other ways, does not mean that many lives have been lost at the hand of social networking websites. Because I stated \"Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children\" You stated \"mothers have had to bury their children, but mothers have other reasons to bury their children. \" Yes, that may be true, but that does no change the fact that children have died because of social networking sites. You stated \"Without this form of communication we are entering the future. These websites are the future so why run from the future? \" But, not only are we not running from the future, as you so eloquently stated, but we have already seen that success comes without social networking websites, and the death that comes with it, so why bother? You stated \"Also many children and teenagers are able to express themselves clearly so why is it that you take away their only form of expressing themselves? \" But, teenagers have so many other ways of expressing themselves, email/AIM (which are not social networking websites,) by phone (via text/voice/picture messaging and simply calling. ) So, what was your point again? I stand \"Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a NEGATIVE impact on the United States. \" You have failed to actually argue on the impact that the social networking Web Sites have on the United States.", "qid": 34, "docid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7481478452682495}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: Social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc., is as good as, if not better than, face-to-face interaction and socializing.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7470282912254333}, {"content": "Title: Social media does more harm than good Content: I wouldn't go to the extreme in saying that the world would be a better place if smart phones and social media didn't exist at all. I do agree that there are plenty of benefits to social media; however, I am stating that it is doing society more harm than good. You talk about how newspapers caused a disconnection between people before. But that doesn't mean that social media makes it anymore better. It's the concept that two wrongs don't make it right. You talk about people being extroverted vs introverted. Sure people can have welcoming faces and you can tell a lot how approachable someone is by body language and facial expressions. However, I argue that it is harder to tell if someone is approachable when their face is glued to their phone. When you mention that if you want more social interactions give them the feeling you are willing to engage in conversation, I believe that means that people have to be willing to put down their pieces of technology and engage in the real world. Congratulations with you and your significant other! You two were able to use social media as an aid as a form of communications you were able engage. But often times, social media becomes the only form of communication for a lot of relationships. I argue that these types of relationships are not genuine. It is hard to distinguish whether these relationships that are soley in the social media realm are meaningful. I think it does take the ability to have interactions beyond just social media in order for a relationship to be genuine between two people. I have enjoyed arguing with you and you have brought up some valid points. I think depending on ones point of view that there are unlimited pros and cons for social media. After this debate, I don't think that social media should be removed completely but it should be redefined on how its used. I think because it is making our society more antisocial in the real world and more social in the cyber community, we need to be less engrossed in it. I think we should use it as a tool to encourage more face to face interactions. Your example of how you met your significant other is a great example of it being used as tool. The issue is that our society doesn't use social media for just that and I think that is why social media is doing us more harm than good.", "qid": 34, "docid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7469217777252197}, {"content": "Title: Screens make us feel more isolated than we really are. Content: My opponent has forfeited and therefore not fulfilled his BoP He also doesn't take into account that social networking sites, Such as Facebook, Twitter, Viber, and Skype, as well as DDO, grants us the opportunity to interact with family and friends from all over the world, at any given moment. I hope Pro makes an argument in the third round.", "qid": 34, "docid": "9ec14422-2019-04-18T15:20:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7455565929412842}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good Content: First of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of \"Usernames\", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not \"szack\", nor is mine \"The Chaos Heart\". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this \"problem\" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, \"Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation...\" But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.", "qid": 34, "docid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7455015182495117}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. \"Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum.\" Freakonomics \u2013 New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7453256249427795}, {"content": "Title: Facebook: A Boon For the Society Content: Dear Readers, Today I stand for the topic \"Facebook: A Boon For the Society\". Before to jump to the main body, I would like to make some clarifications: * Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. Reasons for Classifying Facebook as A Boon For The Society: 1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Facebook allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I used the term almost). Facebook provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places. 2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Facebook, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. *** DUE TO SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING MY TIME MANAGEMENT; I END MY ARGUMENT HERE TODAY. BUT I PROMISE TO COME BACK WITH MORE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. *** Sources: http://www.techterms.com...", "qid": 34, "docid": "328e4b62-2019-04-18T16:00:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7452529668807983}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: :D Hope this is going to be fun. ==DEFINITIONS==Well, seeing that the PRO has not defined the topic yet, I will take it into my own hands. I define Social Networking Sites as a website for gregarious humans to find communities and companionship. .. Just to clarify, social networking sites do not include dating websites, such as eharmony. com, match. com, etc, as the websites only support 1 on 1 close relationships, as compared to social which pertains to a gathering or community. I define harmful as causing physical/mental damage, or moral injury, evil, wrong. ==REBUTTALS==Con states \"These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong! \"His argument is based on the premise that children under 14 get on social networking sites. 1) According to Time, Facebook kicks off 20,000 underage users everyday. . http://newsfeed.time.com...2) Most people on social networking sites are adults who are capable of making their own choices as to what to do.3)People are responsible when it comes to who their friends are, and taking it up with the proper people if they are being cyber-bullied on social networks. Nowadays, most schools are open to help children who are being cyber-bullied. ==ARGUMENTS== 1) Large social networking sites are constantly monitored by staff members, and when you take into consideration that there are plenty of dangerous chat rooms and instant messengers filled with suspicious people, isn't it clear that these social networking sites provide more online safety?2) There exists a balance in privacy between Parents and teenagers, and this is critical as teenagers deserve their own privacy and peace of mind from the micromanagement of some parents, while parents still do hold the right to monitor what their children are doing. Take facebook as an example and its many uses. Private Messages aren't available to outside people, while parents can easily monitor their children and their children's friends' walls to keep track and monitor them. This balance is crucially needed in today's world, as more and more teenagers are becoming social.3) Health. The human mind needs social activity. In fact, in schools nowadays, teachers are teaching students about the three parts to health. This includes your physical health, your mental/emotional health, and finally your social health. Human beings need friends; they need people they can depend on and talk to in times of need. Facebooks helps people socialize and adds an important \"happiness\" factor in their lives. 4)Social networking sites allows friends and family to keep in touch more easily, as they can instantaneously share information about their lives, such as events, photos, videos and more, with their friends and family, even if they are far away. Forgetting your old friends or distant family members is less likely to happen when you see their faces and updates every day on websites such as facebook.5)Self-Determination Groups. Social networking sites have many benefits. One of them allows people with similar beliefs to connect with one another and stand up for a cause. Take Egypt for an example. Recently, when Egypt fought for democracy, self-determination groups used communication methods such as Facebook. With this I bring my arguments to a close. I shall expand and make new ones, if necessary, in future rounds. =====================================================I await Pro's response. :)!", "qid": 34, "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00008-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.744502067565918}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**", "qid": 34, "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7428860664367676}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: Yes it allows us to interact with people but also exposes our personal information. For example, the con side just mentioned that we can share our photos with each other but those photos are seen by other people also and some of those people are criminals or you can just can say bad guys who can use to that photo for a bad purpose. Social networking reveals our personal information.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7424798011779785}, {"content": "Title: Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old Content: As a 15 year old, I have grown up in a world where social networks were not only invented, but improved upon. Through the many different kinds of social networks, whether they be picture sharing, status updaters, or whatever else, I'm able to keep in contact with people that I don't see everyday, or even at all. For example, Omegle, a website that allows strangers to converse with each other, gives me the opportunity to meet people from around the world. And if we have a good conversation, apps like Kik or Yahoo Messenger allow me to talk to that person at a later time, which can easily lead to a lifelong friendship. Also, on apps/websites like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, I can see what family members who live out of town, state, or even country are up to, and comment on these postings. Plus, I can see what my favorite celebrities or even the government are doing as well. And to finish this round, I'll present an educational point. With most of these apps, the abilities to discuss things from school, work on projects, or compare answers on homework from long distances is present. So while there may be cons, as you already stated and others, the overall pros weigh them out. Especially considering the fact that not all younger teens are the same.", "qid": 34, "docid": "573b89ce-2019-04-18T17:08:54Z-00003-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7418941259384155}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.", "qid": 34, "docid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7401875257492065}, {"content": "Title: Social media does more harm than good Content: I would like to debate that social media does not do more harm than good. Thank you and good luck", "qid": 34, "docid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7396431565284729}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking sites are a boon Content: \"Powerful new technologies provide great benefits, but they also change the way we live, and not always in ways that everyone likes. An example is the spread of air conditioning, which makes us more comfortable, but those who grew up before its invention speak fondly of a time when everyone sat on the front porch and talked to their neighbours rather than going indoors to stay cool and watch TV. The declining cost of information processing and communication represents a powerful new technology, with social networking as the most recent service to be provided at modest cost. Through the course of our surfing on the social web. I would first log you in with a thought, and then straight away hit the notifications and give justify my argument's and towards the end I bang up my words with an error 404 i.e. make this august house believe my points and over shadow my complacent virtual socialites on the other side. But will social networking sites really improve the quality of people's lives? The minuses are that all of this sharing can be dangerous, through gossip and potential abuse of the services. Examples include reported suicides linked to malicious gossip circulated on a social network. Some people become addicted to life on the computer screen, and withdraw from personal contact \u2014 it's a long way from people sitting on the porch talking to friends and neighbours... Tabbing onto notifications-- 1st notification - Social networking sites are a major distraction from learning. Psychologist Kirschnera told the Daily Mail that his team studied 219 U.S. university students between ages 19 and 54, and found that Facebook users had a typical grade point average of 3.06, while \"non-users\" had an average GPA of 3.82. The psychologist said the study wasn't about whether Facebook's good or bad, but goes more to the stereotype that younger people are fluid multi-taskers 2nd notification Social networking sites have given rise to online frauds and to paedophilia - children are unknowingly exposed to voyeuristic vultures. As I mentioned earlier, we have become addicts and are just blindly following the herd. There is no more confidentiality or respect for human idiosyncrasies. Playing online games, sharing your private information and photos has become the norm. If you do not participate you are looked as a pariah or an outcast. 3rd notification It is unethical for social network sites to use personal information to enable advertisers to better target you as a consumer. Personal information should not be used for commercial purposes. It is too invasive, and can cause emotional damage. For example, what if your profile indicates that your girlfriend just broke up with you, for example. An ad agency is allowed to obtain this information and use it to send you an advertisement on break-ups. This could do emotional damage. Now moving to facts and figures\u2026 The world is seriously obsessed with social networking.. As of 2011 there are 5, 00,000,000 users on Facebook i.e. 1 out of every 13th person in the world. 48/. Of the total users use Facebook right after they wake up! 57/. Of the people talk more online than in their real life. Approximately 2,000 billion notifications all over the social networking world. Now, I let you to ponder ladies and gentlemen will this not bring about disbalance in political, social, economical, so on and so forth aspects of a person's life and the world.", "qid": 34, "docid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7371855974197388}, {"content": "Title: Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old Content: Your argument does make sense to a point, but the thing you have to consider is the fact that in some cases, like if people in \"real-life\" don't have much in common with you, or you are in a place where people aren't worth talking to, these networks are the ONLY things giving people social lives. For example, if you play an online game, you can chat with people and make friends. Or, as I mentioned earlier, which is contradictory to the face-to-face point, things like Omegle or Skype give the opportunity to develop relationships as well. And I know for sure that the public school system does require some sort of speech/working together activities. Also, the child's lack of social development cannot be completely attributed to social networks. First off, there are many people in the world that have the social skills of a hermit, and have no social network influence in their lives. In my opinion, social skills in a child are determined by how much a parent bothers to pay attention to their child, and help them develop these skills. I will however admit this. In excessive amounts without moderation, social networking can be bad, but this is for any age. One of the main reasons I decided to join this debate is that I've used social networks since 11, and while I didn't use them much, I'm still not a social recluse. And I would like to agree with you, sort of. Social networks should be banned for children, but not for 16 and younger. Most people by at least 13 are developed enough socially that social networking shouldn't have an effect. Plus, most social networking sites, specifically Facebook for this example, don't allow users to join unless they are 13 or older, as I said. Yes, one can simply lie about their age, I did and I know many others have, but there is no way for these organizations to not only legitimately verify all of these accounts, but to do the job of their parents in stopping them. To finish off, again with Facebook, it's not like they aren't trying either. I know people personally that had their accounts deleted after it was discovered they were underage. But what I'm trying to say is, 16 is too old of a limit, and not all people are the same. It is up to the parents of these children to stop them, not some government ban.", "qid": 34, "docid": "573b89ce-2019-04-18T17:08:54Z-00001-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7364505529403687}, {"content": "Title: Technology is making us anti social Content: I disagree with that statement. Facebook is a huge social media site with tens of millions of users solely for the purpose of being social. Each innovation seems to make our world more and more connected socially. We might converse in different ways through different mediums, but we are more social now than ever. Text messaging, emails, cellphones, live streams, you name it. 50 years ago? Not a chance.", "qid": 34, "docid": "cb8d8013-2019-04-18T16:21:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7359803915023804}, {"content": "Title: Parental control on sns or other social networking should be banned Content: Thank you for the argument. I really appreciate it. I agree that children might not know well about safety. However, these days, social networking is the most powerful and comfortable way for the children to communicate with other friends. For some children, small communication with other friends might give encouragement and happiness beyond the academies and enormous homeworks. Also, social networking does not only give disadvantage to the children. Social networking allows the children to know better about what is happening in the society. I think that children also has their own privacy. Also, parental control may make the relationship between the parents and children to get worse. Many fights are happening between families about the parental control. Additionally, the children do not like their sns to be controlled by parents. They want their privacy to be kept, and the thoughts of the children should be also respected, not only the adults' and parents'.", "qid": 34, "docid": "5c2b6729-2019-04-18T16:41:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7351888418197632}, {"content": "Title: More the means of communication the less we communicate Content: First of all, what my opponent has said clearly highlights his misinterpretation of the topic and also of my argument. I have not started this debate just for the sake of criticizing such technological advancements that help us to connect with each other. My stand is very clear. I totally agree that social technology has broken all the geographical barriers enabling us to interact with more people than even before. But like any revolutionary concept, it has also spawned a set of new barriers and threats. Is the focus now on communication quantity versus quality? Superficiality versus authenticity? In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social which we need to understand. The fact is that we have become so engrossed in social media that we are left with very little time to spend with our parents and friends. Moreover if a person primarily communicates 'virtually', he is never able to build meaningful friendships or relations. We are no longer the deep thinkers we used to be. Who has the time to think? My rival gave the example of us debating right now to prove his point. But I would like to ask him a question. Don't you think that this debate would have been far more successful and worthy if going on face to face? I know its quite hypothetical since you hardly know me......but, if I would have been debating with any of my known friends, then wouldn't it have been much better if we directly conversed sitting opposite to each other? I am certainly not blaming the technology for all this. What we need to understand is that technology is meant to be our slave, we are not meant to be enslaved by technology. Friends, I seriously doubt whether we are still able to talk to someone that skillfully as earlier with full expression of our non verbal-cues!!!", "qid": 34, "docid": "3fa7978a-2019-04-18T16:43:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7347318530082703}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: Thank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is \"Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society.\" However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that \"I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression\" as well as that \"For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change.\" However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that \"Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\" However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7346258163452148}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: \u3053\u3093\u306b\u3061\u306f\u3001 \u3068\u8b70\u8ad6\u3078\u3088\u3046\u3053\u305d\u3002 Hello, and welcome to the debate, Social Networking sites are harmful. Yes they are harmful. I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdsum\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future.", "qid": 34, "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7337648868560791}, {"content": "Title: Social Media is anti-social Content: Thanks for making this debate! I have been looking to do one for a while now. Good luck. Now to begin. The vast contribution of social media to society, in helping people socialize, vast outweighs the losses, of peoples lives being ruined. Social media has absolutely revolutionized communication, and allows people to socialize from distances where they would be unable able to socialize otherwise. The people whose lives have been ruined by \"social media\" are merely using this as a source to blame another entity other than themselves. Naturally, abuse of any product will lead to negative effects. People don't lose friendships because of social media, they lose friendships because of bad decisions they made. To blame social media for your problems experienced online, is attempting to avert blame from yourself. Its like saying the fruit industry is making people fat. Of course with abuse of the product, this is an inevitability, but with proper use, and good decisions, social media is truly one of mans greatest and most social inventions. To reiterate, social media is social in the fact that it allows people to communicate from long distances in a very convenient manner. It helps you share what you want other people to see about you. It helps people obtain a social experience by making communication a lot easier. If you think social media is anti social, maybe you are the true anti social.", "qid": 34, "docid": "5e021afe-2019-04-18T11:56:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7333964705467224}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Sites are Harmful Content: The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r\u00ef\u00bf\u00bdsum\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )", "qid": 34, "docid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.733048141002655}, {"content": "Title: social networks bring out the monster in us Content: there many things happen because of social networks", "qid": 34, "docid": "8ccfcb07-2019-04-18T16:13:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7330056428909302}, {"content": "Title: social networking sites should be banned..!!! Content: Arguments for Social Networking Sites:1. Increased communications with distant relatives.2. Increased communications with friends.3. Entertainment (because who, at some point on Facebook or Myspace, hasn't tried Mafia or Farmville or something?)Refutations to my opponent's sole argument:\"Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.\"1. False. We bring privacy into the public domain. Social networking sites are inherently public, and posting private information is something only we can do. If you don't want your personal information out there, don't put it out there.2. Even if social networking sites are responsible for privacy becoming public, my opponent never establishes why this is a bad thing, but a) merely asserts that it happens, and b) merely asserts that it's a bad thing and cause for banning. He has proved neither.Resolution = Negated", "qid": 34, "docid": "629412b6-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.732475996017456}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Content: I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for challenging me to debate this interesting topic and I duly accept his parameters for the arguments. As my opponent pointed out, there are some limited benefits that may accrue from social networking sites and I certainly agree that under the supervision of a teacher, forums can be set up within which students from geographically remote locations can exchange ideas and knowledge. What is more difficult to accept is that employees accessing these sites for personal use during working hours makes them more efficient. Would an employee who spends their time chatting on the phone to their friends instead of getting on with their work be considered more efficient? I doubt it. That is why many companies limit the use of both phones and computers for non-business reasons. http://www.net-security.org... http://mashable.com... I must also disagree with the Businessweek journalist's assertion that these sites help shy people to increase their self-confidence within a safe environment. The best way to increase one's self-confidence is to go out and actually meet real people and talk to them in person. In addition, getting out and about is much healthier than sitting indoors in front of a computer screen! As regards security, social networking sites are much favoured by paedophiles who use them to \"groom\" their victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Shall we consider Debate.org, for example? It can act as a quasi-social networking site through its forums. This site is, I hope, safe from sexual predators as it is very well moderated in that respect. However, there are no age restrictions and many members are younger than 18 years old \u2013 although I'm not. As it happens, on my user profile I quote my real name and age and display a recent photograph of myself, but there is nothing to stop a sex pest from setting up an account and lying about his age and name and using a photograph of someone much younger than himself in the hope of luring one of the younger and more impressionable members into a face-to-face meeting. It would be hard to do on this site, but Facebook and MySpace provide ample opportunities for computer-literate kiddy-fiddlers. So, although these sites do have some positives and access to them certainly shouldn't be restricted (except, perhaps, in some workplaces) on balance, social networking sites do not have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7323242425918579}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Greetings pro, and I'm glad I have the ability to debate this with you. I'll start off with first evaluating your main point in this rebuttal, then I'll be going over my own points that allow me to negate the resolution. My opponents first (and somewhat only point) is that social networking sites *can* help you gain confidence. Now as this may be true, and as social networking sites have the ability to boost the self esteem of some, this by no means supports the idea that ALL are benefited by these sites. Not only is this true, but it also must be taken into account that this statement is not always true. When looking at social media today, we see instagram filters used to hide what people really look like, overused editing, and teenagers using \"likes\" as a form of acceptance. Not only does this lead to a lack of self-confidence, but it only makes people even more insecure, yet again proving social media is not at all beneficial, but rather detrimental. Now, I'll be moving on to my case, we're I'll be highlighting my own contentions. C1: Social Networking sites create a false reality and sense of importance. Since the beginning of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, users of these social networks have too often posted only their most exciting moments, only post pictures when they are with their friends, etc. This flawed reality we too often create not only hurts these users (by using their amounts of likes to gauge their level of acceptance), but it also hurts the viewers of these posts. When average Joes with ordinary lives (like myself) see posts of only the utmost excitement (out of country, at parties, etc.) it creates the average to believe that their lives are not average, but rather much less than average, because they are not able to post exciting memories and moments on Instagram, like their peers. Going further, according to Cornell University's Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. (1) C2: SN leads to decreases productivity Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Facebook shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. (1) Further, Peter Cohan followed up on the study in a February 2012 piece for Forbes.com, using statistics on Facebook's growth during the interim to calculate that Facebook use within the workplace could lead to a 9.4 percent productivity decrease in companies throughout the U.S., a drop that could collectively cost businesses as much as 1.4 trillion dollars. (2) With social networking leading to a lack of productivity, we see that social networking simply cannot be beneficial in a workplace, and also harms the economy. C3: Cyberbullying Ever heard of the #JadaCounterPose trend that flooded social media? Recent events that have taken place, involving 16-year-old Houston teen Jada, reemphasizes the need for social growth. After being drugged, undressed and raped, while attending a friend's party, Jada dealt with onlookers taunting her with photos, hateful words, and chatter. (3) People have continuously, not sympathized, but rather made fun of Jada, posting mimic photos of her \"counter pose,\" etc. This is what social media spurs. Although extreme, it can't be ignored that lives are ruined every day simply because of the negligence users have on social media. In conclusion, although there may be benefits to social media, the detriments that come along with these sites outweigh the benefits immensely. I look forward to hearing your response. (1) http://smallbusiness.chron.com... (2) http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 34, "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7320088148117065}, {"content": "Title: is social networking sites really a boon or bane Content: Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of \"social gaming\". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with \"Killing in the Name\", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4a484e4e-2019-04-18T18:10:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7311582565307617}, {"content": "Title: Social networks are beneficial to our society! Content: To start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the \"hit-maker\" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber\"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a \"contagion\" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think \"social media helps solve crimes more quickly. \" [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, \"Never Seconds,\" which exposed the state of her school\"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of \"Friends of Never Seconds\" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to \"lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. \" [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported \"at least one measurable business benefit. \" For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]\"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands,\" www. briansolis. com [3]\"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives,\" www. commonsensemedia. org [5]\"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool,\" Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]\"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media,\" www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, \"Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking,\" www. nsba. org [8] \"The Case for Social Media in Schools,\" www. mashable. com [10] \"The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy,\" www. jobvite. com [12]\"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey,\" www. jobvite. com [13]\"Generations 2010,\" www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, \"Move Over Youngsters, Grandma\"s on Facebook,\" www. newswise. com [16] \"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist,\" Forbes Asia Magazine [17]\"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts,\" www. nea. gov [18] \"How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education,\" Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] \"Skype and the Embedded Librarian,\" Library Technology Reports [21]\"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users,\" www. blog. edmodo. com [22]\"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites,\" USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]\"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing,\" www. lexisnexis. com [24]\"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force,\" www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]\"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation,\" www. usatodayeducate. com [28]\"How Social Media Saved the Economy,\" www. technorati. com [30]\"Twitter,\" www. topics. nytimes. com [31]\"Facebook, Public Education and Equity\"www. dm [33]\"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research\" www. guardian. co. uk [34]\"Social Media and Voting\",www. pewinternet. org [35]\"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media,\" s1. intuitstatic. com", "qid": 34, "docid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7303867340087891}, {"content": "Title: users under 18 using Facebook Content: Thank you for instigating this interesting topic. I\u2019d like to point out as a clarification for the readers that the issue at hand is whether users under 18 should be allowed to use Facebook. My opponent will be negating the resolution and I will be affirming it. For this debate, I will be arguing that Social Networking Sites like Facebook have enormous benefits and contributions to society and modern communication. I\u2019m under 18 who is studying in Europe away from my parents and I have Facebook. Why? Because it\u2019s mainly to connect and communicate to my family and friends overseas. Not only that, I use it for reference and educational purposes. I\u2019m subscribed to news and political pages to get some information about current events. With FB, school life is also easier since I can communicate with my classmates to get updated with assignments and exams (what to review, etc). Also, FB has apps and games for entertainment and leisure time to kill boredom. It very much gives a positive impact on life. FB also helps people overcome social anxiety and be healthier by expressing themselves online. Anything\u2019s possible in FB, people can express their opinions, ideas and interests here which makes it very popular. Next, I\u2019d like to point out that billions of people are connected online. Banning underaged kids from Facebook is not only unnecessary, but it\u2019s also unfeasible. Basically, all my opponent argued in R1 are shallow hypotheticals and minor boo-boos of Facebook inhabited by the young generation. Facebook is for kids 13+. By this age, most kids know what they are doing. So, we shouldn\u2019t ban underaged kids just because they troll around, and if cyber bullying occurs, we need to discipline the parties that are involved and responsible. We need to make anti-bullying laws stricter. Banning FB from minors won\u2019t do any good since it will seriously harm the majority. We must consider the benefits of this popular Social Networking Site because it superiorly overrides its disadvantages. I will let my opponent elaborate her contentions further next round then I will explain my premises more accurately after. Thanks and good luck!", "qid": 34, "docid": "db7b77a1-2019-04-18T18:21:04Z-00007-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7301265001296997}, {"content": "Title: social media is a boon Content: I believe, that in some ways, social media is a boon. Whilst I see your point that social media does a lot of harm, I also believe that it does a little more good. These are the 4 main points for my argument: 1. Social media helps people stay interconnected with one another and allows them to talk to each other from long distances away. 2. Social media, for educational purposes, can allow students to chat with each other and make forums to help each other with their educational pursuits. 3. Social media is a good way for people to post what is on their mind and just, vent. When people are having a bad day, nowadays, they take to social media to share it with somebody. People were made to talk to others about their feelings, not to hold them in. 4. People are social beings, and social media gives people another way to socialise with one another in an easy and relatively reliable way.", "qid": 34, "docid": "e8e5f96c-2019-04-18T17:06:00Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7299091815948486}, {"content": "Title: Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture Content: It's fair to say that Social Media does have a few things bad here and there, but it's not the worst thing in the world. In my opinion, it has to be used in a good way. If humans learn to not abuse the system, it will be fair to use. Social Media is somewhere were people have a bad time, they can go anonymous and enjoy themselves. If you have a bad day at school, spending some time online will give you back your confidence and refill your energy- just like you how you refill a car. It's also something you can use when there's nothing else to do. Heck- I'm debating right now because the next best thing I can do is stare the wall of my room. Yes, interacting face-to-face is a better way to make friends, but don't you already talk to everyone every day at school? I can see from your view, that it's been abused by humans for generations, but there will be something a moral lesson taught one day that Social Media isn't everything in life.", "qid": 34, "docid": "38dbedb8-2019-04-18T13:49:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.729795515537262}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: Good Morning, and thank you for welcoming me. To begin the second round of our debate, I will first demolish my opponents case, then move on to my own. I- My opponents first conjunction what that Social Networking Web Sites are beneficial to Americans. I do agree with my opponent that people need people. But long before we had social networking sites we had other ways of communicating. We picked up a phone, or wrote an actual letter. Have Americans become so lazy that they can't do this? II- The second conjunction of my opponent's case was that social networking is a balance between child's privacy and the parents right to know. Every parent wants to think that their child is smart enough to know what to post and do online. Unless you plan to sit with your child every time they use the computer, and watch their every move you can't insure they are doing exactly what they say. Another fact is that, if you don't allow your child access to the internet at home, they may be getting online and using social networking sites at friends' houses. --As my opponent brought up, a child can receive private messages online from anyone. On facebook and/or myspace, you don't have to have a person as a friend to send them messages. III- My opponents last point is that social networking provide a degree of online safety. As many people seem to forget, social networking sites allow you to search any name, place, or group. It is a lot easier for you to search a random name, or look for a person in your area on a social networking site because they give you results. As for IM, you have to know a persons complete address to add them. You can't just type in a name and get their email. So social networking sites allow easier access to persons information. While we are talking about gaining persons information, social networking sites have many categories that you fill out, along with name (first and last), age, and where you live/hometown. This allows shady characters to find you, and follow you. And they could potentially steal information about you. Now to move on to my case. I- Social Networking Sites effect children's education. With more and more social networking sites being created, children are using them more. When children get home one of the first things they do is log into their \"space\" or profile and begin chatting. This is effecting their school work, because they aren't spending enough time or giving their all. Along with not spending enough time on work, students are spending time at night online and not sleeping. Without the sleep required by their body, they have a harder time paying attention in class or do not complete work. II- Social networking sites allow sexual predators easy access to persons' information. With over 250,000,000 users on Facebook a vast majority of them are sexual predators. In the year 2007 Facebook deleted 90,000 sexual predator accounts. Those being the ones reported to traced. And since May they have deleted 5,585 accounts. These sexual predators use social networking sites because they are easy access and you can lie easily on them. You don't have to put your actual name, age, or picture. This makes it very convenient to gain trust from somebody and use it against them. III- Social networking sites can harm your computer and cost money. Both Myspace and Facebook (along with others) have disclaimers telling you to beware or odd friend requests and about opening messages from people you don't know. They can harm viruses, and other computer glitches. Unmarked emails can hold trackers that allow the sender to hack your account, take information, or use the information against you. Trackers may also allow that person to follow what you do online, like visit the website of your bank. Which gives them more access to your accounts and passwords. IX- Social networking takes massive amounts of time. Like any hobby, social networking sites need to be maintained. Constantly updating your account, checking to see which friends are online, and seeing what everybody is doing takes a great amount of time. This can cut into time used to do something more productive or beneficial, such as exercising or reading a new book. We need to face the fact that Americans (some) are along the most obese persons. Although this is important (maintaining health), it is not one of my mom important points. X- Social Networking sites allow simple information to be used against you. As talked about on HLN this morning, information you post can be used against you. Simply saying that you are going on vacation can allow others to take advantage of the situation and break into your house. Not only are you losing your possessions, but you will lose money replacing them. I would like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to reply, I've been working on my boxes for extemp. Good Luck Aff.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7290356755256653}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are harmful. Content: Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. \"Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.", "qid": 34, "docid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00005-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7289155721664429}, {"content": "Title: Facebook is a good way to socialize Content: I will start off by defining some words for this debate. Facebook:http://dictionary.reference.com... Socialize:http://dictionary.reference.com... Good:http://www.hyperdictionary.com... I would say myself that Facebook is an acceptaple source for being social. I am very social while I use Facebook. I also know a lot of other people that say it's great for being social. That ends my first writing.", "qid": 34, "docid": "91271c01-2019-04-18T18:41:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7283837795257568}, {"content": "Title: Are Social Medias taking over humans. Content: Are social medias like Facebook and etc. taking over the lives of humans?", "qid": 34, "docid": "a394d5db-2019-04-18T16:20:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.728309690952301}, {"content": "Title: Social media does more harm than good Content: Thank you! In conclusion social media does NOT do more harm than good, here's why: Reason #1 it helps prompte young and small businesses. Reason #2 social media allows people to connect to people from far away and also start new relationships. Reason #3 social media can be a stepping stone to advance ones career and find like-minded individuals. Social media doesn't spread misinformation anymore than misinformation was spread 100 years ago. People who are not curious and open minded will believe what they want regardless of what they are told. If someone says something, or you see someone post information you believe is wrong then look it up. You'll get better at researching over time and help further prevent the spread of misinformation. Just don't be afraid to make mistakes! People are also just as antisocial today as they were in the past. People that are antisocial are that way because it's a part of who they are, nothing wrong with it. Social media has not changed these people or harmed them. Emily, would you accept a friend request if I sent one?", "qid": 34, "docid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7273838520050049}, {"content": "Title: Social networking has a negative impact on communities. Content: Greetings to all! First of all, my english sucks. Second, my opinion on social networks is not that strong, so I am not seeking someone who will be cross firing super intense and long arguments with me. (I might want to do that another day but don't have the time now ) ------------------------------------------ \\ (^o^) /------------------------------------------------------ Taking the comment by What50, I feel there are more positive impact than the negatives. The negatives can be simply avoided with a good mentality. Cyberbullying in my opinion is not as hurtful as someone you know cursing you out in front of your face or giving you a punch. I would not really care about someone I don't really know who is trying to make me feel bad. If I don't feel depressed, I would think there will be a need for suicide coming from social networking. And obesity from social networks? (Q?Q) Sure, being healthy is a style of living... Personally, social networks serve as a tool I use to make life easier. It can be very helpful in life in many situations. First of all, social networks provides a platform for communication. Communication is what makes us a community, and it is important to communicate with each other when situation does not allow a face to face talk. Without these communication, huge amounts of misconception and confusion could happen. Sometimes you run into a problem that needs other people's help or explanation, and a social network can make this happen much more efficient. don't tell me texting and calling is an option......i consider it as a social media that uses service instead of wifi. Also, have anyone ever had wifi in your house but no service? ever heard of a service company called ITalkBB? (ToT#) Well, the social network surely gives more options and convenience for communication, but it also helps when you want to find out what is happening. Finding out about some news today can be really convenient via a social network. Knowing whats going on or organizing an party with your friends or an community service event with others who have similar ideas are much more easier and efficient. Group communication are made much easier nowadays. There are also lots of fun stuff people can do with social networks: like what we are doing now on debate.org. (you can always have a meme battle with your friend whenever you want) I am not going to go into detail of the economic effect of social networking, which is huge. Social networking emerged because there was an excess capital (including human labor) out there in the market, and an increasing demand for either better communication or better advertisement. This industry emerged as a huge sector of our economy today to fit our needs, and taking it away......will cause problems. Social networking is not evil, so we should all accept this naturally occurring industry as part of our lives, and learn how to use it to improve out own utility (aka happiness). <(^_^)>", "qid": 34, "docid": "f0c04fae-2019-04-18T11:22:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7273162603378296}, {"content": "Title: The internet is a waste of time Content: Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro's sole contention is pretty much that because people spend time on social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, that people as a whole are unproductive with their time, and that the internet in general promotes unproductive things. I negate. First and foremost, not everyone uses the internet for social networking purposes. Ergo those who do not use social networking sites cannot fall under the generalization of Pro's argument. Second, studies show that workers are actually more productive when they are able to occasionally do non-work stuff online, say researchers at the University of Melbourne [1]. This pretty much negates Pro's entire argument. Quite obviously the internet is praised specifically because it has greatly increased the speed of innumerable things. For instance, we can now send mail across the globe faster than ever, which has vastly increased the productivity in the workplace as well as on a social and cultural level. Moreover learning is now faster, easier and more widely accessible (education and educational things) because of the internet and the information that can be accessed quickly and with precision thanks to tools like online encyclopedias, books and search engines. Another one of the internet's productive uses is being used as a platform to create a career in general, such as owning an online business, creating websites, online stock trading, blogging and other forms of journalism, going into web graphic design and programming, etc. The military is yet another huge force that uses the internet (in fact military intelligence designed the internet) for productive purposes. People communicate via the internet and use cyber space to conduct business from all kinds of places: home, the office, during travel, etc. One can use the internet to plan and coordinate various aspects of their life including their social agenda, work schedule, etc. It can also be used as a tool to keep in touch with people, reconnect with people, network, broadcast, advertise and discuss. In conclusion, corporations, politicians, business owners, students, teachers, artists, etc. all use the internet as a platform to further their work and career; some even make careers based on the internet alone. While it's true that some people like to \"waste time\" browsing social networking sites, as John Lennon would say \"Any time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted.\" A few people's uses of the internet cannot negate the productivity and efficiency the internet gives us as a whole. The internet helps connect the world and is used as a medium that greatly increases productivity. Thank you. [1] http://arstechnica.com...", "qid": 34, "docid": "5f25194b-2019-04-18T19:05:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7272792458534241}, {"content": "Title: Social media does more harm than good Content: I believe that social media has created a more superficial way to keep us all connected. Sure we keep in touch with old friends, but it is very limited. It's often times just scrolling through pointless news feeds. It becomes such an addiction that it distracts us from real life. It causes us to not pay attention to the real life interactions around us. I'd also like to argue that it causes an increase of false information being spread and it can also increase cyber bullying.", "qid": 34, "docid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.726556658744812}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking Content: OVERVIEW I finally got a new computer, and so this is my first debate in a while. I thank Pro for making such an interesting debate, and I hope he will not forfeit in any part. As Con I shall be proving that social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc is worse than face-to-face interaction and socializing. I do not know how Pro wants the layout to be\u2014but I am assuming that he wants me to first accept it and not provide any arguments. DEFINTIONS Because of the fact that Pro did not provide any definitions I shall be the one in which hands out the definitions. As defined on www.dictionary.com Social Networking: the use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... Better: Of superior quality, or excellence http://dictionary.reference.com... Good: Morally excellent http://dictionary.reference.com... Worse: More unfavorable http://dictionary.reference.com... Interaction: Reciprocal action http://dictionary.reference.com... Socializing: Make fit for life in companionship with others. http://dictionary.reference.com... Good Luck, Pro", "qid": 34, "docid": "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7265387773513794}, {"content": "Title: All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Content: Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7265310883522034}, {"content": "Title: All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Content: You seem confused. The debate is about whether everyone should use social media in his/her life, NOT whether social media can be very helpful or not. To conclude: I still believe Social Media is not suited for everyone live style , thus not everyone should join them. I hope I have convinced you and the jury. Thanks for the debate and let us meet for a new one in the future.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7265119552612305}, {"content": "Title: People are too dependent on social media Content: Thank for agreeing with my arguments. People can say that social media is just a tool. What if they misuse it and create a chaos around them or their society? Can you imagine a scenario where social media being a huge impact on our society and makes people to rely on them? With the point that we created a fake relationship online, that because people are so obsessed with it, thinking it will help them. For my arguments, I would like to point out few points. In respect of social media, we're responsible to make a decision and to decide what is right and what is wrong. People these days use social media to have fun and have that imagination where they become famous with a thousand likes or even more. So with those amount of likes on their profile, they become more dependent on those platform.", "qid": 34, "docid": "55c96689-2019-04-18T12:53:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.726066529750824}, {"content": "Title: Social networking is good for students Content: Social networking is good for students because it helps kids do better in school. Half of all \"students use social networking to discuss homework assignments\" (National School Board Association). According to Georgia Middle School in Portland, Oregon, \"grades went up by 50% after students joined a social networking site\" (Kessler). 59% of students talk about educational topics online (National School Board Association). Because social media exists, students are \"learning practical skills that are necessary for success in today\"s wired world,\" (Huffington). Some people may think social media users have lower grades however, that is only shown as accurate if they are heavy users. Responsible users increase their awareness of news and important events. And as much as it helps in school, it also can help personal relationships. Social networking is good for students because it improves relationships and help students make new friends. Research shows that 70% of adults use social networking to stay connected to friends and family (Solis). Social media can help students \"make friends by allowing them to gain familiarity with others and build friendships online\" (Huffington). According to a study in 2011, a little less than half of the average Facebook users\" friends consist of friends from high school or college (Hampton). Even though some people think that they can lose friends because of social media, \"half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can\"t see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%)\" (Common Sense Media). More people use social media sites to stay in contact with friends. It is apparent that social media is beneficial in school and in personal relationships. But there are even other benefits for society. Social media is important because it created a socialistic change. Never before have people been connected in this way. It has caused all ages of people to want to get engaged in the medium. To this day, students are becoming experienced with technology \"developing their creative ability, appreciating new and different perspectives and enhancing their communication skills\" (Huffington). Because there are so many social media users, people have had to re-learn how to communicate with each other. However, some people think social networking is \"ruining the world.\" People believe that everyone spends less time in face-to-face conversations when there are social media sites where people can interact. However, there are also sites where people can meet new people or reconnect with people. Certainly there are other reasons why people think social media is ruining the world such as cyberbullying and decaying writing skills. Cyberbullying is very serious but if students don\"t put themselves in danger or if they tell a trusted adult what was happening, those issues would be less of a problem. Writing skills have changed dramatically because of some of the communication shortcuts encouraged by social media. Students may write \"u\" instead of actually spelling out the word \"you\" on school papers. But research shows that social media is actually helping the world and economy. People use social media to find jobs. New media such as Linked In show that 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through this site (HR Focus). Social media sites have also been shown to empower women and help them find jobs. That translates to high school students as well, who learn about job openings and opportunities through Linked In and other sites. It provides a new opportunity for students to learn about job openings.", "qid": 34, "docid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7259581089019775}, {"content": "Title: YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc Content: YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc. and if social networking was a part of the curriculum then teachers could teach students how to use these sites in a safe and harmless way. The truth of the matter is more teens use these social networking sites than adults themselves, and if teachers were able to help the students, teach them how to use the sites in appropriate and safe ways, it'll make a difference. A lot of people miss-use social networking sites in bad ways, either discrimination, or degrading, so if teachers were able to teach and protect their students from these things by teaching it to them and adding it in the curriculum, they could change how teens use the internet in a positive way. Also I feel that, teenagers would like to learn more about social sites, and they would like to know how to use it the right way, so if they were taught at school, this would be a positive thing to do. In conclusion, if social networking was added to the curriculum it would be a positive thing to do!", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff33548-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00017-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7250643372535706}, {"content": "Title: The Internet brings more harm than good. Content: I disagree. The Internet brings more good than harm as it has useful information . Internet helps teenagers on their education - homework, research and watching videos. If you have any friends or relatives living on other countries, internet is the best place for you to talk to them. There are a lot of websites that can let you communicate with them for example Twitter and Facebook. In a nutshell, internet is very useful for people living on this planet.", "qid": 34, "docid": "19c2b67b-2019-04-18T15:57:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7249473333358765}, {"content": "Title: An open internet has led to a more unstable and less free society Content: My position is that the current unbridled freedom and anonymity is not the societal good that so many seem to praise and blindly support. If society is unable to self-regulate online behavior the implications are significant. We have seen that over the past 25+ years. Again terrorism and riots are routinely facilitated through social media (i.e., an open internet). Bad actors routinely use the freedom of the open internet to disrupt, attack, and promulgate their hate filled ideologies. Since the early 1990's society has coarsened and self-indulgence has been left unchecked. Social mores shifted quickly due to lack of platform restraints rather than an organic shift. The open internet brought this about and furthers the dissolution of shared values, religious or secular. While pornography and bullying existed long before an open internet changed our world, it has negatively influenced culture and altered brain chemistry. Citizens vastly overestimate the ability to use the internet safely and to establish safeguards from destructive pathways. As for smart phones - they are a byproduct of a free, wired, and unregulated world. Without the internet there is a limited market for such a device. Again, when the tech in our world crashes look at how the addicts in our office/school/home react. Crickets. They don't know how to think or exist. This reality is evidence of the destabilizing nature of an open internet. Sure, the internet is here to stay, but my contention remains that an open internet is not truly the public good that it's presented to be.", "qid": 34, "docid": "d9accf18-2019-04-18T11:53:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7248789668083191}, {"content": "Title: Social Networking sites are a boon Content: Social Networking sites are boon as I know from100% people in world 85% of people uses social networking sits It may affect to many people . CHILDREN ARE USING MORE THAN ADULT As we know childrens having more interest in this type of work.They are using more social networking account and some are also below 18 years some people talk in bad language also,about sex f they listen this there mind goes to the bad things. It is affected also by skin diseases,hacking,blackmailing etc", "qid": 34, "docid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7247121334075928}, {"content": "Title: free speech in the UK should include social media Content: Digital free speech on social networking sites should not be limited.", "qid": 34, "docid": "94ef89f4-2019-04-15T20:22:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7244790196418762}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites cause more harm than good Content: I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...", "qid": 34, "docid": "3c5fdcf2-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7243800163269043}, {"content": "Title: Social media has more harms than goods Content: The con is now obviously confused. Very confused. He didn't both to read that I said that I am pro for social media in round 1. He is con meaning he is against social media. .. .. Yet he has provided no claims to his arguments, and only gave one liners. I have gave just a few good arguments as to why social media has more good than bads, and is overall a good thing as long as it's not over abused. So, extend everything I said the other rounds and then some.", "qid": 34, "docid": "e8b687aa-2019-04-18T14:02:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7240632176399231}, {"content": "Title: Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today Content: The Pro was not able to adequately provide strength to her argument that Social Media has a Bad Impact in our lives Today. The sources the Pro cited also provided habits to curb the impact social media could negatively have. The Pro also completely ignored any argument or rebuttal of substance I presented. When you can't connect the direct causality to the impact I am not sure what more of an argument I can make on the subject. I will conclude with my opening statement because it still applies and was not refuted:Social media is not a cause for abbreviated terminology, the attention span of teens, and how people communicate effectively. Social media has enriched our lives, connected us on a level unlike society has ever been in past generations, and through the wide-spread use of the internet has taught so many aspects of what many once considered unattainable due to a worldwide connectivity of facts, opinions, and innovated ideas.", "qid": 34, "docid": "3563205b-2019-04-18T16:23:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7239115834236145}, {"content": "Title: Social Media Content: Although the basic use of social media is imperative to our society, abuse is also apart of the here and now. You say that social media allows us to interact with others we may not be able to see everyday, but it also allows people we don't even know to obtain information about our personal lives. The social networking website, Facebook, is a great way to keep updated on the lives of family and friends who may not be near by, but if you do not set your privacy settings anybody who has a Facebook account can access your information, family photos, your location at the time you posted a status. It is amazing in keeping connected, but is it really worth the risk of letting a stranger know everything about you and your family?", "qid": 34, "docid": "700681d9-2019-04-18T17:01:58Z-00008-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7237001657485962}, {"content": "Title: Should we have more internet censorship Content: But i would say,social media cause more harm than good.There are better communication plattform than social media.We can also communicate through skype,e-mail,what's app,line,text message,face time.It's much better than social media also it provide more security and privacy than social media.", "qid": 34, "docid": "1d28ed22-2019-04-18T14:36:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.723400354385376}, {"content": "Title: Social Media is terrible for young teens even adult's self esteem Content: Greetings Opponent, I believe that Social Media is a good tool for the majority of teens and young adults, and the minimal disadvantages to most media systems are far outweighed by the positives. You can see what friends you haven't seen in a while are up to, socialize with your friends and share things about your life. The platform doesn't show you things that make you sad or insecure, you look them up. And Social Media doesn't make you insecure, it only reveals you already were. As a teen who has had been using social media for years, and took a experimental three month break to see what my life would be like without it, I can tell you it does not cause extra or new insecurity, and such arguments are (in my experience) completely unfounded.", "qid": 34, "docid": "c2d5b14-2019-04-18T11:32:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7233636975288391}, {"content": "Title: Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old Content: I agree that a lot of people in the world have difficulties with communication skills without the presence of social networks in their life. So if that people have problems, there is nothing to say about children. They have just been surfing the Web from the cradle. Children should direct their energy to education because education takes a special and very important place in the 21th century generation lives. Children should spend their leisure time improving weaknesses and developing strengths instead of liking new photos and giving comments. I suppose that life has a negative impact on child's self-confidence, he\\she becomes more dependent on other people's opinions. Moreover, social networking means spending a lot of time in front of computer. Thus, children depending on social networks have health problems. They are just sitting in one position during a long time, therefore there is a chance to get spinal column problems. This period of lifetime is also important because of the formation of young organism and during this time it's necessary to lead not sedentary but active lifestyle. Consequently, if we want to raise socially developed, self-confident, active, healthy generation, we should limit the access of children to social networks.", "qid": 34, "docid": "573b89ce-2019-04-18T17:08:54Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7231114506721497}, {"content": "Title: All people should join at least one kind of social networking site. Content: You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7230117321014404}, {"content": "Title: Is social media cause more harm than good Content: I didn't say there is no positive effect that comes from social media.But there aren't so many good thing that comes from social media and sometimes bad outweighs good.Ofcourse social media make us wider connection but it also cause danger to society,Many criminal has use social media as a searching tool for victims,and the sad fact is the most of the target victims are young people especially kids.Many crime occur in social media.", "qid": 34, "docid": "3840237e-2019-04-18T14:40:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7227584719657898}, {"content": "Title: Do internet social network cause more harm than good Content: Since for some reason this debate only has 1 round, I will use my space here to go against the arguments put forth by pro and then propose a counterargument as to why I believe social networks cause more good than harm. 1:It's stressful. This is frankly an empty statement with no support to it. How is it stressful? I check facebook, instagram, twitter, and all my emails everyday and I don't find any bit of it stressful at all. I wish there was an explanation so that I can refute this claim- but this is purely subjective at this point. Perhaps my opponent finds it stressful. I do not. 2:It reduces productivity. Again subjective. [1] Above is a link that proves: \"Unemployed social networkers spending 3.5 hours a day on social media, versus 3 hours for the employed.\" Those with more free time go on social networks more often. As a university student I can tell you I do not spend time on social media unless I'm finished with studying for an exam or completing assignments. It does not reduce productivity because it is an act performed mainly when you have free time. 3:It costs money -- and it going to start costing much more as sites find new ways to monetize. Unless you're referring to internet cost- facebook and instagram are free. So is twitter and every other social media site that is immensely popular... 4:It has become noise and clutter, not communication. Another empty statement. I use it to communicate with friends and family that are far away since I am out of state at a university. It also lets me keep in touch with people from highschool. I consider that communication, not clutter. 5:It reduces creativity. How? OP did not touch on this at all. 6:It's no longer real. Ignoring the fact that its impossible to have 18000 friends on facebook- it is up to the user to use social media effectively. Because a select few have thousands of friends on facebook that they do not know in real life does not mean that social media is no longer \"real\" (which my opponent did not define). It just means that certain people use it in different ways. Many people I know have less than 300 friends on facebook- they only add people from their school, family, and people they regularly talk to. It doesn't matter if you don't talk to all your fb friends every single day- you can still be notified of how people are doing in their lives through status updates and photo albums. \"Social networks are being used as a weapon against people.\" Well then we should educate teens on how to avoid cyber bullying. [2] The first bullet point says to educate yourself. If you get cyberbullied then its either your fault for not stopping it or your parents fault for not teaching your common sense. Someone sends you a hateful message? Block them. Someone posts something nasty on your fb page? Block them and delete the post. IGNORE HATEFUL MESSAGES. If someone's sending you death threats or doing revenge porn then that's already illegal- cyberbullying has nothing to do with those laws. We teach kids how to deal with physical bullying in person- we should also teach them how to deal with cyberbullying since its very avoidable. The problem does not lie within the social media sites- the problem is a lack of education in the matter. Now I will give some main points as to why I think social media sites are beneficial. 1.) Keeps you connected to friends and families This one should be a given but my opponent seems to disagree with me about this issue. Let me go back to my example. I go to school in MA. My family mostly resides in CT. Many of my friends are either in CT or in other universities across America. I know many people from European countries. Its impossible to text each one of them constantly and its a hassle to try and keep up with everyone's lives when they're so far away- I'm busy enough as a college student! Social media makes it possible to interact with others easily. 2.) Helps you get jobs. My opponent mentioned linkln in his post which I believe was a mistake on his part. Networking is a huge component of getting a job- especially if you're about to become a college graduate, are a graduate student, or you've graduated with some sort of degree. Connecting with people from your university and connecting with recruiters will help you get jobs in the long run- it also allows possible employers to view your page and see what experience and skills you have behind your belt. They can get a full resume just by checking out your online profile. If something sparks their interest- you might just land a job. Its helped many of my friends get paid internships at major software companies. Linkln is extremely useful. 3.) Helps you to voice your opinions freely. Let's take one website in specific for this main point: Twitter. On twitter you can be anonymous. There's no obligation to provide your real name, anyone can view your tweets if you have a public profile, and best of all you can add trending hashtags to make sure your posts get read. Let's say you have a radical political view- you can voice that on twitter without judgement from people you know! Let's say you hate Obama- You can voice that on twitter without judgement from people you know or the public if you're well known! Lots of political activists use twitter to push their agenda and voice their opinions. Without social media, their voices would not be heard. In this very short debate I have proved that my opponent has made a lot of subjective claims without objective evidence and that the benefits to social media outweigh the possible negatives experienced by few. I urge all to vote in favor of the strongest argument! Thanks to my opponent for this debate- I just wish it had more rounds. [1]http://www.marketingcharts.com... [2]http://www.cyberbullying.us...", "qid": 34, "docid": "8fd4114f-2019-04-18T15:15:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7224216461181641}, {"content": "Title: Say NO to online social networks. Content: The main argument I will by replying to, is your one about Specialized networks. You continue to not believe that such a thing can exist. I offered up a few suggestions, and here is one more: http://sermo.com... -- A specialized OSN for Doctors. They talk about the field of medicine, and things of that nature. This is neither spread out nor useless, as it shows that people who's career involves saving lives, can talk to their peers about what they do. This certainly isn't a waste of time. Like I've said before, it's just one of many, and I'd like to reiterate again, that your saying that OSNs are useless, is your opinion. I'd just like to clarify that I know many things on Debate.org are opinions, but, this is where it actually matters, because your statement is that it's a waste of time to pretty much everyone. On the subject of debate.org, while it isn't as vast as Facebook or Myspace, it's closer to an OSN then you think. While we don't have a messaging system, we can still create a pretty deep profile. We can upload a personal picture as well, and can browse other people's profiles. This brings me to another point. People may browse other's profiles just for the heck of it, but it's also could teach them something. At a place like this, someone could learn more about a parties political views, or find a lot of new quotes. At a place like sermo, people can find what methods work for what doctors. When I said \"it comes with the territory\" I was mainly making a figure of speech. A lot of users know about the dangers of putting information out on the web, whether they learn it from the news, from their peers, or just from reading something on their respective networks. I understand that bad things will still happen, but again, as bad as it is to say, it's not a real significant problem. There are millions of profiles out there, and there aren't a significant amount of crimes reported each year. I'll close this debate by saying this, and this is not just for the sake of winning or losing, but for taking away a lesson: What is a waste of time to some, is a lifestyle to others. We're in an age where someone can have a life online, whether it's through an OSN, or an MMO, like Warcraft. It's not anyone's place to judge which is which, for each person. Thank You. -BBE", "qid": 34, "docid": "868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7224017381668091}, {"content": "Title: social networking is bad Content: The con just said that i dont use facebook. So there can be many other people who dont use facebook but can be their on other social sites which do not provide such facilities and also there are many people who have friends whom they dont even know. Such friends can be a problem. Even people waste a lot of time on social sites by simply chatting with unknown people on useless matters. Dont you thing this can be harmful.", "qid": 34, "docid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7217832803726196}, {"content": "Title: debate with yourself Content: con has merely listed some 'cons' to networking sites. overall, there are more benefits. con says time is wasted on frivilous activity. but like hte wise saying goes \"time that you enjoy wasting is not wasted time\". people may not be as productive as they could otherwise be, but we dont always measure things by economic output. they still get their work done, by and large. society is not suffereing. face to face communication. while it has hindered face to face, it has opened a new door for us. much like texting is good fo some purposes, not good for others, and does hinder phone skills. but that just means more time needs to be given to both avenues, and ultimately, we are the better for it that we have the options at our disposal given some things are btter approached oen way or the other. children shouldn't be on the internet too much. this is common knowledge. if it's to the point of altering brain waves, it's too much. people might get exposed to predators, but this is just life. gong to a bar, or out in publc exposes you to danger too. we just need to follow common sense procedures for ourselves, but especially for our kids. your cite about GPA is pretty radical. 3.82 GPA just because you didn't use networking cites? this wasn't a common grade even befor the internet. these claims are so far fetched by con, that surely he needs some stat to back it up. it's pretty obvious this stuff is made up either way though.", "qid": 34, "docid": "528fb34-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7214260697364807}, {"content": "Title: join Facebook. Content: Facebook encourages socialisation", "qid": 34, "docid": "bc2b2a0d-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7211328744888306}, {"content": "Title: Social Media should be part of the curriculum Content: YES, I think this because; many teenagers and kids have social networking sites, such as facebook... Etc", "qid": 34, "docid": "ff33548-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7209423780441284}, {"content": "Title: \"Social media is making people less social.\" Content: As social media enables us to express our thoughts, ideas and feelings in a complete new way, it has become an important way of communicating in the 21st century. It has become a vital part of our everyday life. The total number of people using social media continues to increase globally. However, the nature of the problem is that there is no consensus whether social media is making people more or less social. I'm looking to find out what the majority thinks. The debate statement that I would like to discuss is therefore: \"social media makes people less social\". With the help of your answers, I will develop a report on this topic. An observation of the opinions given (anonymously) will hopefully provide a valid conclusion. Your feedback is therefore very much appreciated.", "qid": 34, "docid": "db5cffb-2019-04-18T16:34:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.720444917678833}, {"content": "Title: Too much technology Content: Are you sure you don't mean the internet? Cars are technology. They are a pretty important part of our lifes. Lights are techonolgy. Furnaces are technology. \"BUT I meant that everybody who are using the smartphones and facebook(social websites in main) are not being connected to the whole world. \" So without social websites they will be connected to the whole world (other countries) more than if they didn't have those websites? I don't think this makes sense. \"They don't feel time while sitting in a computer club or playing PS or X-box. \" It is their choise. In real life you can take drugs and get addicted and get far more worse things. The people who actually do that are not so much anyways. Everything has a bad side. But I find that the internet does more good than harm. \"For example, when friends meeting to chill out together they don't talk much to each other because of the internet in their smartphones - that is also big problem. \" I don't think this is true. You are probably talking about rare cases. Give more sources in your arguments. The human life on earth wasn't going to be so good without technology. I don't see a reason why technology does more harm than good.", "qid": 34, "docid": "28675129-2019-04-18T17:11:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7201989889144897}, {"content": "Title: People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites. Content: Thanks to Pro For his points, I will now respond.Contention One: Connectivity When I stated that you can use Apples messages and kik as social networking alternatives, I meant to use them only as an example. My point was that there are other more secure SMS services their are email services that allow you to filter emails you receive and texting or SMS services that are private and don't allow for scams. Such as TextSecure (https://play.google.com...). As you can see there are a plethora of alternatives to dangerous social networking sites if your goal is connectivity.Contention Two: MaturityThis quote form Gween O'Keeffe. describes my stance \"Since logic and sophisticated reasoning don't kick in until high school, younger children may not realize when one of their posts is inappropriate. Yet it's that social tentativeness that makes Facebook so attractive to kids: creating a virtual social network lets them avoid the hard work of building live-action ones.\"(http://content.time.com...)Social networking sites detract form the time spent forming in-person social interactions and relationships and learning social cues.You also stated that social networking sites:\"need specific data to avoid any fallacy\"I cant refute this point if I don't know what data you feel is necessary.Thank you, and I look forward to your response.", "qid": 34, "docid": "d441d419-2019-04-18T17:07:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7201672792434692}, {"content": "Title: Social networking sites are beneficial Content: Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the \"excitement\" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value \"likes\" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say \"society is growing\" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said \"excitement,\" as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a \"nice, cozy cafe.\" The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: \"Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this \"social\" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as \"social.\" Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: \"Educational benefits of social networking sites\" Winston Churchhill once said: \"However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results.\" My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate \"social media\" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: \"Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students\" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function.\"(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they \"believe.\" As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...", "qid": 34, "docid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7184314131736755}, {"content": "Title: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States Content: I have argued that social networking sites have only created an \"illusion of privacy\". Sites deserve blame for the widespread release of personal information. Why these security settings are so easy to get around is because strict privacy settings inhibit growth. The wider the access to information, the great the commercial value of the site. Also, that hour and 22 minutes a day adds up. While teens are online, they are slowing breaking down their own communication skills. They can bounce around to any social networking site and \"lol\" all they want. While slowly any relationships they have formed in the real world begin to diminish. I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the \"schedule\" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done. My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, \"if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread. Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear. People, strangers can still get access to your information. Young people of today are destroying social attributes, slowly losing the basis of communication. If an hour of Facebook, can really cause a company to lose that much of it's money, it would have a more negative impact on our already struggling economy. On balance, we are showing more and more of what social networking sites are doing to our community, and it is not in a positive way.", "qid": 34, "docid": "ec88ad82-2019-04-18T19:34:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7180505990982056}, {"content": "Title: The internet does more harm than good. Do you agree?. Content: Do you know that internet do brings more harm than advantages to people living in the modern society nowadays? Now then, people living in modern society, are dependent on internet and social media such as Facebook etc. Thus, nowadays there are more cases happening often over the world such as cyberbullying who had caused suicide among people, using social media whom people had led to it. In addition, internet do bring more harm than good.", "qid": 34, "docid": "8913dcfc-2019-04-18T15:59:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.718016505241394}, {"content": "Title: Facebook has made an influence on daily life Content: I do not believe my opponent fully understands the topic, I stated that facebook made an impact on daily life, not that it was a good impact or a bad impact.", "qid": 34, "docid": "7c6ca5ba-2019-04-18T18:51:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7174339294433594}]}
{"query": "Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour", "qid": 35, "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8781980276107788}, {"content": "Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour", "qid": 35, "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8666825294494629}, {"content": "Title: do video games cause viloence Content: do video games really cause violence?", "qid": 35, "docid": "e9e7c17-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8649436235427856}, {"content": "Title: restrict violent video games Content: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour", "qid": 35, "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8391234874725342}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00035-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8376980423927307}, {"content": "Title: Video Games cause violence Content: Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is \"Video games cause violence\", not \"All video games cause violence\". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --", "qid": 35, "docid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8374202847480774}, {"content": "Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: I accept to represent the con side of this debate. I will argue that video games do not correlate to any violent activities people will undertake. I would also ask pro to try use sources to back up any assertions made. Let's start.", "qid": 35, "docid": "7bb5fe56-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8330494165420532}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior Content: Hello, 16kadams! I will argue for the case that violent video games do not cause increased aggressive behavior. The burden of proof is on pro; pro is arguing for the contention. == 1. The supposed link is unclear == P1. If there is a clear link between violent video games and violence, pro meets his burden of proof. P2. There is no clear link between violent video games and violence. C. Pro does not meet his burden of proof. Justification for Premise 2: While there are some studies which supposedly demonstrate a link between violence and violent video games, some recent studies suggest that this is not the case: real life environments are different than experimental environments in terms of how they influence people. Research has shown that sometimes violent media correlates with more violence; however, during other time periods, the influence inverts. This shows that the relation between the two is most likely correlation, and not causation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) == 2. Violence has been going down, despite the rising popularity of video games == P1. If video games cause violence, then increased popularity of violent video games would increase violence. P2. Violence is decreasing, yet the popularity of violent video games is increasing. C. Video games do not cause violence. Justification for premise 2: despite the fact that the popularity of video games increased between 1990 and 2010, the crime rates actually dropped. (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...) This shows that there is a lack of correlation between the popularity of violent video games and crime rates. By the way, for my case to work, the popularity of video games should have increased over the past years; this is indeed demonstrated by the fact that the video game industry grows by around 16.7% annually. (http://www.forbes.com...)", "qid": 35, "docid": "55e10797-2019-04-18T15:21:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.83272385597229}, {"content": "Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems", "qid": 35, "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.830898106098175}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Thank you for your quick response. My opponent's attack on evidence is contradictory to his position in this debate as each attack supports my position of the topic. \"does not take into account the fact that participants who are predisposed to be violent or have violent tendencies will have an increased reaction violent video games because of the familiarity of the situations and the association between real world past and the games.\" This is supportive to my case as it shows that violent video games have the tendency of rapidly amplifying an individuals violent acts. Finally, the study does not have to incorporated these aspects of the link between violence and video game, rather it does have to accurately describe \"A\" link between violence and video game-which it does.- \"The first was observed aggression such as participants pushing shoving ect ect. These measures are extremely subjective due to the fact that aggression is not always such an outward display and most people who resort to these kind of emotional outbursts exhibit anti social behavior which is the root cause of their problems.\" Could it be possible that Anti-social behavior could be another effect of video games? The answer being an absolute yes. Immense amounts of studies have shown that kids often get use to the violence in games even enjoy these violence. Now at first, this kid might play these games for fun, but over a period of time, they start to crave these games thus leading to unusual amounts of time spent playing these games. This can be seen as a form or rather a remedial stage pf anti-social behavior which as time goes on progresses. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry wrote in an Aug. 2006 article \"Children and Video Games: Playing with Violence\" published in their Facts for Families information sheet series: \"These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence.\" http://videogames.procon.org... \"These traits are swell much closely correlated with children who exhibit anti social behavior as well as children who have a lack of attention in their lives. With both these problems excessive video game playing could be seen as an escape or a way for kids to distract themselves from their own life.\" These traits are not an excuse to sell violent video games to minors. The fact is that if these kids were as unstable as you describe them to be, then supplying them with violent video games is much like the government giving crack to a homicidal crack head. There are many games within there age level that can and possible will keep them preoccupied. \"The final measurement of aggressive behavior is reported aggression. This is extremely unethical and due to the fact that each participant will have different peers and teachers(study used reports from teachers on aggression) also the logical connection can be made that teachers will find students more aggressive if they are socially awkward and exhibit anti social behaviors. In many cases this will also cause teachers to think less of students do to the frustration and unwillingness to cooperate with authority which anti social people tend to exhibit\" Ones again, this should not be an excuse to sell games to minors. Rather than encouraging them to do something that can be hazardous to there mental as well as physical being, we should encourage them to seek valuable resources. VOTERS:You should vote for me, because unlike my opponent, i have argued based on the topic itself and not based on the evidence provided. 2. I presented more evidence to support my case 3. My opponent not only failed to make a case, but also failed to refute any of my argument 4. I have offered good reasons as to why a ban on selling video games to minors is a bad idea. Thank you.", "qid": 35, "docid": "1ff4635e-2019-04-18T18:36:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8292793035507202}, {"content": "Title: Video games cause violence Content: First of all, I would like to state my appreciation and respect for the opponent. I believe this is the first debate for both of us. I will be presenting my case that video games do indeed cause violence in our society today. Thank you again, and I will see you in Round Two.", "qid": 35, "docid": "7a99f4c0-2019-04-18T16:50:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8271793127059937}, {"content": "Title: restrict violent video games Content: Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression", "qid": 35, "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8237835168838501}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: I will be arguing that video games do not cause violence. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!", "qid": 35, "docid": "e6270ff-2019-04-18T16:35:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8199462890625}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence,\" who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.", "qid": 35, "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8197687864303589}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games should NOT be banned Content: First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.", "qid": 35, "docid": "c958dc5a-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8179003596305847}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of \"I'm going to kill you,\" and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8173934817314148}, {"content": "Title: In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Content: Since my opponent has not defined one key word in this debate I shall.Violence is the use of physical force to harm someone or damage property. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Studies show they cause violence. We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (http://yougov.co.uk...)Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...) In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...) Con also says that if sales are linked then why are they going down, but let me show you this graph here. Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?I will hand things off to Pro once more.", "qid": 35, "docid": "f47d4ad1-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.8159856200218201}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Violent video games are real danger to young minds.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00034-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.815603494644165}, {"content": "Title: Video Games cause violence Content: The resolution: \"Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about\"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. \"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )\"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution\"Video games\" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include \"all\" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that \"Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence\", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi\u00b7o\u00b7lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as \"big enough to worry about\". For that reason, I dismiss the \"big enough to worry about\" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be \"violent\" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:\"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. \"Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:\"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it\"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully \"in favour of video games\", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...)", "qid": 35, "docid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.815260648727417}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: Many people say that video games are making children violent people, (https://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu...), however, I completely disagree. I will be giving arguments in future rounds. I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8147202730178833}, {"content": "Title: restrict violent video games Content: Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances", "qid": 35, "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8142760992050171}, {"content": "Title: Can video games be healthy Content: My final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Also according to Dmitri A. Christakis of the Seattle Children\"s Research Institute, those who watch a lot of simulated violence, such as those in video games, can become immune to it, more inclined to act violently themselves, and are less likely to behave emphatically. The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. The American Psychological Association (APA) also concluded that there is a \"consistent correlation\" between violent game use and aggression, but finds insufficient evidence to link violent video play to criminal violence. An open letter by a number of media scholars, psychologists and criminologists, however, find APA\"s study and conclusion to be misleading and alarmist. On the other hand, many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime which coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. On the other hand, a study by researchers at the North Carolina State University, New York and the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology points out that gamers usually do not replace their offline social lives with online game playing, but rather it expands them. In fact, among gamers, being a loner is not the norm. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. On the other hand, a University of Buffalo study suggests that violence and bad behavior played in the virtual world may be contributing to better behavior in the real world. Gamers who play violent games may feel guilty about their behavior in the virtual world and this may make them be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University\"s Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children\"s attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids\" addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal. According to Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated psychologist and author of the best-selling book \"The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationship in the Digital Age\", if kids are allowed to play \"Candy Crush\" on the way to school, the trip will be quiet, but it\"s not what kids need. \"They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance.\" I accordace to the latest comment, check the previous argument, it has links to websites OK, moving on here are a few links for you: 1. http://healthresearchfunding.org... 2. greengarageblog.org/10-primary-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games 3. https://my.vanderbilt.edu... 4. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../Pros-and-cons-of-playing-video-games.html 5. nlcatp.org/5-major-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games/ 6. 7. https://prezi.com... 8. 9. https://prezi.com... 10. 11. 12. https://prezi.com... 13. https://archive.org... 14. http://www.barnegatschools.com... 15. http://sharpbrains.com... 16. www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame156-1002/pressrel51.asp 17. www.happychild.com.au/articles/violence-in-video-games-what-parents-need-to-know 18. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 19. money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/technology/video-game-violence/ 20. www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/ 21. www.healthline.com \" Healthline News 22. www.independent.co.uk \" News \" Science 23. www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075 24. time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/ 25. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 26. news.sky.com/.../study-violent-video-games-lead-to-aggression 27. 28. www.theonion.com/.../case-and-against-letting-children-play-video-... 29. gamerant.com/video-game-violence-survey/ 30. studymoose.com/do-violent-video-games-cause-bad-behavior-essay", "qid": 35, "docid": "45462ad0-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8139097094535828}, {"content": "Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: Thank you debatability for challenging me to this topic. It's been a pleasure. INTRODUCTION I think pro has came at this debate the wrong way. Since the start of round 3 she has been on the defensive, which is really bad. The reason being is because, depending on the judge's voting style she'll typically either have the full burden of proof or at least share it with me. She has spent most of this debate attacking my arguments while barely defending her own and at the end of the day when the dust clears. My arguments still stand and hers have completely fallen. AFFIRMING THE DISJUNCT My opponent claims she hasn't committed this particular logical fallacy, and she is absolutely wrong. She has on multiple occasions stated that video game doesn't significantly contribute to real world violence because poverty does or because videogames cause aggression not violence. What she doesn't realize is that every statement she made could be true and it wouldn't show that violence in videogames doesn't contribute to real world violence. Remember pro has a certain amount of burden to show that videogames in fact do not contribute to real world violence. She hasn't met it. Revisit her arguments. They all make use of the logical fallacy I've mentioned. some arguments from pro; In round 2 pro asks \"What really causes violence in teens? \". She answers this by saying serious crimes and aggression does. The truth is this doesn't rule out violence in videogames being a significant factor. This is her first real argument and is entirely affirming the adjunct. The 2nd argument in round 2 discusses a chart which she admits after posting it means absolutely nothing. her 3rd and final argument discusses \" Video game's effect\". summed up she says that people play video games to release aggression and also that people who love violence may be attracted to them. This is yet another case of Affirming the Adjunct. Just because violent people are attracted to them (which she hasn't proven) and they help release aggression doesn't mean that they don't significantly contribute to real world violence. These are her opening arguments. This is the foundation for her entire case. Her case is a chart she admits doesn't mean anything and 2 arguments affirming the adjunct. She has some BOP in this debate and she has came nowhere near meeting it. NOT BORN TO KILL My opponent misses the point with the government training. I'll take this point by point. PRO-\"The first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \"killing sessions. \" My opponent essentially drops this argument. \" I never dropped this argument at all. I attacked it head on. Go ahead to the last round and reread what I said. The differences made in training to up kill rates was a replacement of circle targets with human looking ones. Not only in the shooting range, but also the ones that pop up in simulations. Also video games that soldiers participate in to simulate killing. This is science at it's best, in practice. A bunch of people noticed a problem. The problem was a huge amount of soldiers not killing in battle or police officers not taking out a suspect who is an imminent threat. After seeing the problem, they came up with a hypothesis that if true could help. hypothesis- Simulating killing humans will desensitize people and make them more likely to kill. test- This hypothesis was tested out by replacing shooting range targets with human shaped targets and the popup targets in simulations with human looking pop up targets. Also some videogames were added in. repeat- This test was repeated with several government organizations and proved successful. That is the scientific method and the scientific method is common knowledge so I won't cite it. The scientific method has proven that simulating violence causes people to be more likely to act on violence. Videogames simulate violence. Those simulated experiences desensitize people to violence and makes it more likely that they'll commit acts of violence. \" The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \"point shooting. \" This is a new argument and should be completely disregarded, but I will briefly touch on it. My studies have shown that people in the civil war weren't even firing their weapons but only pretending. I can buy that point shooting will increase accuracy in close combat situations, but it isn't increasing the percentage of people pulling the trigger. DESENSITIZE ME \"My opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. \" Yes, and I urge voters took look at the prior round to see those flaws. None of them have been addressed. \"1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button. \" It wasn't the competition that caused it. There was a close to an even number on each side. Half being avid violent video game players. Half not being. They all participated in the competition, so it's not a factor. The violent gamers were more willing to dish out physical pain to their opponent. They all participated in the game. If competition was the only factor than significant differences should not have been noticed in their willingness to dish out pain. The study proved that people who play violent videogames have less qualms about hurting you. That part is indisputable and has been shown in several similar studies. \"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games. \" I've shown the flaws in your study, and they were ignored. I welcome the voters to take another look at the previous round. The study alone may be brushed away as correlation, but when taken with all the other evidence It serves as some damning evidence in my favor. DR BRUCE What I've tried to get across to the voters as well as my opponent, is that Violent video games contribute significantly to an overall culture of violence. In the famous Kitty Genovese event what is known as the bystander effect took place. Though the concept known as diffusion of responsibility certainly played a factor it wasn't the only factor. As Dr. Bruce mentions in the article I cited. Growing up in rough urban environments can cause desensitization, just like videogames. A lot of people just didn't give a damnn if that girl was being murdered outside their windows. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't really upheld her BOP in this debate. She is attacking my arguments but not doing enough to defend her own. I should win this debate, because I've proved that violent videogames have increased state violence. I should win, because I've shown it increases not only the likelihood somebody will engage in violence, but also that it contributes to a culture of violence. My opponent has largely ignored my arguments concerning the overall culture of violence and psychopathy. For all the reasons mentioned.", "qid": 35, "docid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.812452495098114}, {"content": "Title: Video Games cause violence Content: Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that \"All video games cause violence\". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!", "qid": 35, "docid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8120176792144775}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances Content: Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a \"scary world\". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement. 1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence", "qid": 35, "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00012-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.8117011189460754}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because \"it helps me get my anger out\" and 62% played because it \"helps me relax.\" Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.", "qid": 35, "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8115736246109009}, {"content": "Title: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a \u2018scary world\u2019, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.", "qid": 35, "docid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00023-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8115133047103882}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To begin my argument, I first like to bring up some points my opponent has brought up on why Video Games are not a significant cause of violence. My opponent brought up other types of reasoning's of why video games are not the significant problem towards the violence in children; examples being television and school. But I must ask my opponent one question, dealing with his arguments, being: \"Do Video Games cause technically cause violence\"? Before continuing into my argument, I would like to define a few key words within the topic. The biggest one being video games, meaning: \"A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen\". Then there is violence, which is defined as: \"Behavior involving an action intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something\". My opponent, in most video games nowadays, isn't the goal resulting in any of the three aspects of violence when playing a video game? So isn't already causing most violence among children, when actually just plying the game? If you reply with \"no\", then you clearly do not see the point that video games are a significant cause in violence among children; because of its heavy popularity in modern media. Stated in a statistic on ABC News, and the website \"Education\", the amount of video games played by children in 2014 was around 91%. That is a huge population of children, which practically makes up most of the U.S, and in another statistic; it states that the average amount of time played on a video game was about 13.5 hours. The reasoning of why is typically because of adults having their own responsibilities, and parents needing a way to \"distract\" kids from bugging them. A video game is the simple solution for the parents task. The games the child plays varies, but most video games either have some element of violence or is within the \"cool trend\" among children. The most recipient, with the influence of the \"cool-trend\", typically rely among teenagers. The ages between 13 to 16 years old. The games typically played by this audience involves either \"Action\", or \"Shooters\"; like stated in the Sales of Video Game Genres in 2014. The most selling either being Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, two of the most violent games within the market. My opponent may question why parents do not take these away from their children? It seems so simple, and it is, but most parents do not understand the Rating System in games. In another statistic stated on \"PBS\", it states that close to 90% of parents do not look at the Rating System within games because of being \"too stressed\" as an adult. Supporting one of my previous arguments. In my opponents previous argument, he brought up that there are more other influences than just video games. To counter argue his statement, let me please share another statistic. Under an article, titled \"Kids stay indoors: What happened to, \"Go outside and play\"\", it states that more children stay inside than outside. The exact percentage, being 72%, states that kids rather stay inside, than outside; disproving my opponents argument of being influenced on the outside. As well as in another article titled \"Why do Kids Love Video Games\", it states that children were surveyed about whether they like to watch TV or play video games. 87% said that they preferred to play video games, over watching television, because of having an interactive experience within the room; instead of just sitting and watching a screen. As it is seen, my opponents previous arguments that he has brought up are actually false, than true. Video games is the popular media in society nowadays, and is mostly the target audience of many companies. If my opponent claims its because of other reasoning's, why are video games \"pushed\" away; even though being the most popular trend within the United States? Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.statista.com...- http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.education.com... http://www.pbs.org... https://www.minnpost.com... http://learningworksforkids.com...", "qid": 35, "docid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8105740547180176}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8104652166366577}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00007-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.8099818229675293}, {"content": "Title: should vilent video games be banned Content: It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. \"In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. \" [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: \"It's clear that the \u2018big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. \" [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. \"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. \" [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop \" from the repetition of actions \", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth \"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. \" Posner adds, \"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. \" [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. \"The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. \" [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] \"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. \" [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8086730241775513}, {"content": "Title: Video Games are a primary source of violence Content: Before I state my arguments on the matter, I would like to say I am aware that the reoccurring of this topic is getting annoying and it's repetitive. However, I've never talked about this controversial topic before, and I want to try debating on it. Schedule Round 1: Acceptance and Arguments Round 2: More Arguments and/or Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: More Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusions and Goodbyes Thesis Statements Even though video games does cause violent acts sometimes, that doesn't really mean it's a primary source of violence. Don't just stereotype the gaming industry just because, sometimes, people use video games to do violent things. That assumption is ambiguous, it's full of fallacy, and I'll prove that it's fallacious. Arguments 1. There is no statistical evidence supporting claim. According to the information on Harvard Medical School's website, the research that is conducted to support the \"video games cause violence\" claim \"relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect. Federal crime statistics suggest that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared.\" (http://www.fbi.gov...) (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) (http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...) (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Researchers have made assumptions that the reason behind this decline of crime rates is because of video games because violent video games has been used as a substitute to express anger and other strong emotions to a virtual world instead to reality. Chris Ferguson, chair of psychology and communication at Texas A&M International, has conducted several studies on video game violence and its affect on youth. He actively believes that video games DO NOT cause real-world violence. Quoting, \"Video games is just not a common factor among mass homicide perpetrators. Some have been players, other have not been.\" 2. The killer who was involved in games either had some sort of mental illness and/or had poor parents. (Mostly, it's the parents fault). In almost every single shooting where violent video games were blamed, the individual involved was mentally unstable, ill, . But of course it's way more appealing for the media to blame violent video games and pay no attention to the fact that most of these tragedies are linked to mental instability and/or poor parenting. The blame on the matter at hand should be directed to the parents because there are ESBR ratings on the front cover of every single game you purchase. GameStop warns the parent and the child that there is mature rated content and asks if the parent consents on allowing the child to play the game. Therefore, it is the parent's responsibility to facilitate on what the child is playing. According to HuffingtonPost, studies have showed that the majority of parents don't care if their kids play violent video games. Quoting \"The majority of parents don\"t check age restrictions on video games and don't think violent games affect their kids, according to a new poll. The study, conducted by gaming price comparison and swap site www.Playr2.com. 1,221 parents of children aged 17 who frequently played video games were surveyed. The parents were surveyed, and were asked if they checked the age restrictions of their children\"s video games before allowing them to play. Just under two thirds (64%) answered no. The majority of these parents, 55%, agreed that they did not think that age restrictions mattered on video games. Similarly, they were not concerned that their under-18s could be playing grown-up games. Asked \"Would you be concerned if your child was playing video games with an age restriction of 18?\", 51% said no.\" \"Richard Wilson, CEO of TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, told The Huffington Post: 'Age ratings exist to provide parents and consumers generally with information about games and the suitability of games for children. Just as parents should not buy 18 rated films for minors, so they should not buy 18 rated games for children. Parents must take responsibility.'\" I'm not stating that just because someone is mentally unstable will most likely become extremely violent. But, studies have shown that mass murders have occurred because of mental illness. Aaron Alexis, the murderer of 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard, was mentally unstable. The lawyers of James Holmes, shooter of the Denver theater at the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises film, had repeatedly stated that he is \"mentally ill.\" 3. The very vast majority of gamers are not violent. Just because video games only affect that small percentage of players, doesn't mean that video games cause violence entirely. You can say the exact same thing for films. Most of movie watchers are not violent themselves even though they watch violence all the time. I really don't need to go full into detail on this point as it's self-explanatory in itself. Sources 1. 2. 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://www.health.harvard.edu... 5. http://www.fbi.gov... 6. 7. 8. http://kotaku.com... 9. http://bigstory.ap.org... 10. 11. http://www.forbes.com... Sorry that my argument post looks like a mess. I initially attempted to post graphs supporting my thesis, but the script is discombobulated and just simply retarded. So, instead, I'm posting links to the pictures. Anyway, I hope to my opponent, good luck. Now, the entire \"rich text\" is screwed up. I only have to type in normal text. :(", "qid": 35, "docid": "739f2cb1-2019-04-18T16:12:34Z-00007-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8084776997566223}, {"content": "Title: This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents!!~ Content: Alright, sorry for missing out on this debate so far. I'm still a bit busy with classes, thus I'm simply going to use this first round for C/X. #1. Do you have any credible sources to support your claim your first argument? Suggesting that children and teenagers will absorb \"bad things\" (presumably, you mean that their personalities and actions will be influenced towards violence) is quite a leap. #2. For your second point, why would violent video games in particular be a cause for poor education? Why not video games in general? In addition, would you please be so kind as to cite your claim with a reliable source? I'll refute it in the next round, but believe you argument would be a bit stronger if you had some official to back you up. #3. Do you have any evidence that shows violent video games correlate with criminal activities? That's all the questions I have. When these are answered, I believe our debate can really begin (though I'll really begin next round regardless of how you answer).", "qid": 35, "docid": "90b2f503-2019-04-18T19:34:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8077293634414673}, {"content": "Title: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage\u2026that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential\u2026to affect young people\u20191. 1Senate Committee, 1993.", "qid": 35, "docid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00010-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8076576590538025}, {"content": "Title: Should kids play MA video games Content: Ah, yes. The age-old philosophical question of whether or not kids should be able twist video game characters' heads right off of their bodies and watch the pixelated blood go spurting. Or watch them smoke cigarettes, or whatnot. What a deep query you have made, my son. The answer: The actual studies say there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior: . http://psycnet.apa.org...Case closed.", "qid": 35, "docid": "43ababd3-2019-04-18T17:42:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8076560497283936}, {"content": "Title: In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Content: I'll start out by saying I agree with my opponent's definition. I'll use this round to address each of the studies my opponent has cited in their case.Survey StudyThere are a couple reasons that this study does nothing to prove my opponent's point. Firstly, this is not a study over whether or not video games cause violence. It is a study over whether or not people believe video games cause violence. In the chart my opponent has provided, we can see that more people think video games cause violence than not. This argument can't be taken into account because it is a logical fallacy known as bandwagon. (assuming something is true because many people believe it is) The article linked by my opponent seemed to show that those who play video games are less worried about negative affects. So, it is quite obvious that this article is not actually claiming that violence in video games is harmful. The article ends with this... \"It is possible that concerns about games could fade away in much the same way that fears about rock music, comic books, and radio dramas dissolved when these forms of entertainment gained wider acceptance.\"Time StudyThis study notes that video games (even if played for a short period of time) can cause permanent changes in the brain and aggression. (Note: My opponent says violence, but the article says aggression) I showed in R2 that violence and aggression are not actually the same thing. Aggression is an intention, violence is an action. Moreover, nothing about this study suggests it was the violence in the video games that resulted in the aggression. There is a good chance that the competitive factor so often found in violent video games was what caused such feelings of aggression among the children. American Psychological Association notes (after observing several studies), \"More competitive games produced greater levels of aggressive behavior than less competitive games, no matter how much violence was in the games. (1)\" Remember, my opponent must prove that violence factor in video games results in real-world violence. Fox News StudyThis study is very similar to the time study, so I'll go ahead and cross-apply what I said earlier. I would like to note that my opponent's source concedes that this study is flawed. The source says, \"However, experts not involved with the study say that the research has flaws, and does not add anything meaningful to the debate over whether violent video games increase aggression, which has been a contentious issue.\"Grand Theft ChildhoodMy opponent cites a study that explains how 60% of middle schoolers that beat up someone played at least one M rated video game. I'd like to reference something I said in R2, \"It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents\u2026\" If a middle schooler is beating up their classmates, it is more likely to be because of the reasons I have listed. In order for this study to count, my opponent will need to explain exactly how, in this study, the violence factor of video games is contributing to this violence among kids.School Shooting StudyPage four of my opponent's source explains that many factors contribute towards school shootings and that not one factor is decisive. Here we can see that violence in video games alone does not cause such shootings to come about. Most likely, other factors are coming into play as I have shown in previous evidence. Just because a shooter plays violent video games doesn't mean that is what caused them to commit such a violent crime. Moreover, this resolution does say \"in general.\" School shootings are very rare. Even if literally every school shooting was a result of violence in video games, this would not be enough to cause me to not fulfill my BoP.Video Game and Homicide CorrelationThis chart compares video game sales in Europe and America, as well as homicide in Europe and America. It important to realize that we don't know exactly what caused this correlation. My opponent has not proved that violence in video games directly have caused this link. This is a logical fallacy known as false cause. Essentially, this correlation could be caused by anything. For example, Europe and the US have different gun control policies, different laws, and different atmospheres. Anything could cause this correlation. In the chart I provided, I was not aiming to show a direct correlation, rather, I was aiming to show that video game sales certainly are not causing violence to go up.(1) https://www.apa.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "f47d4ad1-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8068050146102905}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children Content: Thanks Con for this good topic. The following argument will have: Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids. Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated. Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. http://videogames.procon.org... Con has stated examples of Violence in Children. \"Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot.\" \"I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. \" However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people. BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES. Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders. But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines. Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems. To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is \"I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid\" Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence. Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal. Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES. Con states: \"Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child.\" Not true. If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.", "qid": 35, "docid": "6a618e4b-2019-04-18T16:23:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8067157864570618}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is \" Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes \" A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.", "qid": 35, "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.8063451051712036}, {"content": "Title: Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals Content: I would like to remind you that the proposition is \"violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals\" not \"Violent video games lead to violent acts.\" 1. Yes, I have proved that violent video games invokes physiological responses, such as AGGRESSION. 2. Saying that aggression dies down after a period of time does is not contrary to the fact that violent video games invoke aggression. 3. I urge you to vote PRO. Even my opponent, as evident, has conceded that violent video games elicit aggression.", "qid": 35, "docid": "57fa1b03-2019-04-18T19:37:09Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8062135577201843}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games and school shootings are related Content: In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings.", "qid": 35, "docid": "1ac69d5c-2019-04-18T13:30:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8057581186294556}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you\"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.", "qid": 35, "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.8052818179130554}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. Content: lol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that \"You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people.\" This argument helps to support my claim of \"violent video games do not contribute to violence\" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term \"blame\" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!", "qid": 35, "docid": "117d4c1a-2019-04-18T18:37:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.8052558898925781}, {"content": "Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Children See Violent Video Games", "qid": 35, "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.8048098683357239}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: Rules: 1. This debate is about video games having a bad influence on teenagers, as most violent video games are restricted 15 or 18. 2. Using examples of specific games is acceptable. Please accept :)", "qid": 35, "docid": "5fc2ae63-2019-04-18T18:29:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.8045742511749268}, {"content": "Title: Video games do not cause violence` Content: Hello once more, Before getting on to rebutting the points stated previously, I would like to add my arguments to the mix. In this instance, I am often addressing more violent video games, as they are included in the topic and pose the greatest threat and significance to my debate. First, let's look at some actual, hard evidence. There has been a task force report released by the American Psychological Association on August the 13th, 2015, stating that there is a \"definite link to increases aggression in children who play violent video games.\" This statement clearly speaks volumes for itself. Not much else has been concluded, but there is a lot more research to be done and knowledge to be gained. Source: http://www.apa.org... Another argument to the negative affects of video games is that they cause desensitization to individuals. Multiple studies have proved that those who regularly play violent video games experience a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence. They come to accept violence rather than be overly repulsed or reactive to it. Surely, this highlights the negative and violent affects of certain video games. Even if you choose not to accept violent video games are the sole cause of violent behavior, it is clear that it is a large factor. Along with the increased aggression produced in people who play video games, players often watch their character perform violent acts with little or no punishment for them. If anything, violent video games could easily be considered something that nurtures violent and possibly harmful impulses. It has actually been shown by the FBI that many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games often. Is it a mere coincidence, or could violent video games have induced those horrible acts of violence? Would all of those offender's behaviors been affected by symptoms shown in some of the arguments above? Another point is that violent video games are more harmful than television shows, comics and other things of the like as they depict you; or a virtual version of you, performing those violent acts. It makes it all too easy to picture oneself doing violent things is if one has already done them in an alternate reality, with no punishment (referring to earlier argument mentioned). Yet one more argument to point out is that video games often promote violence as a suitable resolution to various conflicts. Rather than simulating talking problems out in a civilized manner, the cause and effect flow on from an altercation is usually violence or warfare of some sort. What is this teaching the players, if not violence? I will further these points in the later rounds, as well as rebut the opposing arguments. To my opponent, good luck in your rebuttals and the rest of the debate. Thank you.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d5c9fd7c-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.8045485615730286}, {"content": "Title: Video Games increase child violence Content: I'm personally against that statement, and i can prove it wrong. Pro: Says that video games increase child violence Con(me): Says that video games do not increase violent behavior to children You may go first.", "qid": 35, "docid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.8040355443954468}, {"content": "Title: Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. Content: F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they\u00b4ve been around for years.[4]", "qid": 35, "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00043-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.8039013743400574}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as \"cool\" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...", "qid": 35, "docid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.8037635087966919}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: It looks like my opponent is a glutton for punishment. In today's round, I will disprove the notion that \"Video games encourage violent behavior.\" First, the job of the instigator is to prove that video games encourage violent behavior. My opponent only list one event to suggest this. Keep in mind that during this event, they two boys played a VIOLENT VIDEO GAME. Now, onto his argument. He suggest that the Columbine massacre was caused due to both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both being fans of the video game listed as Doom. My opponent is either guilty of ignorance and dishonesty, as this valid assessment points to their psychological problems being caused by other factors: http://www.slate.com... . In fact, the following quote sums up their reasons for committing the school shooting: \"These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority\" (by the way, the specific rantings are listed in the article). I would like to add that studies performed have actually suggested that video games have an even LESSER effect on the aggression of an individuals than television does: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com... Finally, given that the video game industry is very beneficial to the entertainment industry, logic suggest there are quite a plethora of individuals who buy and play video games. If that is the case, shouldn't there be far MORE incidences of violent behavior as we've seen with the Columbine catastrophe? At any rate, my opponent has not provided you with valid evidence that would suggest that video games (not just ones that fall under the violent category) encourage violent behavior. Since the burden of proof belongs to him, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thank you.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8db68a7c-2019-04-18T19:56:42Z-00000-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.8023134469985962}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: In this debate I will defend that video games do not cause violence. First round is for acceptance. Please only accept if you plan on finishing the debate.", "qid": 35, "docid": "e62711e-2019-04-18T16:32:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.8017799258232117}, {"content": "Title: Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Content: Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'", "qid": 35, "docid": "b4849efd-2019-04-18T17:56:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.8010753393173218}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Are Good for You Content: I'd first like to outline that my opponent's sources are structured unclearly, as he hasn't cited any particular point. This is bad practice.Negative CaseP1: Video games promote violence.This isn't a well researched topic, but there are a significant number of studies that strongly allude to detrimental effects directly from playing video games, particularly violent games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [1] Moreover, a 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [2] And finally, Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [3]These worrying studies show a clear correlation hinting at a causal link between violent games and violence, and it's not difficult to figure out why.[1] Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr. 2008[2] Christopher Barlett, Richard Harris, and Callie Bruey, \"The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal,\" Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Oct. 2007[3] Jeanne Funk, Heidi Bechtoldt Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, and Jennifer Baumgardner, \"Violence Exposure in Real-life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and the Internet: Is There Desensitization?,\" Journal of Adolescence, 2004P2: Staying seated is bad for your health.To play video games, especially for long periods, as most gamers do, one usually remains seated. This can be a driver of serious health issues. A review completed earlier this year concluded that \"Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity.\" [1] This is a result reciprocated by a number of notable studies. Another line of study found a strong link between television viewing and mortality rates, concluding: \"Television viewing time was associated with increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. In addition to the promotion of exercise, chronic disease prevention strategies could focus on reducing sitting time, particularly prolonged television viewing. \" [2] Finally a 2011 study found that \"Recreational sitting, as reflected by television/screen viewing time, is related to raised mortality and CVD risk regardless of physical activity participation. Inflammatory and metabolic risk factors partly explain this relationship.\" [3][1] http://annals.org...[2] http://circ.ahajournals.org...[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com...ConclusionI've brought up two significant detrimental consequences of playing video games and supported them with reliable data and studies.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d5fac21c-2019-04-18T15:06:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.8003467917442322}, {"content": "Title: Video Games increase child violence Content: Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book \"Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents\" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.", "qid": 35, "docid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7998692989349365}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: I will be debating why video games are hardly a reason to blame violent acts cause by kids. Con will do the opposite. Keep in mind i count as a minor under the law because i am 13 years of age. You may continue the debate", "qid": 35, "docid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00008-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.798650860786438}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Thank you for your quick response. \"There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors.\" Here is your evidence: http://www.soc.iastate.edu... ----> Please read this carefully. Argument: My opponent failed to provide his case thus going against the rules of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent looses on account of failure to follow the rules. Unless my opponent presents his case in the next round, then he looses. Hope to hear from you soon.", "qid": 35, "docid": "1ff4635e-2019-04-18T18:36:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7986242771148682}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Content: Hello and thank you for taking time to read this debate.For the purpose of clarification I will not state my intent to argue for the remainder of this debate. The Con will argue that the sale of violent video games to minors in the U.S. does not have a substantial effect on their actions and that there are other causes or reasons why young people commit violent acts.Here is my evidence.#1 - No connection between violence and games. Other causes like home life and and mental stability are the core.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester.\" As we can see per the evidence there have been numerous studies AND in fact the surgeon general telling us that the exposure to violence based on video games is a factor that leads to violence. Compare this to my opponents evidence which is unobtainable so we cannot even test the validity of the entire study. As this is my opponents argument it is the only argument I need to win to win this debate but I will go ahead and provide more evidence bellow.#2 - Violent video games are in fact core to the development of children and their decision making skills.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: \"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware.\" Posner adds, \"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.\" Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. \"This quote is long but meaningful as it holds multiple reasons as to why children have to be exposed to violent video games. As explained, the article cites a district judge who explains why we have to protect the rights of children in exposing them to violence and thus the consequences of actions. They become as Posner writes \"The ethical testing grounds.\" and so should be accessible to children. To back up this claim the article cites Posner who justifies this exposure with reference to the violent nursery rythmes and fairytales we already tell our children. Thus if you find even the slightest moral, ethical or logical justification for exposing children to violence you vote con.#3 - Video games aren't desensitizing.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] \"Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat. In some circumstances, they seem to take pleasure wrestling and tousling with each other. In others, they might rip each other apart in mortal combat. Game designer and play theorist Eric Zimmerman describes the ways we understand play as distinctive from reality as entering the \"magic circle.\" The same action \u2014 say, sweeping a floor \u2014 may take on different meanings in play (as in playing house) than in reality (housework). Play allows kids to express feelings and impulses that have to be carefully held in check in their real-world interactions. Media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims. Yet, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. \"Despite what the pro tells you, video games aren't desensitizing. As the evidence above explains, video games aren't meant to stimulate real emotional responses and thus aren't meant to show that a kid is disturbed simply because he laughs at death in a simulation. In fact they act as a release to feelings that are normally oppressed in 'reality' culture today. This answers the pro's only claim to violence and is thus a reason to vote con.#4 - Studies that conclude that violence in video games lead to more violence in kids are biased.Staff of Science 2.0 Report on the findings of Professor Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex. [2]\"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, \"Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s,\" says Kierkegaard, \"while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. \"With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence,\" he says, \"Instead, violence has declined.\" Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard.\"The evidence goes a long way to win the con's because it states that really any study provided by the pro has no real world statistics to backup the nature of the findings and thus can only be limited to the theory which is invalid until there is evidence to support it.#5 - If your claim is true then why has the rise of video game sales been accompanied by a drop in violent crimes by children?Quote from Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health [3]\"It\u2019s clear that the \u2018big fears\u2019 bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy.\"This statement and evidence is pretty damning to the case of my opponent because it poses a logical question that simply can't be answered by studies that are supposedly in support of the pro. This is because, as stated by the very qualified authors of my evidence, there has been no increase in violence even though violent video games are hot sellers. Thus there can be no conclusion for the pro because there is simply no real world proof.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponent's response!My Evidence (No abstract mining here)[1] - http://www.pbs.org...[2] - http://www.science20.com...[3] \"Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games\" by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, 2008.", "qid": 35, "docid": "5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7979206442832947}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the \"last straw on the back of the camel\" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?", "qid": 35, "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7977404594421387}, {"content": "Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: My position is rather easy to prove \u2013 I need only make the case that video games teach children how to be violent, not that they actually induce violent behavior. Luckily the psychiatric community has done several experiments that speak for themselves. Lab experiments confirm what any gamer knows in his gut: playing games like \u201cCall of Duty,\u201d \u201cKillzone 3\u201d or \u201cBattlefield 3\u201d stirs the blood. In one recent study, Christopher Barlett, a psychologist at Iowa State University, led a research team that had 47 undergraduates play \u201cMortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance\u201d for 15 minutes. Afterward, the team took various measures of arousal, both physical and psychological. It also tested whether the students would behave more aggressively, by having them dole out hot sauce to a fellow student who, they were told, did not like spicy food but had to swallow the sauce. Sure enough, compared with a group who had played a nonviolent video game, those who had been engaged in \u201cMortal Kombat\u201d were more aggressive across the board. They gave their fellow students significantly bigger portions of the hot sauce. Source: http://www.nytimes.com...Children are highly impressionable and mimic role models.\"Video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior,\" study author Dr. Bruce Bartholow, associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, said in a written statement. \"Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence.\" Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...Decades of social science research reveals the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth. There appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations; and perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal. Studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning. Source: http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7972769737243652}, {"content": "Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00036-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7969413995742798}, {"content": "Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7966238260269165}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published \"found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop\" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found \"that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed\" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, \"\"Correlation does not imply causation\". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)", "qid": 35, "docid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7958903312683105}, {"content": "Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, \"If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they\u2019ve got.\"OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \"killing sessions.\" My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \"point shooting.\" Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:\"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"and this quote: \"Children\u2019s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses.\"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the \"bystander\" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. \"In the famous 1964 \u201cKitty Genovese\u201d incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty\u2019s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4).\" 2. Let's get to the real question, \"What causes the effect?\" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as \"diffusion of responsibility.\" To clarify my source continues, \"One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as \u201cdiffusion of responsibility\u201d. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases.\"We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show \"significance.\" Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... \"Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, \"Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls,\" Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7956374287605286}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Content: Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant \"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]\" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.", "qid": 35, "docid": "ce330406-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7946398258209229}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Content: This debate topic is one in which me and my opponent will discuss violent video games, and it's affects on the users. I will argue that violent video games do in fact encourage the user to become violent, or to do violent things. While my opponent will refute this and give his/her reasons for refutation.", "qid": 35, "docid": "5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7946029901504517}, {"content": "Title: do video games cause viloence Content: I think video games don't cause violence because kids have accepted the fact that it isn't real. They know the consequences of doing the things they see In video games and accept it. In a case ,involving a school shooter who played Dance Dance Revolution, it showed no connection between the game and killer. The case was given to a lieutenant who came up with the conclusion that games have no effect on kids.", "qid": 35, "docid": "e9e7c17-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7942222952842712}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems Content: The facts are against the premise again. Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011). The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking\u2014all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do.[1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game\u2019s storyline or outcome. [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257", "qid": 35, "docid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00008-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7938892841339111}, {"content": "Title: The content of Video Games Content: I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?", "qid": 35, "docid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7933363914489746}, {"content": "Title: violent video games should be banned Content: You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted \"Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay\". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.", "qid": 35, "docid": "c827393f-2019-04-18T17:49:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7930331230163574}, {"content": "Title: Video games make you violent Content: PROOF 1.Con concedes that video games make me violent: \"verbal violence, that is you\".Con concedes that \"you\" in the topic refers to me, Pro.Thus: I have proven that \"Video games make [me] violent\".PROOF 2. Con disputes how much violence is caused by video games.But Con concedes that my violence examples were caused by video games.Thus: I have proven that video games cause nonzero violence.Don't let Con make new responses to conceded points.Con concedes all critical points.Game over!", "qid": 35, "docid": "c51b1af2-2019-04-18T12:20:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7922868728637695}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games make children violent Content: Glad to hear that you're new here too. Considering how new I am, sorry for any errors in my argument. When looking at whether video games make children violent, first we must establish what people mean when they say 'violent'. The Merriam Webster Dictionary gives it as: 1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity 2 a : notably furious or vehement b : extreme, intense, 3: prone to commit acts of violence Here I am editing out some definitions that do not relate to the topic at hand. I am particularly looking at the third definition, as many have attributed video games to school shooting, saying that violent video games actually influence them enough to do something of the sort. That, in my perception, would be making someone prone to committing acts of violence. Is this possible? While studies show that people may feel more aggression while playing a violent game and shortly after, there has never been proof that there are long term psychological effects. In fact, studies show that video games can actually make you smarter. That action gamers, which I take to be games in the first-person-shoot genre(Not limited to such, just an example.) which would be a violent game.From 1995 to 2008, violent video game popularity has skyrocketed, while the number of violent crimes have lowered by almost 50%. If video games are truly a source of violence for children, then why aren't there MORE shootings? Why don't we have more armed robberies? Considering how many people play games like Call of Duty daily, you would think the number would be much higher. As The Washington Post's Max Fisher wrote: \"In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime\". That concludes my argument, I can't wait to see yours. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thewire.com... http://videogames.procon.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "63308ee0-2019-04-18T16:43:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7922780513763428}, {"content": "Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: My opponent fails to make any proven points on how videogames can cause real world agression and also failed to argue any of my points. I still stand by the points made in the previous arguement and believe that violent videogames do not correlate to violent acts in real life and risitricting them would not make any country any safer.", "qid": 35, "docid": "7bb5fe56-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7920072078704834}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.", "qid": 35, "docid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7915298938751221}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7914154529571533}, {"content": "Title: Is gaming harmful to our minds Content: Im sorry that you forfeited the round. Hopefully you can give a rebuttal next round.Aserstion One-Statistics- Thats alot of kids who play! Anyway to prove my point a majority of teenagers play video games. How can this be harmfull? Well the shooters at Colubine were gamers. There is proof that violent video games can instigate more agression in to people.http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... (Page 4 of 6)Assertion Two-Personal Experience & Tue Storys-On the morning of 1990 April 20th the two shooters of Colubine High School shot to death 12 students, a teacher, and themselves. They were \"gamers\" Also\"\"A British man who bought one of the first copies of \"Grand Theft Auto V\"was stabbed, hit with a brick and robbed of the brutally violent new video game on Tuesday, police said.\"A crime motivated by the game? Was a video game really worth stabing and injuring an innocent man for?http://gadgets.ndtv.com...Is there a bit of a correlation of the storys and statistics? Personally I feel slightly more agrresive after playing vidoe games. Of course I never would kill or hurt someone over a game but others have. Certainly games can be fun but if played to frequently and excesivley then it can be harmful.Assertion Three-Studys-According to Iowa State University aggression can be caused over video games. (See first link) Also the cons seem to outweigh the pros according to this article http://www.raisesmartkid.com...Even the New York Times looked in to this-http://www.nytimes.com...Theory-VideoGames that are violent correlate with agressivness and violence in people. Video games can be harmfull to people and others if played to often. Parents should monitor and control what there kids can play and people shuld see the potentiol harm in some games.", "qid": 35, "docid": "ce4d7cce-2019-04-18T17:03:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7912753820419312}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Cause Violence Content: Video Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, \"Just a game.\" Or, \"It's not bad.\" Little do they know it makes them into killers.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8294b441-2019-04-18T17:22:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7903318405151367}, {"content": "Title: Can video games be healthy Content: I shall present my next evidences: 1. 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75] 2. Violence is Fun Violent video games make hurting and killing people entertaining. This notion that violence is fun can cause gamers to imitate the game just for fun. 3. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. [63] 4. Makes Violence Acceptable The games impart that violence is an effective strategy for solving conflicts and for attaining one\"s goals. A 2009 research found that those who play violent video games believe in violent strategies more than those who play non violent video games. 5. Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors. [23] A 2015 peer-reviewed study found \"compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression.\" [118] Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III. [49] Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: \"More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence.\" [53] A Sep. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that first-person shooter games trained players to have better accuracy in shooting a gun outside the game, and made them more likely to aim for the head. [85] 6. Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. The teenage shooters in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre of 13 students played violent combat games. [43] Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training. [53] An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends \"inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes.\" [25] 7. The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior. In its Aug. 2015 resolution on violent video games, the APA wrote: \"WHEREAS many factors are known to be risk factors for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive affect, and reduced prosocial behavior, empathy and moral engagement, and violent video game use is one such risk factor.\" [119] Dr. Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University, wrote: \"Playing a violent video game isn't going to take a healthy kid who has few other risk factors and turn him into a school shooter, but it is a risk factor that does drive the odds for aggression up significantly.\" [120] 8. There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior. [74] A 2014 study published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75]. More than 98% of pediatricians in the United States say that too much exposure to violent media heightens childhood aggression. [62] In addition, 66% of researchers agreed or strongly agreed. Since only 17% of researchers disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 17% were undecided, the study concluded \"That means that among researchers who have an opinion, eight out of 10 agree that violent games increase aggression.\" [75] A joint statement by six leading national medical associations, including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, stated: \"Well over 1,000 studies - including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations - our own members - point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.\" [33] And so now I await the PRO's argument.", "qid": 35, "docid": "45462ad0-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7894909381866455}, {"content": "Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.", "qid": 35, "docid": "7bb5fe56-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7894299030303955}, {"content": "Title: Are Violent video games like CoD bad for younger children?(<12) Content: Thank you to Con for posting this debate. I hope we can have a civilised argument and good luck to you. First off, I don't think that Violent video games are bad for younger kids. In reality it all depends on the child. Its the parents decision if the child is mature enough or not. Of course if the child isn't mature enough the game may cause him fear, but if you think about it the odds of that happening are slim. Its a video game not real life.", "qid": 35, "docid": "a879b165-2019-04-18T12:19:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7888165712356567}, {"content": "Title: Video games do not cause violence` Content: Hello there, as you can tell by the title, I am going to be debating on whether or not video games cause violence. I think that video games do not cause any violence what so ever and can even benefit you in some ways. There are no specific rules for this debate except for the fact that round one is acceptance.", "qid": 35, "docid": "d5c9fd7c-2019-04-18T13:00:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7888034582138062}, {"content": "Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: \"The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.\" Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. \"School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few.\"[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...", "qid": 35, "docid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7887129187583923}, {"content": "Title: the government should ban violent video games to kids and adolescent Content: I accept pro's challenge and argue that the government should not ban violent video games to kids and adolescents. Video games = any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen.", "qid": 35, "docid": "564e80bc-2019-04-18T16:41:14Z-00004-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7885685563087463}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To conclude my argument for the debate, we have two arguments being presented. The first by my opponent, who claims there are other things than video games causing violence; and myself that state that video games do technically cause violence. My opponent did not define the topic of the word \"violence\", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action. As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he \"dropped\" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: \"Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience\". So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!", "qid": 35, "docid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7884698510169983}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: Do video games cause violence? In a simple answer, yes. In the past 15 years, the number of gamers has gone up drastically due to both increased gaming quality and the new notions of multiplayer games, such as MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) games and simple 'LAN' games which allow you to play with a friend. Allow me to quote a news article. \"On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games.\" I'm sure everyone is aware that the PG rating on First Person Shooter games, or pretty much any game that contains violence or sex is literally just ink. Do people really think that kids underage pay attention to those ratings? Get with the modern world. Though it may be unfortunate, it's common knowledge that children participate in over 18 activities including not limited to these video games. It was only last year that an 8 year old shot and killed his caretaker (87 years old) after playing a particularly violent video game. It's people like that little boy who are most vulnerable to influence from video games and from adults who encourage that sort of behavior that are often encountered online. The real reason these games cause violence is because they are given to people who are sometimes mentally unhinged, and also to small children who can easily pirate them from the web. The facts state that these games are mentally damaging to many people. But the biggest problem of all lies in the age rating, because it means nothing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet children want to play those games more, to feel like a proper adult. Winning in a game is a childish notion of victory and defeat is the same. Those notions, however, have killed people in the past. That is proof enough that the games cause violence.", "qid": 35, "docid": "e6270ff-2019-04-18T16:35:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7883787155151367}, {"content": "Title: Fortnight is an example of gun violence Content: Now my opponent has started going off about...video games? This is clearly off-topic, because the name of the debate is clearly talking about the fortnight, which as we established, is a period of two weeks. Even if this debate were about video games causing violence, their evidence is suspect. They point out that 97% of teens aged 12-17 play video games, and yet how many of them engage in gun violence? A microscopic percentage, I'd imagine. They also say that the American Psychological Association takes a \"firm stance\" against children playing violent games. First of all, where's your source? Second, the APA isn't infallible. Until the 70s, they classified homosexuality as a \"mental disorder\", which is clearly based on archaic prejudices and has no evidence to support it. [1] This may be a case of the same.But none of that matters, because as I said, my opponent is off-topic and the win goes to me by default. I would advise my opponent that next time, they should be more careful about laying down rules and definitions in Round 1. And to watch their spelling.Sources:1. https://www.psychiatry.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "ac22b87e-2019-04-18T11:38:36Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7873632907867432}, {"content": "Title: Video Games Lead To Violence Content: There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, \"Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain.\" While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.", "qid": 35, "docid": "46745944-2019-04-18T12:08:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7870689630508423}, {"content": "Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To begin, in the last round I defined the word \"violence\", and its definition being: \"Behavior involving an action intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something\". Then, I asked my opponent if this is the goal in most video games, and my opponent replied. Quoted by my opponent, he said, in this round: \"Yes the goal in most video games is kill the enemy, destroy this, eradicate that. achieve this by ridding of this\". So if my opponent admits that the goal in video games are the following actions, listed under the definition of violence, isn't the player already violent within playing the game? He or she must be violent, for willing to play a game that involves killing or injuring others within the elements of the Gameplay. My opponent also says, after admitting the already violence in video games, and quotes: \"But this debate revolves around why video games influence kids or don't influence kids to do physical harm in real life\". My opponent did not clarify this in the first round or within the topic. The topic is: \"Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children\", where I am \"Con\", and stating that kids do get violent from video games, but will 99% of the time not cause any real threat within society. The definition of violence can also be defined as: \"Strength of emotion or an unpleasant natural force\"; not in the sense of a criminal, or unjustly action. My opponent did not clarify the definition of \"violence\", so it can mean multiple meanings. With that in mind, kids do get a little violent after playing video games commonly that involve any certain aggressive action. Evidence to support this argument is from the article titled: \"Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior, where is says: \"Tend to be more aggressive after playing video games for at least 30 to 40 minutes\". Where I previously mentioned that 91% of kids play video games for an average time of 13.5 hours; above the requirement to get \"aggressive\". So following the topic, video games are, technically, a significant cause of violence. In the previous argument, I brought up the reason of why kids 91% of kids play video games everyday for 13.5 hours, and the reasoning was because of adults and parents ignoring on what their child does; because of adult type responsibilities. My opponent states, with the given quote, that: \"I would never ask 'Why parents do not take these away from their children' because it has nothing to do with the argument. Although I agree its a problem that parents forget about the rating system. \". It actually does because its the biggest influence into having kids play video games with violence, with parents forgetting the rating system. Which my opponent refuses to rebuttal because of knowing the truth that this is a major influence within the debate, which actually does prove that kids play violent video games and influence violence upon them; because of the neglect of the rating system within the video game. My opponent then agrees with me that kids tend to stay more inside, than out. Previously, I mentioned because of this more kids will tend to play video games, then watch television. And also, previously, I brought up the statistic that at least 70% of kids stay inside, when given the decision, than outside. My opponent says that this does not matter, when it does because if kids rather stay inside than outside, then there has to be an influence somewhere to play a video game. Like stated previously, 82% of prefer to play video games than any other activity. So this is relevant if kids are willing to stay inside, than outside. For my opponents argument, he states that there is a more major influence on the outside world than inside. I will admit that there is, but I have a few statistics to disapprove my opponents argument. To begin, I like to bring up a term titled \"Video Game Addiction\", where it is defined as: \"Video game overuse, pathological or compulsive and excessive use of computer games and/or video games\". Video game addiction happens, and once it does; players do not want to stop playing the video game. Stated under the website \"Addiction Recovery\", it states that video game addiction occurs because of the player desiring power within their lives, which is easier done in a game, than real life. Children are more prone towards this type of addiction, because of having a more undeveloped brain, and are actually the biggest targets for this addiction. In 2014, 61% of children have at least missed more than five days of school in order to play video games; because of it being fun. So if kids are practically skipping school to play video games, why do you still think that it is more of the outside world? Even in the outside world, there are still more influences to play these violent video games, than being the \"rejected\" one. In a article, titled: \"Global ad spending in video games to top $7.2B in 2016\", it is easily stated that a ton of money is spent on advertising for a video game. Where it populates the country consistently, and in a statistic from \"Statista\", it states that at least 76% of people are influenced by video game advertisements. So if my opponent claims that there are more influences in the outside world, why is there still many influences to play these violent video games? My opponent even agrees that video games are a popular source of media, and therefore stands upon my argument in which kids are heavily influenced to play these violent video games. My opponent still disagrees that because of video games being popular, with the given statement from my opponent being: \"I find it funny that you say because video games are the most popular they are therefore one of the main and only reasons for violent acts and thoughts in kids\". Stated under the article, titled \"The Role and Influence of Mass Media\", the media heavily influences a lot of actions or ideas within society. Examples, that they provided, include the different trends of clothes in different time periods (Wearing 80's clothing at the time and now being very weird towards today's society), and the determination of whether to be afraid or happy in a certain event. So media does have a huge influence, and if my opponent agrees that video games are popular; then how are video games not causing violence within children? My opponent also brought up some statistics within the following link he provided, but that evidence can easily be counter argued with a \"Copy & Paste Method\". My opponent got his evidence from a \"Pro\" and \"Con\" website, where it gives the Pro's and Con's within the site. This is, factually, not a reliable source where it can be counter argued very easily; and should not be used; especially when my opponent just copied and pasted his argument, instead of stating his opinion with evidence to support it. And also breaks the moral of a debate! To conclude this round, let me state that I have brought many counter arguments towards my opponent. My opponent provided some counter arguments, but did not bring any evidence or common logic within the debate; even though stated by my opponents rules of: \"Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a 'fact' must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have 'logic' back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves\". While I counter argued most of my opponents arguments, and brought up some new arguments. The new arguments of major influences of the outside world, instead of ones comfort zone. Sources: www. pamf. org/parenting-teens/general/media-web/violentgames. html www. rootsofaction. com/video-games-for-kids-more-good-than-bad-for-development/ www. focusonthefamily. com/parenting/protecting-your-family/parents-guide-to-video-games/hooked-the-addictive www. dana. org/Cerebrum/2009/Video_Games_Affect_the_Brain%E2%80%94for_Better_and_Worse/ www. venturebeat. com/2011/09/12/global-ad-spending-in-video-games-to-top-7-2b-in-2016/ www. addictionrecov. org/Addictions/? AID=45 www. statista. com/topics/868/video-games/ www. cliffsnotes. com/sciences/sociology/contemporary-mass-media/the-role-and-influence-of-mass-media", "qid": 35, "docid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7866387963294983}, {"content": "Title: Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour) Content: Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.", "qid": 35, "docid": "a1ac5625-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7864286303520203}, {"content": "Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, \"who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that \"The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top.\" The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, \"Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better.\" All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.", "qid": 35, "docid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7862277030944824}, {"content": "Title: Video games do not cause children to commit crimes Content: Con has forfeited and never stated any evidence that video games make kids depressed or aggressive. He didn't also site sources. My arguments still stand and have not been rebutted and stay on the topic con this about video games not TV Games have quadrupled 1995-2008 and there has been a massive drop in arrest record reports. Just to show the studies of video games say that \"children get into less physical fights\" this shows how video games do not cause our violence. If you banned video games there will be still more murders and school attacks 2. The Supreme Court went up against the government about trying to banned video games as shown in the link below games. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... Like I said just banning video games there would be more mass murders and it will put lots of gaming industries out of money just because people think video games persuade children to criminal behavior. 3. Again to state that cons argument was wrong 'killing the people and animals' just exactly what I said still kill for ivory and animal skins and you cannot change that there will be still more and more poachers and about the killing of others that\"s something that will continue to happen like rape, gun crimes, kidnapping will still happen no matter what. Not every video game has shooting in it.", "qid": 35, "docid": "b381c0ed-2019-04-18T16:54:48Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7861582040786743}, {"content": "Title: should kids under age 12 play violent video games Content: Con forfeited, and I extend my argument. There is no reason why kids should not play violent video games, as there is no evidence to show that violent video games engenders violent behavior in kids (pro did not even make this claim - in fact, there was no mention of how \"violent\" video games contrasts with video games in general from the pro side). Therefore, pro failed to uphold the BOP and con wins by default.", "qid": 35, "docid": "9af99515-2019-04-18T13:56:13Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7857679724693298}, {"content": "Title: Games do not cause people to become violent. Content: Observation: Since the resolution is \"games do not cause people to become violent\" All I have to prove is that in some cases and some studies violence happens from video games I will just respond to his one and only argument.. which is literally just video games don't cause violence well I have proof it has. On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games [source: Ward]. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... Since then, in the wake of each new, senseless massacre, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. The 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that same year [source: Jaccarino]. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... So yeah these are some examples of cases from video games. Video games increase the chance of someone killing another person because they learn more about violence and tactics that could be used against another person. Movies fit here as well violent or sexual movies can result in someone doing violent or sexual actions earlier. I am not saying violent video games 100% of the time result in killings, if that was true America would be a war zone, I am just saying playing video games can cause some people to become violent and as I will provide in a second the violence doesn't have to be a shooting. Here are some studies/examples of video games causeing certain forms of violence. Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. Conclusion: I agree that this violence can be avoided but what you have to understand is that it still causes killings to happen for some people. It's kind of like with smoking. Some people end up smoking if they hang around friends who smoke but others can resist peer pressure. I am not saying remove video games I am just trying to prove that for some people it increases violence and results in violent actions. I agree it can be avoided but all I have to prove on my side that video games can/have caused some to be violent. Also video games can cause some people to feel happiness by causing pain to theirs as well. Video games can result in more knowledge on violence and influences in certain areas just like movies. Movies and video games are almost the same thing just people play the video games. Both can influence the mind and actions.", "qid": 35, "docid": "ccecc0ad-2019-04-18T15:37:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7856502532958984}, {"content": "Title: Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it Content: Greetings! The first part of this debate, \u201cDo kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc.\u201d is largely an evidence battle. I, as Pro, will be asserting that yes, children do, in fact, become more violent for watching violent movies or television shows or playing violent video games. I feel more than well-supported by the scientific literature here. First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality. [1] Although the studies in the referenced meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I\u2019d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2] I present two other studies which not only conclude that players of violent video games tend toward more violent behavior, but offer explanations of the mechanisms involved. [3][4] Second, there are also multiple studies indicating the same increase in aggression linked to other violent media. [5][6][7] Again, I feel as though the scientific literature supports my position here. Feel free to contest the evidence provided or provide counter-evidence for dispute. The second part of this debate, \u201cShould we stop it,\u201d is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and douchebaggery), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them. [1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://web.missouri.edu... [4] http://lol.medieraadet.dk... [5] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [6] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...", "qid": 35, "docid": "19ca43bb-2019-04-18T18:35:19Z-00006-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7854952812194824}, {"content": "Title: video game violence Content: First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.", "qid": 35, "docid": "6714f378-2019-04-18T20:03:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7851638793945312}, {"content": "Title: Video games are actually good for you Content: I will start this round with rebutting your counter arguments and then provide more information and facts of how video games (violent and not) supply numerous benefits. Rebuttals :My opponent began with how violent video games give children bad ideas and causes a bad influence, video games of violent nature are most definitely for those of us who can tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction and what is wrong and right. Also, the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) have ratings for games that should not be played by youth. I advise that parents and children abide by those ratings, and if they do not then those families can use with their own caution. I never stated that violent video games were good for children.The opponent brings up another concern of staring at a screen for to long will ruin users eyes. In Times magazine, Markham Heid writes of Doctor Joshua Dunaief who documents that most cases of 'Computer Vision Syndrome' are actually caused by either, dry eyes or your eyes becoming too fatigued to actually interpret correctly. \"there are tiny muscles inside your eyeball that change the shape of your eye\u2019s lens in order to bring whatever you\u2019re seeing into focus,\" after time the muscles become tired and can no longer focus, computers are not to blame. Many do complain of our generation being 'dead' and socially inactive, however, maybe older generations just simply don't get it. As technology gets more and more advanced, the more we want to use it. Many children do spend their weekends playing video games, because they spend 8 hours every day for 5 days straight learning. We're spent and tired of being in schoo, video games can be a relaxer. Everyone has a hobby and video games is one. A hobby with benefits also. My opponent seems to be one of many who link shootings to violent video games, however, 91% of society play video games! Therefore the claim that violent video games cause violence is irrelevant. Sure there is alot of thought provoking choices you can make when playing these first shooter games but a potential crinimal can also get ideas from simply watching the news, like so many do every single morning.Claims :One of the numerous benefits of of playing video games, violent included, is the lesson of teamwork. Many games have an option to play against and with other gamers all over the world. This can teach players of how sometimes, when you can not succed on your own, you may be able to succed with another to aid you. Players will realize that when two, or more, come together, great things can happen.Washington Post's article, \"A New Study Shows Benefits of Violent Video Games fo Kids' Learning,\" states that \"A 2013 meta-analysis found that playing shooter video games improved a player\u2019s capacity to think about objects in three dimensions just as well as academic courses to enhance these same skills, according to the study. This enhanced thinking was not found with playing other types of video games, such as puzzles or role-playing games.\" showing that even video games containing violence have their own gains. The artcle also documented that these games can help in childrens problem solving skills and a boost in creativity.", "qid": 35, "docid": "7ba93df6-2019-04-18T15:03:55Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7849490642547607}, {"content": "Title: Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis Content: This is an important topic, but sadly not enough research has been done, and those that have been conducted aren't as conclusive as some (such as Pro I'd imagine) would like. Unfortunately, Pro has only provided anecdotal evidence to support their claim that exposing children to violent imagery in television programs and video games induces more violent tendencies among the recipient. This is often the case, as video games and television are an easy scapegoat. It's convenient to be able to point a finger at one particular cause and be done with it. However, the idea that these factors induce violent behavior in children is a post hoc fallacy. The majority of children play video games [1], obviously some of them will be aggressive. The truth is, there are many, many factor in determining violent and/or aggressive behavior in youths [2]. They can include poor parenting/role modeling for your child, mental or physical health issues, your work or school environment, socioeconomic factors, and many others. However, the source I provided fails to mention television and video games as a factor. Therefore, it can't be said with certainty that Pro's resolution is true. \"all [children] are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. \" Another interesting piece of information is that children these days are more well-behaved and respectful than their parents' generation [3]. The only reason I already know this is because I'm in the middle of a debate with another person that thinks children \"these days\" are spoiled. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal in Round 2. Best of luck. Sources: [1] . https://techcrunch.com... [2] . http://www.healthline.com... [3] . http://www.independent.co.uk...", "qid": 35, "docid": "7bd1920c-2019-04-18T12:26:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.784549355506897}, {"content": "Title: Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Content: Good luck to him/her! :)Before I begin, I want to point out that the onus is on my opponent to prove that the resolution is true. This is because:a) The burden is on him to prove a positive statement (i. e. the resolution), as it's impossible to prove a negative claim. b) The resolution demands that he prove that violent video games cause violent behavior, and that I prove they do not. This means that so long as I'm refuting my opponent's arguments, then it's sufficient for me to win the debate, as I'm disproving my opponent's position, i. e. showing how violent video games do not cause violent behavior. OVERVIEW TO MY OPPONENT'S CASE:My opponent seems to be using the tactic of just citing sources without actually writing out an arugment. There's a few problems with doing this. First, this is just the appeal to authority fallacy. He's just showing the articles to me and saying that I'm wrong because it's all right there. By that line all I have to do is show my own sources and nothing in his last round stands anymore because the sources would cancel each other out. Without writing any actual arguments, he doesn't have anything to advance in the round, and thus no way to win. Second, this is a debate between me and the user blackbird. If I wanted to debate the authors of those articles, I'd contact them and do so. It's unfair to me to be expected to read through every article and respond to everything in them while all my opponent did was just list off a few results from Google. Judges, I ask that you don't let him get away with this kind of behavior. If he doesn't actually give you any arguments of his own, then vote him down. But, even though it's unfair for me to have to, I read through his sources. Let's examine each one in depth:THE CNN SOURCE:His first source is a source from CNN talking about the link between violent video games and aggression. This source is a wash for a few reasons:First, he's mistakingly saying that aggression and violent behavior are the same thing. That's not the case though. I can be an aggressive person without doing a single violent thing. Aggression doesn't necessitate violent acts and the onus is on him to prove that it does. Second, his own source admits that there could be an outside reason other than the violence that's causing the aggression. To quote his own article, \"\"It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence,\" said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. \". Since my opponent has to be proving that it's the violence that's causing the violent acts, as per the resolution, if I show that there's an outside reason other than violence that's causing these violent acts then you vote con. Third, his own source admits that his own source has too vague of definitions, and that there needs to be better definitions of what a violent video game constitutes and what aggressive behavior constitutes. To quote his own source, \". But she argues that the label \"violent video games\" is too vague. Researchers need to do a better job at defining what is considered a violent video game and what constitutes aggressive behavior, she added. \" This means that a) his source doesn't fully defend the position he's taking and b) it further confirms my earlier point that aggression isn't the same thing as violent acts. THE TIME SOURCE: My opponent's next source is a source from the New York Times, talking about, again, how exposure to violent video games leads to aggression. This source is even worse. First, refer back to my above argument about how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Second, his own source contradicts his claim. To quote his source, \"Anderson and his team, however, did not see any significant difference in empathy among the players who played more or fewer hours. That confirmed earlier lab-based studies that showed both undergraduates who played violent games and those that played non-violent ones were equally likely to help scientists pick up dropped pens. \" And this is important because if there's no difference in empathy between those who play violent video games and those who do not, the claim that violent vidoe games lead to aggression looks even worse than it did before. Also, if violent video game players are showing the same levels of empathy as non-violent video game players are, then they're just as likely to also commit acts of violence as those who do not, since empathy is the opposite of aggression (helping someone as opposed to hurting them), which suggests an alternative cause to the violent acts than the violence in video games. Third, his own source blatantly argues against his position. To quote, \"The evolving literature is why some researchers, including Christopher Ferguson, chair of the psychology department at Stetson University, insist there isn\u2019t strong evidence that exposure to violent video games leads to more aggressive behavior. He notes, for example, that the rise in popularity of video gaming has not been matched by a similar rise in violent crime among adolescents who are most likely to play them. Studies that link violent video games to violent behavior, he says, often fail to account for other factors that can contribute to aggression, such as violence in the home, abuse, and mental illness. \" This is catastrophic for my opponent because it shows that a) violent video games don't lead to more aggression, b) if it did then there would be a corrolation between video game and violent crime among adolescents, which his own source says doesn't exist, and c) that there are alternative explanations to the violent behavior (i. e. domestic violence, abuse, and mental disease) that causes the violent behavior. THE PAMF SOURCE:My opponent's third source is from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and makes the claim that violent video games leads to aggression. This source is trash as well. First, refer to the above as to how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Secondly, the source doesn't actually present any kind of evidence. It says a bunch of stuides have said things (\" A 2004 study by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh found that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: . .. ), without giving us anything about the study (i. e. methodology, sample size, etc. ). This means it's impossible to verify the integrity of the study conducted, which means there's no reason we should trust the accuracy of the study for the purpose to this debate. Third, even his own source won't defend the accuracy of outside sources/websites. To quote, \"[B]elow are links PAMF accessed when researching this topic. PAMF does not sponsor or endorse any of these sites, nor does PAMF guarantee the accuracy of the information contained on them. \" If the source he's citing to make x claim won't even defend the information they used to make that claim, there's absolutely no reason we should trust his source. THE PSYCHOLOGY TODAY SOURCE:His fourth and final source is from Psychology today and is saying that---wait, where have I seen this before? Is it making the claim that violent video games lead to aggression? Oh no, it is. .. Well, might as well dive right in. First, refer above to why violent acts and aggression are not the same thing. Secondly, the empirical evidence cited by this article is not even linked, just the results were stated, meaning we have no way to confirm that the study was a valid study. Third, the evidence it uses isn't even significant. The results from the study said, and I quote, \"These studies find that playing violent video games does, indeed, cause aggression. The effect is a correlation of about r = .20\", which is statistically insignificant. It's more likely that an alternative cause, like one's previously mentioned, are causing the violent behavior other than the violence in video games themselves. HIS OTHER TWO SOURCES:My opponent cites two more sources, which, as he claims, show how children \"will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well \". This is irrelevant to the debate. Our discussion is about violent video games. Anything outside of this should have no relevance to the debate at hand. IN CONCLUSION:I have gone through all of my opponent's claims and thuroughly refuted each and every source he cited. Moreover, he has not actually presented a single argument this debate, only letting google do his arguing for him. This means that a) you're defaulting to voting con because he doesn't have a single argument to advance through the round, which means he isn't proving that violent video games cause violent behavior, and b) even if you're counting his source-spam as an argument, I've gone through and shown how his sources are both flawed and contradictory to his position, providing me with evidence for my position, meaning I'm doing the better job upholding my resolutional burden. :)", "qid": 35, "docid": "ce330406-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7840651869773865}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games, banning of Content: I think that violent video games should be banned because what good are they doing to society!!! Violent video games encourage a more violent society. The exposure to violence such as killing and assault. The extent to this brutality has become ridiculous and we are letting people play them for hours on end. What is this doing to our young people who are influenced by what they watch. For example there was an 14 year old boy committed murder with a hammer after repeatedly playing manhunt which displays the same kind of violent behavior", "qid": 35, "docid": "75fbfa8d-2019-04-18T14:39:09Z-00008-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7839642763137817}, {"content": "Title: No video game is purposely designed to anger Players Content: After reading your opinion on \"Are video games causing violence in teens?\"I decided that I would like to Debate this with you right away. http://www.debate.org...There are video games designed to anger players and the ones that are not specifically for that purpose can anger players if the goal is not completely obvious, or if the levels are above and beyond the person's skill level. I invite you to start with either more in depth explanation of your opinion or a reasonable restatement of what you truly meant. Please go as in depth as you feel in all three rounds and I will gladly argue with the disadvantage of only having two rounds to complete my argument.", "qid": 35, "docid": "f53d0adc-2019-04-18T16:51:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.783172607421875}, {"content": "Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: To what extent the content of the video game doesn't make children violent, The content gives \"children\" (all players really) a way to identify and emphasize with violence. The act of playing video games alone can cause a distorted concept of reality that inhibits the mind from thinking logically and induces stress leaving the players to resort to the most basic human instinct of control-- violence. These are the premises that I will use to start my argument. Please feel free to begin the next round with a detailed exploration of your disagreement with as much or as little evidence as you need.", "qid": 35, "docid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7829124331474304}, {"content": "Title: Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence Content: I concur with you argument that humans can contextualize violence am not suggesting that there is a direct correlation between violence and video games. This debate is based solely on the proposition that violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence. First, for my counterargument, I would like to define what it means to desensitize. dictionary.com 1.to lessen the sensitiveness of, or to reduce responses to external conditions or stimulation. Now, alluding to my first arguments, after playing the violent video games, the subjects had less of a response to the violent episodes. Therefore, they were desensitized. It has been proven that people adapt after increased exposure to stimuli and become desensitized to it, so no matter what you can't argue that violent video games do no desensitize individuals to violence at all. The evidence supporting both your and my side is lacking, so there is no ways to say with a high degree of certitude that they do or do not have long term desensitization effects, however that is not what the proposition states. One reason I go on debate.org is to see the opposite sides of issues. Thank you for providing such great information! Now I have a different perspective. I hope I didn't waste your time. I'm probably going to lose, but we'll see what the voters decide. X) -Paramountdesktop", "qid": 35, "docid": "46642c87-2019-04-18T19:37:10Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7827066779136658}]}
{"query": "Is golf a sport?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game).\" (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8897192478179932}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: I accept your argument. I say golf is not a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8701321482658386}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a physical sport Content: Let me clarify my stance before you accept. I DO believe that golf is a sport in the strictest sense of the word, that is, in the competitive and recreational sense only. The definition of \"sport\": \"A source of diversion; recreation. \" This, I believe is the only way that golf meets the definition of \"sport. \" The word also has another definition: \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in. \" This is where golf fails to meet the definition of a sport- in the physical sense of the word. Here is the definition of \"physical\" that I will be using in this debate: \"characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \" Golf does not meet this definition. It will be Con's job to argue against this stance. First round is for acceptance. Best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8670274019241333}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: golf is a sport no doubt. it takes pure skill to be able to play the sport and if you can go pro in a activity then it should be a sport", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8656396865844727}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: the real deffinition of a sport is: all game that include physical exercise. so golf is just a game not a sport", "qid": 36, "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8600888252258301}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8531613945960999}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a \"game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. \" [1]Sport, is a \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). \" [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word \"sport. \" Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8446943759918213}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.", "qid": 36, "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8439579010009766}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8386742472648621}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8275277614593506}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: Golf is already officially categorized as a sport!", "qid": 36, "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8222407698631287}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated \"Golf is the most boring activity known to man\" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.", "qid": 36, "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.818332850933075}, {"content": "Title: does golf is a real sport Content: i think golf is not a real sport, because you dont make a physical exercise.", "qid": 36, "docid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8159725666046143}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: Lets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \"I just lost the tournament\", or \"I'm such an idiot\". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8038884997367859}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: GOLF IS NOT A SPORT!!!! They only motion that goes into golf is bending down the get the ball, bending down to put the ball on the ground, and swing. You said that they must walk all day, but they can drive in a GOLF cart.", "qid": 36, "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7994090914726257}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.", "qid": 36, "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7955082654953003}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: How is golf a sport???? All you do is hit a golf ball on a field like a snobby brat!!!! Nobody can cheer for you and you are quiet and standing in the hot sun!!!!! Whatever happens on golf that is exciting and will get your heartbeat pumping?? Yeah he hit a hole in one ohhhh what a day to watch!!!!! So I'm ready for this debate are you!!!", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7915118932723999}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro!", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7870333194732666}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport. Content: I would just like to say that this is my first debate. I am excited to start debating! Lets get started! Dictionary.com defines the word \"sport\" as \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.\" Based on this definition, I believe that bowling can be considered a sport. First round will be acceptance only. Thank you in advance for accepting!", "qid": 36, "docid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7789161205291748}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\"For entertainment.\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man. And that's final.Case closed.", "qid": 36, "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7743966579437256}, {"content": "Title: should video games be considered a sport Content: the definition of a sport is: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\"", "qid": 36, "docid": "d6baaaf1-2019-04-18T12:08:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7741633057594299}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to \"getcha head in the game\". Come on, people.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7725784778594971}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.", "qid": 36, "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7706649899482727}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: First I will start with some definitions of \"Sports\" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7687884569168091}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7624121308326721}, {"content": "Title: Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Content: The Definition of SportAlright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed \"intellectual sports\", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be \"sports\".sources:(https://www.chess.com...)(http://londonchessconference.com...)Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are. Skill and Strategy in Games I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include \"Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports\", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven IllogicalThis next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is \"why shouldn't they be?\". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.", "qid": 36, "docid": "f81067da-2019-04-18T12:40:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7610953450202942}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that \"the free market will prevail\". Mind if i quote your closing statement? \"I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\" Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, \"knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em\", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00003-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7561019659042358}, {"content": "Title: Baseball is better than golf Content: Golf uses your mind in more ways than baseball does. Although it is more popular is some places, golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California. Using a golf cart is optional, and it is more fun to watch golf on television. Easy.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a2449587-2019-04-18T16:24:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7556294202804565}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport Content: A nice short debate about whether or not bowling is a sport or not.First round is acceptance, second round is arguments.Semantics are perfectly acceptable.Good luck!", "qid": 36, "docid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7485699653625488}, {"content": "Title: Golf is better than soccer. Content: Golf is a wayyyyy better sport and dumb old soccer. Golf takes patients and you have to be good at it.....PLUS it makes wayy more money. Also you get alot of free cool things just for playing and get to play on beautiful golf courses on a big field.....who doesnt like that?!...And the BEST part is GOLF CARTS!! :P", "qid": 36, "docid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7479846477508545}, {"content": "Title: Gaming is a sport Content: Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No \"K's\" on the topic.", "qid": 36, "docid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00006-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7461465001106262}, {"content": "Title: Baseball Is a Sport Content: You're on, buddy! Sport, as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a physical activity engaged in for pleasure. Now, baseball requires physical activity, in the pitching, catching, running, batting, throwing, etc., and is engaged in for pleasure, so it is therefore a sport. http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "4c19a039-2019-04-18T18:38:18Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7461110353469849}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word \"sport\" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.", "qid": 36, "docid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7453873753547668}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Thanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. \" This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is \"nothing can be more of a sport than a sport\". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be \"more of a sport\" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that \"there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament\". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks \" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as \"competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity\" I accept this definition. He says that \"Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit\" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that \"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \"general vicinity\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that \"the distance is irrelevant. \", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that \"In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object\". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult \" to kill it as it is running away\", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 36, "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7434833645820618}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of \"sport\" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in \"A source of diversion\" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, \"sexual play\" refers to the use of \"sport\" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure\" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a \"relaxed canoe trip\" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a \"relaxed canoe trip\" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is \"okay exercise.\" By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7432999014854431}, {"content": "Title: Should marching band be considered a sport Content: I believe that marching band should be considered a sport for many reasons. Of these, one of them is that it matches all criteria for it to be considered a sport as defined by dictionary.com (an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.).", "qid": 36, "docid": "90199824-2019-04-18T14:13:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.740803599357605}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Mr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) \"Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong.\" (5) \"Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win.\" Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. \"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables.\" golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... \"Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful.\" SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. \"This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves\" I agree these are two different things \"Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body.\" In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body\" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... \"I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\"\" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7354963421821594}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: \"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do\" \"suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ.\" These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.", "qid": 36, "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7346569299697876}, {"content": "Title: NASCAR is a sport Content: Whoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7342554330825806}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, \"...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing...\" you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of \"Croquet\", rather than your spelling of \"Krokae\". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these \"sports\" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These \"sports\", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this \"sport\" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the \"sports\" you referenced being referred to as \"sports\" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these \"sports\" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the \"gentleman's sport\" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7341881990432739}, {"content": "Title: Basketball is worse than golf! Content: All you have to do is hit the boall and go after it. It is much more fun compared to basketball. Firstly, golf is ann enjoyablle and relaxed way to get excersice whilst also doing a sportt. Seckondly, it is a moore sociall way to get to know people. Alll ages can get envolved and it is great for a family day oout. Thirdly, . http://www.walkthewalkpresents.com... golf doesn't cause any injuries and is a healthy way to get more flexible. In conklusion, it is good for alll ages, you get more fit comparred to basketball and flexible, it is more simple and has less rules. . http://www.braintraining101.com... has prove!", "qid": 36, "docid": "b032fa0a-2019-04-18T15:02:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7334154844284058}, {"content": "Title: Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games. Content: :)Objection #1 You raised the sports, shooting, curling, and golf as not applicable to the criteria I set forth in my argument. This I believe is incorrect, all three of these sports require physical skills and therefore fall under the label of athletic sports. Shooting: This sport requires proficiency with the given fire-arm that involves a tremendous amount of physical accuracy and speed. Curling: This sport also much like shooting requires a great deal of physical skill and control, even including a team aspect. Golf: Golf involves physical strength and accuracy not uncommon to the existence of other sports invovlved in the Olympics. Objection #2You claim that my statemen regarding the Olympics being a historically athletic competition to be false. Your support for this objection is the short history of Cycling, BMX or Mountain biking. This to me appears to be a misunderstanding of my argument, my contention is that the Modern Day Olympic Games are an adaptation of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece,[1] which involve a series of athletic sporting events. Modern sports can and should be added if approriate to the nature of the competition, this is not so for Video Games as it is demonstrably not a athletic sport. Objection #3 You assert that the existence of trolls in every sport should not discount the inclusion of Video games from the Olympics. This still fails to realize the vast difference in levels of professionalism and sportsmanship between Olympic athletes, and E-Sport superstars. The players themselves are largely not to blame, but the overall volatile communities that foster avenues for online bullying due to the fact it is completely anoymous. Objection #4 Clarified my argument to show your \"disproving\" my primary argument as invalid and a misrepresentation of my assertion. Objection #5 Video games simply have no place in the summer or winter olympics, the viewership for all the events can be just about universally appreciated by the global audience, and this attempt to draw a comparision I believe fails in that I can enjoy the skill one evidently has in diving, without participating in that sport myself. Video games are a much more specific fan base and most importantly are NOT athletic sports and therefore should have their separate venues for competition where the struggling players actually make money. All I have time for, for now. Kindest Regards,TrueScotsman", "qid": 36, "docid": "126ee163-2019-04-18T17:04:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7319976091384888}, {"content": "Title: Video games are a sport Content: What is a sport? \"a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job\" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...). Video games require skill and reflexes, has rules and can be for pure enjoy or a full time job. Sports does not need to be a main physical activity, chess is a sport and you have just move a wooden piece (or any other material), but requires skill and strategy, with rules and is competitive.", "qid": 36, "docid": "c82afeaa-2019-04-18T12:13:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.731975793838501}, {"content": "Title: This house believes \"Video Games Be Considered a Sport\" Content: Hi guys! Today we will be debating the topic, should games be considered sports? I am taking the PRO stance in this debate whereas whoever else accepts it takes the CON stance for this. Here is the breakup of how the rounds will work: ROUND ONE : Is simply acceptance, no arguments to be posted ROUND TWO-FOUR : Is arguments/counter arguments ROUND FIVE : Is arguments/counter arguments as well as why you took up this stance in the first place. RULES:- - There will be no swearing - Please answer in all rounds - Cite your sources either gradually or all at the end. - Please use fact rather than opinion in your debate as this a fact based debate. REMINDER: Don't forget to use the six hats!", "qid": 36, "docid": "19e9442f-2019-04-18T12:16:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7308217287063599}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.", "qid": 36, "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7307326793670654}, {"content": "Title: Major League Gaming a sport Content: I dont think it is a sport i know.....For 1 it is on Espn.com.....which is the most known Sport network site in the world...2. the Def. of a sport is an \"activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect.", "qid": 36, "docid": "4b7e0d28-2019-04-18T19:28:51Z-00009-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7305495738983154}, {"content": "Title: Golf is a sport Content: People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled \"Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport,\" published on cbssports.com: \"Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible.\" Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled \"Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.,\" published on the Huffington Post website: \"Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But \"no walking required\"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.", "qid": 36, "docid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.730449914932251}, {"content": "Title: Pro Gaming a sport Content: Since my opponent only stated he has overwhelming facts to present I have nothing to refute so I will go on to present my arguments. My opponent gave no def. of sport so I will put one forth. Sport-an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc\" By that definition it shows that pro gaming is not a sport. It does not push the physical limits of the human body, and there is no frequent movement of each muscle in the human body. Also from one of the staff members blogs saying himself that it is not a sport. \"No, professional gaming is not a sport. While it's a viable form of competition and, according to some definitions of the word sport, it's easy to define pro gaming as such, the key to distinguishing viable forms of competition, such as competitive gaming and basketball, from sports is athletic activity. While poker, chess and gaming are viable professional, competitive activities they are dissimilar to sports such as basketball and tennis that require physical exertion. By adding this requirement we make the way we talk about things more clearly defined. The fact that gaming is not a \"traditional\" sport defines it as something else while not taking away at all from what is has in common with a sport. We classify things as specifically as possible in order to clarify discussion. \" by Brick from MLGpro. com If people who work for it don't classify it as a sport it shouldn't be one.", "qid": 36, "docid": "181c69f4-2019-04-18T19:26:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.729836642742157}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport. Content: I will take you up on this debate, even though in your framing of the debate, you have given yourself a fairly solid position. Proposing a debate on the tautologous statement that Dictionary.com uses bowling as an example of a sport, so therefore you will argue that bowling is a sport. I accept.", "qid": 36, "docid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7287423610687256}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Content: I thank you for putting this argument on and look forward to a fantastic debate. As you have not given a definition of \"sport\" I took the liberty of doing it. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Ping pong involves both physical exertion as you have to move your arms and dive for the ball on occasion. And it certainly requires skill as people who have never played it are usually terrible and the professionals can hit and return the ball at tremendous speeds. In response to your 4 arguments why it is isn't a sport. Firstly the fact that everything is smaller than tennis doesn't make it miniature and if it was I do not see why that would matter. Secondly it does require athleticism as you have to lunge forward if your opponent drop shots you or hits it really hard and you have stand backwards. Thirdly you are right it doesn't require teamwork but neither does tennis, squash, chess, gymnastic or swimming . And it actually can be played in doubles just like tennis, and swimming. And tun response to your last comment it does require strategy as you have to know when to drops shot your opponent or know hen to hit it extremely hard or play the ball into the corners. I look forward to your return argument.", "qid": 36, "docid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7277176380157471}, {"content": "Title: Video games are a sport Content: Your definition of \"sport\" states that sports require physical effort. You yourself said in your argument that \"Sports does [sic] not need to be a main physical activity\", which directly contradicts the definition you provided. If we take your definition as the one used in this debate, which I'm happy to do, it disallows video games as a sport. Video games do not require any more physical effort than walking up the stairs, making a cup of tea, or using the toilet. Therefore, unless you wish to count any of the above three as sports, you cannot count video games as a sport. (Despite being an avid chess player, I don't believe that chess is a sport. I've played soccer for over half my life and think it's stupid to compare chess to soccer).", "qid": 36, "docid": "c82afeaa-2019-04-18T12:13:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7265335321426392}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: Core Statement | Chess is a sport and not only a game. 1st Round: Acceptance / something you might want to add before we start 2nd Round: Arguments only 3rd Round: Rebuttals / Optional more Arguments 4th Round: Last rebuttals / No additional argument Some side notes | Like traditional ball-sports there is of course a context in which chess is merely a game. Three 8y-old boys in a backyard are for example perusing football as game and not as a sport. But in a competitive environment chess is as much a sport as such as football, rugby or swimming. Let's go!", "qid": 36, "docid": "1979edab-2019-04-18T16:01:11Z-00007-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7261791229248047}, {"content": "Title: Video games are a sport Content: Sounds like this will be an interesting discussion. My opponent brings up the argument that video games are not a sport due to lack of physical activity. Pro argues that other activities with little physical activity are considered sports, but he does not challenge the fact that video games lack physical activity. Since we are agreed on this, I will use it as my Contention 1: Video games lack physical activity. Video games, such as Star Craft, which Pro mentioned, can require a variety of mental skills, as well as good vision and hand-eye coordination. However, one thing they do not require is physical activity, which is something Pro confirms. My opponent uses dictionary.com, which is not at all a problem in the context of this debate. However, if we dig deeper, we can find that Pro trunucated his definition of \"sport\". Normally, this is not a problem, and such an action can often be justified for the sake of brevity, but in this case, the full definition has more useful information to consider: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" This definition provides not only criteria for inclusion, but a variety of examples, including racing, (maybe not auto racing, but this works just as well) which is considered a sport due to the physical stamina that is necessary on account of the moderate G-forces that riders experience, and golf, which requires physical skill to control the ball with a wide variety of clubs and in many circumstances. This can be expressed as Contention 2: Sports require physical activity. I could stop right here, but it might also be very useful to return to dictionary.com. If a sport is an \"athletic activity...\" the definition of \"athletic\" might be useful here: \"of or relating to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina\" These are our established criteria for a sport. Sports involve physical activities or capabilities. We could discuss why video games do not meet these criteria, but that is unnecessary, since Pro argues that they do not, and we are in agreement on this. To conclude, let me explain my stance on the other four activities my opponent mentioned: Curling, chess, competitive eating, and poker. Curling involves the physical abilities to release a stone with vital accuracy in speed and direction, and to manipulate its trajectory by shaving the ice with technique and accuracy. These are physical activities. Conclusion: Sport. Chess is said by some to be a sport because professional games, which can last for six or even seven hours, require stamina and endurance. However, chess has always been a primarily mental activity, and it can be enjoyed just as well at faster time controls, in which games can be done in under two hours. The physical aspect does not play a role in most contexts. Conclusion: Not a sport. Competitive eating involves at its core a physical skill, the ability to ingest large amounts of food in a short time. Conclusion: Sport. Poker, like chess, involves mental skill and decisions. One could argue that it also involves the ability to psychologically interpret opponents, and keep them from doing the same to you. However, this again is a mental activity, not a physical one. Conclusion: Not a sport. The word \"sport\" can mean a wide variety of things. It does not only involve brute force, as in American football or wrestling, or endurance, as in long-distance running or soccer, but more subtle physical abilities, as in archery or golf. Video games are not a sport, since they primarily involve mental and not physical abilities.", "qid": 36, "docid": "c82afe8b-2019-04-18T14:35:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7260875701904297}, {"content": "Title: Swimming should not be considered a sport Content: Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports. I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question. Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations.", "qid": 36, "docid": "3bbff083-2019-04-18T19:52:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7259362936019897}, {"content": "Title: Marching band is a sport Content: I am currently waiting for a rebuttal for my main arguments against marching band being considered a sport. These are: The lack of an opposing force altering the performance of the marching band The lack of a professional (read: income-generating) career ladder for marching band The lack of a \"game object\" in marching band I await my opponent's closing argument. Thank you.", "qid": 36, "docid": "d38a910d-2019-04-18T18:12:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7252431511878967}, {"content": "Title: eSports should be recognized and respected as official sports Content: What is a sport? The topic is widely debated throughout the world. Is cheerleading or dancing or darts a sport? Where do we draw the line? When it comes to videogames it simply is not a sport. It is a competition. Sports are defined according to every other site besides yours as, An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... https://www.google.ca... Although many sports are competitive a competition is not defined as a sport. \"an event or contest in which people compete\" .https://www.google.ca... Videogames or egames are just a competition the same as spelling bees, checkers, chess they are not considered sports. According to ESPN president he declares that egames are not a sport. Supporting me in my arguments. http://ca.ign.com... He gives similar reasons as the ones I chose. Saying,\"It\"s not a sport \" it\"s a competition. Chess is a competition. Checkers is a competition,\" Preparation for such events doesn't make anything a sport. I have to prepare to go to school. Yet school is not a sport. I have to prepare my mind and body to be in a state of mind to write a strong argument yet arguing is not a sport. Just because you have a skill doesn't make it a sport for both physical effort and skill is required to make something a sport. For the reasons listed above I believe it is clear why egames are not considered a sport and should not be considered a sport. Thank you. I look forward to my opponents response.", "qid": 36, "docid": "2ac397ba-2019-04-18T14:00:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7240034341812134}, {"content": "Title: Is golf a sport Content: opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7237659692764282}, {"content": "Title: Is golf asport Content: In Hogwarts, we don't need to walk. We can fly on brooms, we can teleport. Golf is not a walking sport. When people think about golf, they think about the swing and stance. Walking is NOT a key part in golf.", "qid": 36, "docid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7228622436523438}, {"content": "Title: Should marching band be considered a sport Content: It is a shame that my component has forfeited this round. Then again, I shall post my other argument anyway. have heard many justifications for why marching band should be considered a sport. They have competitions and practice for hours on end. So do show choirs, drama clubs, and professional eaters. Marching band requires skill and coordination. So does walking up a flight of stairs without falling flat on your face. Marching is physical activity. Yes, but that doesn\"t make it a sport. Is playing Frisbee with your dog considered a sport? That\"s physical activity, too.", "qid": 36, "docid": "90199824-2019-04-18T14:13:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7227826714515686}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Content: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport", "qid": 36, "docid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7215713262557983}, {"content": "Title: Golf is not a sport Content: Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of \"sport\" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.720917820930481}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: According to your definitions, it is a game is a \"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.\" However,sports are games to according to this definition. So sports are games to. Chess meets all the criteria of a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7198778390884399}, {"content": "Title: Should we make gaming a sport like: call of duty Content: Sport NOUN1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainmentBased on the Oxford Dictionary definition, I cannot agree that gaming is or should be a sport.Yes, gaming takes skill. Yes, individuals and/or teams can compete against each other.Yes, said competitions are done for entertainment purposes.However, gaming does not require physical exertion. Sitting in your room for 12 hours a day, stuffing Cheetos and Mountain Dew down your gullet while firing up Black Ops 3 may be physically draining, that's not the same as physical exertion.Go ahead, be a professional gamer, compete in tournaments and competitions for cash and prized, but don't call it a sport.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "fdc24f12-2019-04-18T13:53:44Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7192381620407104}, {"content": "Title: Gaming is a sport Content: A game or past-time isn't a sport though. I used Oxford Dictionaries as my source, you don't have one.You failed to meet your burden of proof as to prove that gaming is, without a doubt, a sport. All you proved is the physical elements of sport can come in some interactive consoles like Wii but overall, gaming is a simple, lazy, hobby that people do for fun.http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.717086911201477}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf Content: Negative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be \"more of a sport\" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is \"more of a sport\" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. \" and \"golf on the other hand is a SPORT\" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are \"often of a competitive nature\", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: \"Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. \"(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. \" Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that \" A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. \" I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 36, "docid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7160337567329407}, {"content": "Title: Baseball is better than golf Content: Rebuttals- \"and it is more fun to watch golf on television. \"I think it is more fun to watch baseball on television. \"golf truly is one of the biggest sports in Florida and in California\"Florida and California for golf well that is only 2. Baseball has much more.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a2449587-2019-04-18T16:24:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7150914669036865}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill Content: Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.71378493309021}, {"content": "Title: Pro gaming should be considered a \"sport\" Content: Since Pro did not lay down any definitions I will offer them. sport : a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other professional : paid to participate in a sport or activity gaming : the activity of playing computer games Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing professional gaming (gamers paid to participate in tournaments, competitions, etc) should not be considered a sport (a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities). 1. Playing computer games is not a physical activity. A sport requires physical skill and ability. Anything where you're sitting still in a chair isn't a sport. The only physical attributes one needs for computer gaming is hand eye coordination and fingers that possess some form of dexterity, while real sports like basketball, soccer and tennis requires you to use your whole body. Therefore playing computer games is not a sport. 2. Their is no such thing as professional gaming. I never heard of someone investing their money on a gamer/team of gamers to play in a tournament. Gaming teams join tournaments for free or for with a fee. No one is paying them to participate in a tournament and they join tournaments to win and have fun. 3. Computer gaming are not like other sports. EA-sports is games about sports and does not mean that it is a sport. Computer gaming is a computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. Sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.", "qid": 36, "docid": "b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7120118737220764}, {"content": "Title: Marching band is a sport. Content: Marching band is a sport whether you believe it to be or not. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a sport is defined as \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\" <--like you said. Well if band does competitions, then it is a sport. It is right there in the definition of \"sport\". It is also proven that a single marching band works harder than a team of football players. I rest my case.", "qid": 36, "docid": "9dc70dbc-2019-04-18T11:37:14Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.710134744644165}, {"content": "Title: Golf is the hardest sport Content: Golf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.", "qid": 36, "docid": "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00000-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7098060846328735}, {"content": "Title: Video gaming is not a sport Content: Video gaming does not fit the criteria to be an actual sport. The definition of a sport is \"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:\" Baseball requires skill to be able to throw with such accuracy. Golf believe it or not takes a whole lot of skill to be able to hit the ball into a hole that\"s four and a half inches big. Video games take sitting in a chair and holding a controller or a mouse to be good at them. That\"s not a lot of skill, right? Firstly there is nothing physically exerting about sitting on a chair in front of a screen for hours on end. Sports require physical activity! If the people playing the video games were actually doing what they did on the screen in real life in some kind of monitor then that could be a sport but they\"re not. Sitting on a couch in a dark room for hours on end with energy drinks piled around is not the same as playing football against a real team that\"s ready to bulldoze your team into the ground just to win. The day that people think that moving your fingers is physically exhausting will be one sad day that I hope will not happen for a long time. Secondly gaming has no strategy. People say that first person shooter games have strategy like flanking the other team or setting up an ambush. But in reality most gamers usually don\"t talk to their pre-assigned team. Nor do they usually work together and even when they do, it\"s only to tell their teammates where the other team is. First person shooter games are all about looking through the scope of your gun a.k.a. the little dot in the middle of your screen that helps you with your aiming. There is no strategy in that. Even sports video games like Madden have no strategy. Do gamers seriously look at replays from their opponent\"s team to narrow down the list of plays that they should use? I doubt it. They probably just choose the coach\"s pick and coast with that. Chess is a mind sport. Video games are not. Where chess uses a complex strategy of moving chess pieces so that they will draw out the king, Street Fighter uses pressing buttons as fast as you can to beat up your opponent. That\"s not much of a mind sport material. Is shooting as many people as possible in a certain time limit a lot like chess? Not really, in fact that sounds more like the front lines of a war. And most first person shooter games have none of the strategy that it takes to actually win a real war. Video games can\"t even qualify to be a mind sport. Mashing the buttons on a controller until you get sore fingers and hand cramps is really not up to par with the strategy it takes to win at chess. Finally video games take no skill. If they actually required skill people would get frustrated with them because they see the game as too hard. That\"s why not everyone wants to play a sport. A sport is difficult because it requires skill. Video games are easy because they require no skill. Of course there\"s always those who talk about how fast gamers reactions are. Technically a gamer\"s reaction is only with the move of a finger on a controller with conveniently placed buttons. Compare that to having to react with your whole body to return a tennis serve that\"s going 140 mph. That is literally trying to lunge your whole body across the tennis court in less than half a second to return the serve. Think of all the goalies in sports like hockey and soccer that have to move their whole body to save a goal. The reaction time of a video gamer, even a professional is laughable compared to real sport reactions. When you really sum it up, video games are just entertainment and hobbies. Video games are not up to par with real sports. They lack the skill and physical exertion required in a sport and therefore do not qualify to be a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00002-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7091809511184692}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: Great points. Firstly however, you did not show your links, which does not prove that your definitions are valid. Definition of sport: \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\" [1] Defintion of exertion: \"physical or mental effort\" [2] In chess, you are physically moving pieces, while also exercising mental exertion. Just like in many other sports, where you move your body and think of strategies on where to move on the field, or court, or anything else. Since chess involves physical exertion, it is therefore a sport. People also watch chess for entertainment. Chess is just as much as a sport has basketball and baseball. sources: 1.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 3.http://chennai2013.fide.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7083032131195068}, {"content": "Title: Competitive video games are a sport. Content: Hey, hope you accept my challenge, you seem to have strong opinions on the subject matter so I'd like to see your reasoning. By accepting you agree that- We're only talking about competitive gaming, where it's people against each other competing. Notable examples of competitive games are League Of Legends, CSGO, Starcraft, and Dota 2. The definition for sport will be: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" (1) If you do not accept either of the stipulations, say so in the comments. If you do accept both, please write your first round debate. Thank you. (1)- http://www.dictionary.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "8b8b07a3-2019-04-18T12:08:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7072405219078064}, {"content": "Title: Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Content: Definition of SportsOn the subject of the definition you asserted for me, I don't quite believe that definition covers the term \"sports\", at least not fully. Before I tell you my definition, I would like to restate the topic and make one clarification.\"Should video gaming be a sport?\"The use of the word \"should\" implies that it does not matter whether or not gaming is already a sport, but whether or not they deserve to be sports. In stating my definition, I will have to make it clear that, currently, video games aren't sports and perhaps, no matter how much they deserve it, may never be sports. My definition is as follows:\"A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community\"I understand that this may cause some issues, so allow me to clarify:when I say, \"by the community\", I mean those who deem it relevant; understand the topic (at least enough to make a decision); and identify as viewers, participators, or otherwise people who experience sports in some other fashion. And, to clarify my clarification, when I say \"Identify as\", I mean that it is up to the person to decide whether or not they are \"players\" (or \"fans\", or whatever makes sense) of the sport; If I watched one Nuggets game, that does not make me a fan of basketball.Furthermore, I know that there is room for misconceptions or loopholes in my definition, but those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up.Also, a quick sidenote: golf and chess don't directly require physical exertion. So we have already taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite.Mental Sports and Skill/Strategy Both of my opponent's arguments from here on out base themselves on video games requiring no strategy. As I mentioned before, this was really a topic I didn't want my opponent to bring up. Perhaps I was unprepared for this, but I don't know how to explain games and their strategy to a person who has either never played video games or does not play games related to strategy. I can only assume that one of those two topics applies to you, otherwise you would not be talking about them here with me.So allow me to either enlighten you or fail at doing so.First of all, games are a diverse medium. In order to say that games in general do not have strategy, you must claim that games do not have the potential to have strategy, a claim that doesn't make sense, or claim that games that have strategy are few and far between, and therefore the games played on high level Esports streaming are unlikely to have any strategy.Assuming you are an outsider to gaming (which may be putting you into a box a little, but I don't really know what to assume) the latter claim may seem to hold water, so I understand that this argument not a surefire way to take your claim down.So, allow me to show you some of the aforementioned strategy:There is a game called League of Legends, or LoL. In this game, each of the playable characters has a different skill set, different special attacks (called abilities), different stats, etc. The goal of the game is to destroy the enemy side's \"Nexus\", which is guarded by the enemy team, a few turrets, and a lot of minions. Simple enough, right? Now that you have the background, allow me to show you some of the strategy in the gamehttp://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com...http://leaguecraft.com...-->skip the first two parts, they don't deal with strategy.http://www.mobafire.com...--->Most of this is just definitions and important terms. I would recommend the \"choosing items\" and lower for actual strategy, but the vast number of terms and details do prove my point about strategy. Handled that just fine? Here's something just a bit more complex.http://leaguecraft.com...;http://leaguecraft.com...https://www.scan.co.uk... And, if you're doing this at Esports levels, it just gets harder. Way harder. This is essentially surface level stuff in comparison.OR, if reading these guides is too much, which it may be (they are very long, and I only skimmed them myself), you could just trust me and everyone else who has had firsthand experience with these types of games before, and believe me when I say they require strategy. I swear it on my honor, these things require strategy in order to work. If you were to play me in LoL, I would demolish you.Also, it should go without saying, there are more strategy based games then just LoL, many of which require as much strategy. I didn't list them here because if I did, I would be posting links to strategy guides all day.And yes, I stand by what I said about twitch reflexes and finger speed. It sounds stupid, but play a game that requires twitch reflexes or anything like that (such as an FPS), and note the differences between how well you would play and how well professionals would play (there is footage out there on youtube, I guerrantee).The Burden of ProofI stand by what I said earlier. If games do not contradict the characteristics of sports, then they have the potential to be sports. Therefore, in order to argue that games should not be sports, you must find these contradictions and reveal them; I don't have to prove them to be capable of being considered sports because being capable of being sports is simply not contradicting with what could make it a sport.To paraphrase, if we were to find nothing that disqualifies it from being a sport, then it is a sport. Therefore, the only thing I can do, as well as the only thing I should have to do, is shoot down the arguments you make, which are the aforementioned disqualifications.You could argue that if nothing qualifies it as a sport, it is not a sport, which would be my argument flipped on its head. However, some of these qualifications are implied (if you ask me, strategy should be; you can't just assume that video games are incapable of strategy), so it is much simpler for you to explain why these qualifications don't count than it is to go over every given. With all of that said, what we are doing right now can be viewed as either discussing qualifications, disqualifications, or the lack thereof on either of those two terms. It doesn't matter how we phrase this from here on out, we are currently arguing over these topics, which is something we can both agree on.", "qid": 36, "docid": "f81067da-2019-04-18T12:40:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7067532539367676}, {"content": "Title: Swimming should not be considered a sport Content: Thank you for joining this debate, First I will rebutt my opponents points and then move on to my own. My opponent stated that \"Swimming like many other competitive events is not a sport. A sport is something that you can play against some one else. Any event that you can compete against yourself should not be considered in the realm of sports.\" Swimming is an event that you can compete against others, when your swimming against someone else you are competing against them. You are competing against yourself and you are competing with the other teams as well. Second \"I myself am on a swim team in Rapid City, South Dakota. It is certainly a skill. A skill that many including myself don't have. I want to ask you a question.\" I also am on a swim team and I know that to win a swimming championships you need the best times, so you are always competing against yourself but you are also competing against others as well. Third \"Is speed skateboarding a sport? It is basically the same thing it has rules and the first one back wins. Yes for every one out there I don't consider track or golf a sport either. For a sport it needs to have to have multiple teams to be played. With that I am open to your refutations.\" By what you described speed skateboarding as yes it would be considered a sport, because you are competing against another person right? Then overall speed skateboarding is like nascar. Also golf and track are sports to because not only does the whole world consider them they both are competitions. In the PGA tours it is all about golf players COMPETING against each other so it is a sport, and for track runners we have a whole olympic event for this plus you are competing against other nations making it a sport. Thank you,", "qid": 36, "docid": "3bbff083-2019-04-18T19:52:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.70660400390625}, {"content": "Title: Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport. Content: I concede that video games take skill. Very minimal skill. My opponent then claims that Battlefront is a casual game and therefore does not count as part of the video games that should count as sports. So just because golf seems like a casual sport, it isn't a sport? You cannot just kick out some games just because they do not fit the definition of what you're trying to say. That's like saying \"I don't like the A in Fur Elise so in not going to include it in the song.\" Suddenly because Battlefront is not a hardcore game it cannot be in the circle. Just because soccer is not a contact sport does not mean that it's not a sport. If you're going to try and make video games a sport you have to include all video games. My opponent then asks me a question. \"You imply that button mashing is all it takes to play video games, and I ask you, how many competitive matches of CS:GO have you played?\" Well isn't button mashing exactly what it takes to play a video game? Or do you not press the buttons on your mouse or controller? You probably see my logic now. Button mashing is all it takes to play a video game otherwise your game wouldn't work. Now I will pose a question to my opponent. How many games of competitive rugby have you played? If you have played rugby then you must realize that button mashing is a whole lot more easier than actual real rugby. In rugby you need to react fast or else you will be shoved into the dirt every time you get the ball. And by react, I mean actually reacting with your whole body. Not just by pulling a trigger that's been conveniently placed on your controller. If I pit you against a team of professional rugby players, you would be killed literally. (Unless your 6.5 tall and 350 pound, not in fat but in muscle) The skill that professional CSGO players have is quite laughable. Let see them do it in real life where they actually have to hold a gun, they actually have to hit a moving target, they actually have to reload their gun all the while trying not to get killed in real life. Now lets see the professional rugby players sitting down to a game of rugby on video games. They could easily learn how to play in under a minute. See the difference between real sports and video games. Like I said before video games bring the skill level of sports down. As a side note, try not to exaggerate something that you didn't actually do. It's not fair in debates like these. Then my opponent goes on to explain how CSGO has strategy. I laugh at that. Do you really study your opponent to know what move he'll make? Do you use three pronged attacks to take down an enemy unit? Do you set up ambushes that the enemy will walk into? War related video games take out the strategy in war. Do you really examine the game as being like a chess board? Do you make moves thinking five steps ahead? I thought that like my opponent said before that video games were suppose to be fun. My opponent explains why CSGO has strategy but the examples are very vague. Then my opponent says that snooker is a sport. To that I say, yes so what? Then my opponent claims that I am not looking deep enough into video games and that they are more than just mashing buttons. Then he goes off to explain all the features of CSGO. Yes I too could say that I go to lengths to get the perfect golf driver. I too could say that I've had them all tailored to my size. I have studied golf balls and aero dynamics and have perfected how many grooves a golf ball should have. I too could say that I study the golf course to know which way to hit the ball. I too could say that I study wind patterns everyday when I train to know how they effect my swing. I practice my swing everyday until it is perfected, etc. I know how deep I have to look. And I know that some video games are very amazing with such detailed story lines but FPS are not exactly deep. The truth is does my opponent now how deep to look in sports? It is not sports that are trying to qualify as sports, its video games. The problem with stereotypes is that for the majority, its true. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. Just like the stereotype, Asians are good at math. I understand that games can be challenging. I play them myself. What I don't understand is how pressing buttons can be considered skillful. A piano is technically pressing buttons but your using all your fingers and playing piano required musical knowledge and actual skill. The buttons on a controller are placed conveniently for the users hand and usually you aren't pressing ten buttons all at the same time over and over in different positions like you are in piano. Not are you pressing them as fast as you would on a piano. I appreciate gaming and all but I don't think that it should be considered a sport. The reason I have such disdain is because gaming is the lazy version of sports. Imagine your in a class with the same lazy person for your whole life. You work your butt off to stand out and do well while the lazy person does nothing. You both end up with the same job because suddenly the curriculum changed and now grades and doing well doesn't matter anymore. How would you feel towards that person? This is the exact same as I feel towards video games being a sport. There is nothing physical about sitting on a couch or chair pressing buttons while your eyes are glued to a screen. It's insulting to say that, that's the same as waking up early in the morning to go on a mile long run and then to practice your butt off until you feel dead with exhaustion to be a pro at your sport. Video games just cheat the whole system of a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7064288854598999}, {"content": "Title: Video gaming is not a sport Content: This is for anyone gamers to try and prove that video gaming is a sport. Round 1-accepting the challenge Round 2-debating Round 3-debating/rebuttaling", "qid": 36, "docid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7050191164016724}, {"content": "Title: Curling is a sport Content: This is a challenge to a debate over whether or not curling [ice and broom and stone] is a sport. I look forward to a rousing and interesting debate on this subject. Having played III seasons of curling in high school, ultimately lettering in it, I will be making the case that curling is in fact a sport. The burden of proof that it is not rests on my opponent. I am excited for this debate, and hope to have a good, civil, kind, and well thought out debate. Thank you in advance to whoever wishes to debate with me. First round=acceptance only.", "qid": 36, "docid": "c7bfe202-2019-04-18T11:52:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7047609090805054}, {"content": "Title: The game of G--f ought to be eliminated. Content: I apologise to my esteemed opponent for the brevity of this response but I'm flat to the boards with work at the moment and, unfortunately, I do not have the time to devote to this debate that it deserves. Nevertheless, in response to my opponent's arguments that golfers are both inhuman and inherently corrupt, I should argue that surely society would be a better place without them? With this being the case, the water hazards, sand traps and bunkers that he cites as proof of the dangers golf poses to its participants should mean that we should actively encourage these dirty, cheating, money-grabbing, parasitic, upper-class swindlers to play as much golf as possible in order to maximise their chances of meeting with an \u2018unfortunate' accident. Now, moving on to the subject of fashion; whether it be for golfers or chavs. I happen to agree with my opponent's comments on the subject, but the voters should dismiss both our opinions because fashion is for young people and we are both old - I am old enough to remember the First Gulf War and the Falklands War and my opponent, at the ripe old age of 101, is old enough to remember those wars plus the Vietnam, Korean and Second World Wars: indeed, he may even have a dim recollection of the First World War which ended when he was 8 years old. In conclusion; my opponent has not supplied sufficient evidence that golf should be banned and you should, therefore, vote for me. Thank you.", "qid": 36, "docid": "d7f23f2c-2019-04-18T18:51:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7039446234703064}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Content: I forfeited because I only intended to do 3 Rounds (sorry I forgot to tell you in the opening round). Please FF (forgive forfeiture)!!! So the definition of sport no longer has to do with tradition? Everything NOW that is a definite and obvious \"sport\" is such not only because of the characteristics of teamwork and athleticism but the tradition which has remained. [1] I have already given my reasons for why Ping Pong players do not... -give physical exertion -it is only instinct, if anything players need to have hand-eye coordination: for sure they don't need skill! And, as the definition gives, a sport is something that MUST be done for the ENTERTAINMENT OF OTHERS. I have also already given reasons why Table Tennis is an awful spectator sport and, in most cases, boring to watch too. My opponent: \"If it is only a game why is it in the Olympics?\" As I said earlier, diving is in the Olympics, but it is more of a hobby (just like the game of Ping Pong) rather than an actual sport--in my opinion, diving isn't a sport OR a game. But that's a conversation for another time. I said it could be a lazy sport but that does not mean it qualifies for (yes, a TRADITIONAL) sport. [2] Ping Pong, in my presence, could be called a non-traditional/lazy sport but I wouldn't allow it to be ranked any higher than that because when you have sports like baseball and basketball, can you possibly put Ping Pong up there at the same level of sport?! That would be disappointing. [3] SOURCES [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.sodahead.com... [3] http://wiki.answers.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7037112712860107}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America Content: Well chess defined by websters as diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime. so chess is a sport and if chess is a sport, i extend all my arguements why its better if you say chess isnt a sport stilllllllll than hockey is like soccer only one is on ice and one is on grass, one has a puck and one kicks. if chess is a sport, it is harder if not, soccer is just as hard.", "qid": 36, "docid": "815cc433-2019-04-18T19:58:09Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7030868530273438}, {"content": "Title: Gaming should be taken more seriously and be considered a real sport. Content: The day people consider sitting in a chair staring at a screen, a sport, will be a sad day indeed. My opponent seems to neglect the very definition of sport. I will provide it. The definition of sport is \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\" Not only do sports involve skill, but they also involve physical exertion. There is absolutely nothing physically exerting about sitting in a chair staring at a screen. Yes, I've seen people play CSGO competitively. I watched it and it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's like going to watch a football game but wait, the football players are actually just puppets on strings being controlled by people. How is staring at a screen a sport? And no, I saw absolutely no skill. I've seen these so called \"professional players\" completely overlook a player on their screen who's right in front of them and then they get shot dead. I've seen a so called \"professional player\" run into a room without even checking that its safe and get shot dead. Yes I get that these \"professional players\" may be somewhat intelligent, but the way they acted on screen is absolutely ridiculous. The so called skill that it takes to play these games is quite minimal, I must say. If you want video gaming to be a sport then you've got to include all video games. That includes Battlefront. And as my opponent stated, Battlefront takes little to no skill. As do many video games and what is required of a sport? Skill. Therefore if video gaming as a whole cannot be a sport, then video gaming won't be sport. Now onto button mashing. My opponent finally stops being vague about what it takes to get a video game to work. He says its pressing buttons at a specific time. So pressing buttons at a specific time qualifies to be a sport does it? Well then so does piano, and drums, and writing and texting, etc. How does pressing a button make something a sport? Because that's practically what the \"sports player\" is doing. There's nothing physically exerting to tapping on buttons, there's nothing in particularly skillful about tapping buttons. At least with piano and all my other examples, you get something accomplished like playing a piece, or writing a novel or sending a text. With video games, its all forgotten when you turn off the screen. In fact piano has more of a qualification than video games to become a sport. Piano is more skillful and more physically exerting than video games and we can debate that topic if you dare. Just send me a challenge and I'll tell you a million reasons why piano is more qualified than video games to be a sport. My opponent keeps talking about video gamers getting punished if they press the wrong button. But what's their punishment? Getting killed on the screen, because that's not exactly a big deal. Making a single mistake in rugby could result with you eating the dirt literally. Making a single mistake in a long distance run could be the difference from winning the race to losing it. Making a single mistake in a figure skating competition could mean going to the hospital. Making a single mistake as a goalie could cost your team the championship. Video gamer, unless they also play a sport, do not understand what true punishment is in a real sport. To them, punishment means going back to the re-spawn point and starting again. To a real sports player, it the difference between returning that serve or losing the match. The so called punishment that video gamers get is minuscule to the punishment of not landing that spin on the ice. Do I really have to pound in the fact that video gamers skills are laughable compared to real sports? Fine, I'll repeat what I said before. To return a 120mph tennis serve you have to lunge across the court in less than half a second. Angle your racket so that the ball doesn't go flying, balance yourself so you don't tip yourself over after you've returned it, measure how hard you'll hit it, and actually have the hand eye coordination to hit it. All that in less than half a second. A video gamer sees an opponent, pulls right trigger because most likely they have aim-assist on. A 800m sprinter has to pace himself. Notice that I said \"sprint\". That's right, the 800m race is actually a sprint. Running too fast at the beginning will make him lose, running to slow at the beginning will make him lose, having a terrible start will make him lose, starting too early will disqualify him. He will feel the burn in his lungs as his legs ache from exertion. A gamer will feel absolutely nothing when they get shot in the head. A gamer has absolutely no idea what pacing themselves mean. Winning can be the difference between forcing your body to the extremes or not. Winning a video game can be the difference between who can mash the A button the fastest. Being the best at a sport means training till your muscles are aching and you're dead tired. It means time and dedication spent to pushing your body to the extreme. It means time and dedication to practice flicking a puck in the upper left corner of the net from dawn till dusk until you finally perfect it. It means sacrifice and pain sometimes to be the best. Video gaming takes, sitting in a dark room with energy drinks piled around you, while you stare at a screen like a zombie 24/7. You see how easy that is? Video gaming takes relatively zero skill compared to real sports. All because I've never played CSGO before does not mean I can't compete with Fnatic. I could easily compete against Fnatic. Now all because you've never played rugby will mean that you definitely cannot play against a professional rugby team. You would be killed literally. You see the difference? Video gaming requires no sacrifice. It requires no physical exertion. For a sport, physical exertion is required and with it comes the sacrifice of knowing you could get hurt. Like I said before, video gamers don't understand what it's like to sacrifice that net of safety to play a sport you love. My opponent then claims that I'm not looking deep enough. The true problem is that he's not looking deep enough into sports. Sports not only involve the physical aspect, but also the mental aspect. The physical aspect includes wether or not I'm feeling my best today because that could be the difference between winning and losing it all. It includes how far should I push myself to run because training could be the difference between you and your opponent on those final 100meters. Physical aspect includes the whether, is it sunny, rainy, snowing, cold, knowing how to push through is a valuable skill. It includes analyzing my opponent, are they bigger than us and if so, how will that effect out plays. It includes being ready, always being on your toes is the difference between an ace for your opponent or a return. The mental aspect includes whether I think I can beat them of not, the mental game is important. It includes memorizing all the plays in the playbook to counter my opponent. It includes the science behind all sports, how many grooves on a golf ball is too much. It involves intimidating the other team, the Irish rugby cheer is something my opponent should watch. I could go on but I'd run out of room. Do video games really involve all of this? Because I doubt it. I doubt that everyone in Battlefront is playing like this yet even in casual soccer games, kids have to know if their pushing themselves too far. Video games lack the physical aspect and therefore are not even half as deep as sports are. The science behind some sports are actually somewhat astonishing. Maybe it's my opponent who isn't looking deep enough? Then my opponent goes on to explain the \"strategy\" in video games. It's actually quite funny how he literally states that the so called \"strategies\" are actually just a bunch of random ways to kill a person by saying the word \"sometimes\" within his explanation. Oh, sometimes (american) football players do slants, but sometimes they also do a Hail Mary. It just depends on whether they're there or not. If football were actually like that, then yes, video games could be considered a sport. But football games aren't like that. Football games actually do have strategy and actual planned out plans. Which my opponent just so kindly provided that video games do not. It's really not fair to compare video games to real sports is it? Then why are video games want to be real sports when they can't even compare? Yes I can judge that doing x has little skill because y does this. Each does have their own skill as my opponent has conceded. Sports having a lot and video games having very little. The fact that we are arguing whether video games should be considered a sport is why I'm not taking video gaming seriously. Like I said before, it'll be a sad day when reclining on your chair staring at a screen becomes a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7028811573982239}, {"content": "Title: Is NASCAR A Sport Content: A sport is, \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\" NASCAR fails to meet the important part of \"physical exertion.\" It's (subjectively) entertaining, as well as a competition, but the physical part is the most important. I think this debate is pretty open-and-shut.", "qid": 36, "docid": "b1838549-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7028174996376038}, {"content": "Title: Gaming is a sport Content: Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (https://tinyurl.com...)Gaming: CAN BE DONE BY STEPHEN HAWKING THINKING INTO A COMPUTER! You can hack, troll and efficiently chat while gaming, do any of this at sports and you will get completley demolished.Chess and poker are nothing like videogames.http://www.youtube.com...Observe the video for an example of gaming.", "qid": 36, "docid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7021719217300415}, {"content": "Title: Esports should be officially considered as a sport Content: I will argue that e-sports should not be officially considered a sport. First of all, I would just like to remind everyone that this debate does not reflect my personal stance on the matter since I am quite a gamer myself albeit not a professional one. Secondly, I will be arguing that it should not be considered a sport \"NOW\", as in today or within this next year. I cannot say that it shouldn't be considered a sport in the next 100 years perhaps because so many things in the world would have changed by then. Since my opponent did not set any premises as to when it should be considered a sport, I think my premise is fair and should be allowed to stand. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent enlists 4 qualifications of a sport which he says is backed by numerous resources. Fair enough although he has failed to produce these sources, something I urge voters to take note. But I guess it's not such a big deal. Let us look at the definition provided by Google(actually provided by Google, not searched through Google) Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment This definition seems to go well with my opponent's own criteria for a competition, so we agree on the definition. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Moving on to rebuttals. My opponent starts of with describing how LoL and COGO are extremely popular, extremely competitive, require teamwork etc. I would just like to point out that just because something is popular, competitive and utilizes teamwork, this does not mean it has to be considered a sport. More of this later. My opponent then says that video games require a lot of decision-making, coordination, focus, basically all the good things we learn through conventional sports like football or baseball etc. Again, I will point out that just because something requires decision-making, coordination and so on does not qualify it to be a sport automatically. Now, my opponent admits that video games do not require physical capability. In his criteria #2, he has clearly outlined that a sport should require physical AND mental concentration and exertion. This is simply a blatant contradiction in his arguments. He cites chess, a game that most people consider a sport which does not require physical exertion. I would argue that chess is mostly considered to NOT be a sport. It's put into the subset of \"mind games\" at most. Chess is not featured in the Olympics. They have their own organisation which I believe is the World Chess Federation and they organise world tournaments, olympiads etc., but no, for the most part, they are not featured alongside football, or sprinting or the other traditional sports and track and field events in the big sport events like Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games etc. etc. My opponent makes good mention that video games utilise the same ranking system as chess. I do hope he realizes that so many sports and games utilize said ranking and pairing system. The pairing system, Swiss is an age-old format which is used in so many events. Just because something utilizes the same ranking system is a pretty weak argument I think. Earlier I said that just because something teaches you to be to be competitive, to have teamwork, to be focused does not make it a sport. Why do I say this? Firstly, I think we can all agree that almost every single game in this world across any generation teaches these values especially to kids when they are growing up. Every single card game, board game, party game features an element of focus, of strategic planning, of negotiation, you name it. Heck, some of the best board games out there really require you to team up with your players to beat the game. I am quite the board-gamer so I know. I would cite the board game Pandemic or the game Settlers of Catan. In fact, these games are so popular that they also have their own Regional Championships leading up to World Championships. The only reason they are not so famous is because they don't get as much sponsors probably because they want to keep the game as it is: fun, casual and to stay away from becoming a profesional entity. Don't just stop at board and card games. What about role-playing games, debates, public speaking, mock role-playing which require people to assume roles and negotiate their way out of situations. All of these teach valuable skills too. By my opponents' argument of how a sport should teach and promote values, he would, therefore make all these activities sports too. And these stuff are not just games for high school and university students. Companies spend a lot of money on workshops which utilize games like these to train their staff on valuable real-life skills. My opponent makes a good point when he says professional video gamers spend a lot of time so this means that real skill is required and not just mere luck. I would argue that students spend so much time studying. Exams should also be considered a sport. You have to sit down for three hours answered problem-solving questions, before the exam you really have to team up and discuss questions and strategy, you spend a lot of time memorizing and getting things wrong and fixing stuff. This is especially so for engineering, law and medicine students. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ At the end of the day, everything my opponent said about video games is present in so many other stuff we do in our day to day lives. By his logic, we would have to introduce probably hundreds of other sports. Now, I will argue why E-sports should not be considered a sport. E-sports does not fit our traditional views of sport. You don't go out. You don't sweat. You don't spend time in the sun. For a sport to be a sport, like it or not, it has to fit our traditional views of sports as sweaty, physical, strategic games. That's how it is. As I have said at the start, the premise I have set is whether e-sport should be considered a sport \"NOW\" or at least in this next year or so. Yes, you can argue as you have already done how e-sports are just as good as other sports and I believe I have rebutted you sufficiently. However, the last fact is that e-sports does not require you to get off the couch so to speak. If the majority of e-sports require you to dance it off or throw a simulated soccer ball for example then the world would probably be kinder to pass it as a sport. I will give you an example of another activity which is not considered a sport until recently. The game floorball. Only recently did ASEAN finally allow it to be included in the ASEAN Games. Floorball is very much a physical and team game. It was hard for the community to accept it as a sport because the majority of people did not know it to even exist. I guess the conclusion I am making is that a sport has to fit the traditional views of what a sport is. I don't like it, You don't like it either. But that's how it is. But the thing is you don't need it ti be considered a sport to enjoy it. Thousands of people participate in Pokemon TCG and VGC every year with big price pools too. They accept that it is not a sport. It is a GAME. But it's a great game nevertheless.", "qid": 36, "docid": "80fe4db8-2019-04-18T14:02:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7016133666038513}, {"content": "Title: Running is a Sport Content: I'm talking about competitive races. Sport- an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Running clearly falls under that category. While running in a race a person is clearly using physical exertion and is a competition. Running was also the first sport in the Olypmics, so that certainly tells you it must be a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "db0ae60a-2019-04-18T13:11:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7011530995368958}, {"content": "Title: Are Esports real sports Content: Okay, listen here. Just as a clarification, I play badminton (sometimes competitively) and used to compete in track in field., and I play video games as entertainment. Some people play sports for entertainment as well. There are different types of video games. Not all of them are sports- RPG games cannot, but playing Esports competitively can. As someone mentioned in the comments, there are plenty of sports that require little physical conduct, like Go! or Chess, which, as I said before, is recognized as a sport in over 100 countries. You need to practice strategy and hone your skills to be able to stand a chance in a competition for these things, especially chess. Physical sports also require strategy, I got the definition from Dictionary.com. Also, I'm fairly sure that the definition of sport is not for entertainment. I mean, it could be, but many people play them professionally. There are also several other similar definitions that you can look at by scrolling down the list on this link: https://www.google.com... As Yos said, and I and many others have experienced, playing the games considered as Esports require incredible reflexes- pro gamers can even make as many as 400 moves on a keyboard per second, which is more than four times the average person. I may have been incorrect in my definition, but having good reflexes can certainly be counted as physical prowess. ESPN showcasing a gaming match further proves that it should be considered a sport. Esports teams are coached, like and pro athletic team would be, and some teams are even owned by people in the way football teams are. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... https://www.forbes.com... That's all for now, maybe we can debate this again? Thank you for this debate.", "qid": 36, "docid": "49f41610-2019-04-18T11:47:48Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7007734775543213}, {"content": "Title: Gaming is a sport Content: I will debate that gaming is not considered a sport, but a leisure activity", "qid": 36, "docid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6994496583938599}, {"content": "Title: Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Content: Definitions My opponent's definition as stated before is, \"A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community\" Let us break it down bit by bit considering that it is a very lengthy, broad definition. \"A sport is a game...\" We already know that sport falls under the umbrella definition of game. \"... that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three,...\" My opponent has basically said that for a game to be a sport, it has to have skill, strategy or strength, varying in how much of each. Now we know that skill and strategy is something that is iffy about video games, but strength is a whole other matter. Now the definition for strength is, \"The quality or state of being physically strong:\" [1] Now we come back to the argument over physical exertion. If my opponent means 'balance of the three' meaning it could be just a balance of \"skill and strategy\" or \"strength and skill\", etc and not the third option (if the game didn't have strength for example), that is literally the definition of game and therefore makes my opponents definition invalid. If that isn't so, that means all three are a, \"must have\" for a game to be a sport. My opponent said golf and chess don't require physical exertion. May I remind my opponent that chess is a mind sport and therefore is apart from the definition of sport. May I also remind my opponent that golf is physically exerting. Just in the same sense that my opponent thinks that LoL has strategy, golf requires strength. If it did not require you to be physically strong, how come men's swings are more powerful than others? Wouldn't they all be the same if golf wasn't physically exerting? So we actually haven't taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite. Therefore, this has made your definition unhelpful to your cause. May I also point out the fact that my opponent used the words, \"or any balance of the three...\" This is extremely vague and is practically still the exact same as the definition for game. Like I said before, if you took out the 'physical exertion' in the definition for sport, you'd end up with the definition for game. May I remind my opponent of the analogy of the square and rectangle. A square can be a rectangle but a rectangle cannot be a square. The definitions for sport and game may be similar, but they're not. Do not get them mixed up when trying to create a new definition. Otherwise the definition, like my opponents one, is wrong in this context. \"...which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game...\" That's exactly what sports do. \"... Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community.\" And then my opponent clarifies this by saying, technically if the fans who care about the game want the game to be a sport, therefore it is a sport. Firstly, this has absolutely no logic to it whatsoever. Just because I want tic-tac-toe to become a sport does not mean that it makes it a sport just because I want it to be one. Tic-Tac-Toe does not qualify to be a sport and my 'willing' it to be one, won't make it a sport. Therefore, it makes this last bit of my opponents definition invalid. Just because video gamers want to tell people they play a sport when they actually don't, does not mean that their 'wanting' has any bearing on whether video games become a sport or not. Look at it this way, if my opponents definition were true, a sport could be a game of monopoly. If the monopoly players truly believed their game was a sport, then it would be one because my opponents definition is incredibly vague. A game of tic-tac-toe could be a sport under my opponents very broad definition. Then my opponent tells me not to look too closely to his definition because in his words, \"... those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up.\" This is incredibly ridiculous. A definition is the exact meaning of a word. There shouldn't be any loop holes in a definition, which is what makes my opponents definition even more invalid. Therefore by giving this definition, (which is essentially the definition for game), my opponent has gained absolutely nothing and video games still do not deserve/qualify to be a sport. Strategy Strategy is used in sports and mind sports. Since we already know that video games still do not qualify/deserve to be a sport, it therefore doesn't matter whether my opponent proves that gaming takes strategy. Nevertheless, I will continue. My opponents next points are basically, LoL has strategy, to prove that, here are a ton of links. Or you can just not check my links and accept that LoL has strategy. So, I did not take my opponents word for it. I checked all the links and actually, they're not 'strategy guides'. They are basic to intermediate manuals on how to play LoL, which actually don't really elaborate too much on how LoL has strategy. May I point out the fact that my opponent vaguely says LoL has strategy. May I also point out the fact that my opponent just posted a bunch of links without actually elaborating on what the links say. If debates were like that, why would anybody bother trying to write out everything? Why not just post a bunch of links? My opponent even admits that he himself only briefly glanced at these links before posting them. These links are barely adequate to prove that LoL has strategy that is even complex. May I also state that LoL is one game out of many video games. So tell me, how does a FPS game like Battlefront have strategy? How about other genres of video games? Do they have strategy too? As a side note, it really doesn't matter that LoL has lots of terms and details. So does D&D. Does that make D&D a sport? Science has lots of terms, more so than LoL. Does that make science a sport? Then my opponent says that the guides are surface level compared to the strategy in ESports. This is again, an empty statement like many of my other opponents statements. So basically my opponent has provided empty statements with links to manual guides to back up his statement that LoL has strategy. To back up the fact that video games do not contain much strategy let alone enough to qualify as a mind sport, I shall state that LoL is just one game out of many games. And obviously my opponent chose LoL to represent that video games have strategy because it's probably the most strategic video game out there. So that means that LoL is the pinnacle game for strategy. All other games are below it in that category. LoL may have strategy, but the majority of other video games do not have as much strategy as LoL (the strategy in LoL is even doubtful). When the majority of video games do not have strategy, or a bare minimum of it, how could my opponents definition let alone mind sports definition aide my opponents cause? For someone who is supposedly an \"insider\" in LoL, feel free to explain your strategy. Try not to lie though, I've had many an opponents who's lied to put forth an argument. As for \"should video gaming be a sport?\" Let me use a comparison. Should I eat this apple? The use of the word \"should\" means that I haven't eaten the apple yet and am pondering whether I should. This is the same for should video games be a sport? They are currently not a sport and we are pondering whether it should be one. I do not have to do anything because video games are currently not a sport. You are the one who has to come up with a point that could actually shift the BOP off your shoulders. Right now, all you have been doing is trying to refute my points. You have one last round to come forth with a point. As for disqualifications/qualifications. You said it yourself that we need to prove that either video games qualify or don't qualify to be a sport. To qualify for something, generally the thing that's qualifying has to meet all the prerequisites. Since video gaming has not met the prerequisite for sports (physical exertion), it therefore still isn't a sport. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...", "qid": 36, "docid": "f81067da-2019-04-18T12:40:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6990328431129456}, {"content": "Title: Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games. Content: My topic is, \"Should video gaming be a sport? \" I will be against that and I will be arguing that video games do not deserve to be a sport. My opponent shall be arguing that video games do deserve to be a sport.", "qid": 36, "docid": "f81067da-2019-04-18T12:40:50Z-00006-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.698654294013977}, {"content": "Title: Attractive female athletes debate Content: Golf never looked so good. Meet Blaire O'Neil! Blaire is a professional golfer! Let me be the first to say, she could get a \"hole in one\" anyday ;) Over to my opponent!", "qid": 36, "docid": "d6ef599d-2019-04-18T14:43:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6985516548156738}, {"content": "Title: Swimming is a sport Content: Swimming is by definition a sport. Why anyone would think otherwise I have no idea. Swimming is one of the hardest sports out there. I'm interested what my opponent will have to say about it", "qid": 36, "docid": "77158806-2019-04-18T16:25:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6983656883239746}, {"content": "Title: Are Video Games A Sport Content: The definition of sport from Merriam Webster's dictionary is to play in a happy and lively way. Well you play video games, and you are playing sometimes intense depending on the game, and gamers are always happy when they play unless it is a game they do not like.", "qid": 36, "docid": "185c50aa-2019-04-18T16:11:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6981626152992249}, {"content": "Title: Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport Content: Ping Pong... ...the art of playing tennis on a table except for the rackets aren't as big, the balls are made of different material, the balls aren't yellow, and they are smaller; the players don't stand on the court to play rather they play standing besides the table. The table has a net in the middle of the table and the objective is to pass the little ball over the net, letting the ball hit the other side but not yours. I argue that this is not a sport because 1. everything is miniature 2. does not require much athleticism at all as you do not have to move 3 does not require teamwork 4. does not require strategy All rounds are rebuttals. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!", "qid": 36, "docid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00005-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6975824236869812}, {"content": "Title: Cheerleading is a sport Content: Since my adversary didn't provide any definitions I shall take the liberty of doing so.Sport: 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment' For winning this debate my adversary has to prove beyond all doubt that the activity of cheerleading is a sport.And in response to the arguments presented in round 1 by PRO, none of them explain why cheerleading should be considered as a sport.Hope to see more pertinent arguments from PRO's side.Iwish her good luck!", "qid": 36, "docid": "703f223e-2019-04-18T16:02:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6972635984420776}, {"content": "Title: Bowling is a sport Content: Bowling is a sport because it fits the standard definition of a sport: an activity in which players use physical ability to complete a predetermined task in a manner that intended to be competitive and fun.It is irrelevant that many bowlers are in poor physical shape, although, I'll point out, most skilled bowlers are in fact in excellent physical shape.Bowling requires a measure of strength to throw the ball, no matter how little, it is intended to be competitive, and it is fun for the majority of people that play it.I will note for the record that I myself have a 217 Sport Bowling average, and a 240 regular pattern average. I also lettered in 6 sports and activities in my high school career all four years: American Football, Academic League, Academic Decathlon, Tennis, Soccer, and Water Polo. I know sports pretty well. In any case, I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that by definition, bowling is a sport, as per standard definition. Thank you for participating.", "qid": 36, "docid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6970151662826538}, {"content": "Title: Golf is better than soccer. Content: shut up lol...haha i didnt even think id get a debater lol and idk anything about soccer only golf lol and so! ur 2 yrs older :P", "qid": 36, "docid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.697008490562439}, {"content": "Title: Chess is a sport Content: Hello, I really want to have a debate with you after seeing your other debates. I will be in favour of the statement \"Chess is a sport\". You will be against such.", "qid": 36, "docid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6949235200881958}, {"content": "Title: Is dance a sport Content: A sport is \"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment\".Dancing isn't competetive, it's a performance.", "qid": 36, "docid": "3e1ad519-2019-04-18T12:10:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6946680545806885}, {"content": "Title: Dancing is a sport Content: By that logic, walking is a sport. It becomes a sport when legally recognized as one. Hence why videogames are sports. They've been legally accepted and recognized as sports.", "qid": 36, "docid": "9be99e1b-2019-04-18T12:10:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6946558356285095}]}
{"query": "Is cell phone radiation safe?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: They can cause cancer Content: We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.834773063659668}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.82835853099823}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8118361830711365}, {"content": "Title: They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours. Content: Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\" Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7945270538330078}, {"content": "Title: cell phone use good or bad state your debate Content: Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7891417741775513}, {"content": "Title: the increase personal safety Content: Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00012-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7740983963012695}, {"content": "Title: Every child should have a mobile phone. (Junior) Content: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe", "qid": 37, "docid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7665875554084778}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7653946876525879}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: \\\\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\\\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands", "qid": 37, "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7650057673454285}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.", "qid": 37, "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00007-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7598192095756531}, {"content": "Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: \"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.\" -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. \".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\" --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.", "qid": 37, "docid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7570364475250244}, {"content": "Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks \u2013 the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "qid": 37, "docid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7507612705230713}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates... Content: There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people\u2019s brains. Because children\u2019s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks \u2013 the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "qid": 37, "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00006-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7493992447853088}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7491500377655029}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link \"cell phone use with any adverse health problems\" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7479638457298279}, {"content": "Title: legalise the use of cell phones in cars Content: Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard", "qid": 37, "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00005-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7446832656860352}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: This round is ONLY for defence and conclusions.1)\"Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation?\"How many of those things do you carry with yourself which are constantly in contact with your body, with just some clothe layers in between? X rays are harmful for the body to some extent. Air won't have so much radiation, it will be basically negligible. The sun gives of way more radiation than a phone. Absolutely right. But all of that radiation doest not reach to us. It is a small fraction. And even that fraction does harm like SKIN CANCER if you spend too long in it, GUESS WHAT A DEVICE IN YOUR BREAST POCKET CONSTANTLY EMITING RADIATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE TOWERS AND WIFI AND WHAT NOT WILL DO. 2) \"toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6\" Physical development doesn't need 'official' games. It requires baby games like tickling the kid, exercising his body, etc. And why did you choose the age 6? Official means - \"having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body\" The games little kids play are not unofficial. They are not offending anyone by playing copycat with their parents. \"Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly\" They won't sit all day with the phones. But something like a smart phone is addictive for a small kid. Who hasn't seen videos on youtube, of adorable babies playing on a smart phone, and when it is taken from them, they start crying. Brain development at childhood is not SUCH a big problem that something like a smart phone is needed to help. Babies' brains used to develop just as well when smart phones were not given away so carelessly to them, assuming that it is 'helping'.3) \"Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time.\"Easier said than done. When it comes to young teenagers, they can just sneak the smart phone out at night. Even if parents give a fixed time, it's hard for me to believe that more than 10% of those people at an age that humans tend to be the most stubborn at, will follow it. It is also not efficient for the parents to keep a check on the kid ALL the time since they have their own lives to deal with too.4) \"Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective.\"Know about the Google effect? The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found readily online. According to the first study about the Google effect people are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online.Now this might sound okay-ish to you, but to me, it sounds pretty bad. It is just dampening, or more suitably, destroying the brain's capabilities. Your brain thinks, \"I can look this up the internet without wasting much energy, no need to remember it then\" And, a student should not be dealing with such a problem. It will interfere with performance at school. And even in their future, they might be in one of the vast list of jobs that require you to remember many things, from school, from recent affairs, etc. Looking it up the internet every time would be highly inefficient, the brain has to be trained to do good, not be lazy.5)Writing down to practice and reading from a book is the safest way to study. The apps are designed to help, not to be depended upon. 6)\"So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals?\"Quoting an incident does not mean trying to enforce it on others according to my senses.\"Lets look at any device, a computer\" \" So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers?\"If you read my rebuttals, you should know I already have talked why computers are better than phones and won't cause as much harm. It is quite easy to understand why spending (wasting) loads of time on a small lightweight phone is far easier than on a relatively large computer.7)\"by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography\"Okay this 'fact' is completely absurd. Everything from 'by the age of 14' to 'MOST parents' sounds a bit too farfetched. The source you mentioned speaks about effects of pornography on a couple. We are most definitely NOT talking about effects of porn on relationships here. Most parents would not want their kids to be watching such a thing, because - They are too naive and can get themselves into trouble. Once you are legal age, then you decide whether you want something like that, or stay a good 100 feet away. But we are talking about people less than 16 y/o.8)\"I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business\" The debate topic is whether children should be allowed smart phones or not, NOT how it affects business of the sellers.So, smartphones are bad for kids", "qid": 37, "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7417112588882446}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: (OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body\"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7391216158866882}, {"content": "Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.", "qid": 37, "docid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00001-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7361363172531128}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit \"radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation\" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that \"radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells\" and has not been found to \"cause cancer in animals\" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7285683155059814}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7273263335227966}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7272191047668457}, {"content": "Title: The use of a mobile phone requires a social life. Content: Studies continue to emphatically expose the adverse effects of cell phone radiation; without refutation. [[http://www.truthaboutabs.com/cell-phone-damages-crotch.html]] Tell that to all those crack callers I keep getting missed calls from. Badgering strangers or not is possible on both the internet and on a mobile. The difference is privacy policies and Cyber-laws protect the average internet browser; whereas, there are no protections for those being harassed on their cellphone. And no I've tried the add to screen list option; the calls still come but the phone doesn't ring and calls I 'do' want to receive are impeded. all you need is a phone number; some creeps even dial in random numbers and then wait and see who picks up. Cell phones are even more versatile than public payphones for those who change Sims often; so they don't worry about call tracing. This is why cellphones are central to crime and terrorism. Demo: Get disposable phone; insert disposable Sim Call anyone from anywhere.(fellow criminals, stalker target, person to blackmail etc) Give phone to complete stranger or throw it in a trash bin; from which any random person can pick it up. Avoid being traced.", "qid": 37, "docid": "5af4c3ec-2019-04-19T12:48:10Z-00010-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7266788482666016}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Are Dangerous Content: Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7238039374351501}, {"content": "Title: Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o) Content: \"Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror.\" Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation? Processed foods, medical xrays and even air. If you walk outside in an urban environment you will soak in just as much radiation as you would being on your phone. Even are sun gives off MORE radiation than a cell phone, this argument is not concerning as the radiation a cell phone emits is VERY little in comparison to objects in our everyday lives. http://www.livescience.com... \"Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good\" Bear in mind that a toddler is between the age of 0 and 5, and toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6. Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly. Children can also learn a lot from IPad applications, I work in the special needs department at my school and we give them phones/ipads to give them educational and brain games. This only helps there social interaction and makes them learn something new. \"Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction\" Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time. Banning phone use will negate a lot of opportunities a lot of present day applications use. Education brain games can be crucial and can help a lot of developing kids, as technology if used properly will make people smarter. Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective. http://www.usatoday.com... \"The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests \" In the article above the school uses smart phones to help kids with brain stimulating activities, it can also provide benefits to many children as well, as it can help them learn a wider array of topics. Learning important values among family members and friends will come through social interaction. Regardless if you have a phone or not, you will be able to develop social skills as elementary schools will enforce it. Family values do not correlate to whether someone has a phone or not, I actually do not see how you can even find that compatible. Family values should be taught by the family members, and I was able to learn and adapt to my family's expectations even getting a phone at the age of 10. \"AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) \" So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals? Lets look at any device, a computer. If you're on the computer for to long, the same affects will develop. Being on the computer will disrupt sleep, make you procrastinate and increase your stress. However phones have also debunked my stress because I use it to communicate with friends, talk to family members from faraway lands and use it to learn. A flip phone will prevent you from communicating from long distance relatives as well, unless you want to pay extra money. So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers? \"Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). \" I don't know what household you grew up in, but by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography, unless you align yourself with a different religion. It actually has a lot of benefits and can help kids understand what it really is. You may be saying it puts them in a different mindset, but they will be brought into the mindset regardless as teenagers and their surroundings, if you truly dislike that mentality, send your kid to a private school. http://sexuality.about.com... In your last argument, I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business. No one wants to manufacture them and its a waste of money, all in all a cell phone an is unconstitutional and should be left by the parent. I will conclude there", "qid": 37, "docid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7173758745193481}, {"content": "Title: Mobile Phones Used by Children Content: Mobile phones are safe for children to use \u2013 we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...", "qid": 37, "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7101135849952698}, {"content": "Title: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved Content: INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00008-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7082643508911133}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: I'd like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate! The Merriam-Webster Dictionary vaguely defines 'child' as \"a young person\" or \"a person not yet of age\" [1]. In the United States, 'of age' generally refers to age 18, so my opponent is arguing against anyone younger than 18 having a cell phone. It is his burden of proof to provide a specific age for usage. He claims that phones cause radiation leading to cancer. However, as the National Cancer Institute reports, \"studies...have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves\" and more [2]. Thus my opponent's claim is false. Cell phone use connects children to their friends and families. They are sources of communication and entertainment and, in this technological era, are essential. Thus I must urge you to vote CON in this debate! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.702282726764679}, {"content": "Title: legalise the use of cell phones in cars Content: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous", "qid": 37, "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00000-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6992402076721191}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. \"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.\" Source: https://www.cancer.gov...", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6959130764007568}, {"content": "Title: Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Content: I will use two arguments for this debate1) It is still disputed whether or not cell phones cause brain cancer2) Something cannot be the leading cause of brain cancer if it does not cause it, or if it is simply not the LEADING cause1) There have been countless studies trying to see if cell phones do cause brain cancer.... And there is very conflicting evidence showing any correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer. Sources below all show how cell phones are not linked to brain cancer\"In the largest study yet of its kind, Danish researchers have found no correlation between use of cellphones and risk for brain tumors in adults.\"http://www.theblaze.com...\"Tumor rates in northern European countries have remained steady through 2008 despite widespread cell phone use\"http://www.mobiledia.com...\"One of the largest and longest studies on the subject finds no more brain tumors among people who had cell phones over 17 years than among people who had no cell phones.\"http://news.yahoo.com...\"350,000 people ages 30 and older and found there was no difference in cancer rates between longtime cell phone \"subscribers\" and those who didn't have a phone,\"http://health.usnews.com...\"to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.\"http://www.cancer.gov...\"The research team analyzed the survey data and couldn't find any link between cell phone usage and brain tumors\"http://gizmodo.com...\"It's highly unlikely that cell phones cause cancer because they emit \"non-ionizing radiation\" which is very weak and doesn't really affect living cells\"http://articles.businessinsider.com...;\"A long-term study of Danish mobile phone use has unequivocally determined that there is no connection between mobile phone use and various cancers of the brain\"http://www.itwire.com...\"Further research has been published suggesting there is no link between mobile phones and brain cancer.\"http://www.bbc.co.uk...\"In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls.\"http://www.cancer.org...\"A new study has revealed that children and adolescents who use mobile phones are not at a statistically significant increased risk of brain cancer compared to their peers who do not use mobile phones.\"http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...\"Many experts agree that to date, there is no conclusive evidence that links cell-phone use to brain cancer\"http://www.usaweekend.com...-\"5 billion cell phone users globally, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population. However, the incidence and mortality rate of brain and central nervous system cancers has remained virtually flat since 1987\"http://abcnews.go.com...So the point is, Cell phones do not definitively cause Brain Cancer2) The second thing I want to address is the current list of leading causes of Brain cancer in no particular order - Exposure to radiation like nuclear power plant workers - Exposure/Use of Formaldehyde, - Exposure to Vinyl Chlorides that affects people who manufacture certain types of plastic - Exposure to Acrylonitrile that affects people who manufacture certain types of textiles and plastics - Studies thus far have not found an increased risk of brain tumors among people who use cell phones.http://www.medicinenet.com...http://cancer.emedtv.com...So cell phones are not proven to cause Brain cancer and as of right now it is most certainly not the leading cause of brain cancer.", "qid": 37, "docid": "26d40999-2019-04-18T18:23:26Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6867873668670654}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00032-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6864555478096008}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't \"'flow\"\"' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.", "qid": 37, "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6830824613571167}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: 1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be \"notes\" or \"the interactive textbook\". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 37, "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6829952001571655}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. Content: I believe that children should not own smartphones because of the huge amount of radiation constantly 'penetrating' , the word my opponent would prefer me to use, the brain and other fragile body parts, and because most parents do not mind when and what their children use their phones for, and to those parents who do, I comend you.", "qid": 37, "docid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6806384325027466}, {"content": "Title: Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School Content: Although cell phones may be helpful in our everyday lives, it is also important that we keep them safe and schools must put this rule in place so that they are safe. Please vote. Thank you for the debate.", "qid": 37, "docid": "7cb4f197-2019-04-18T16:20:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.6769664287567139}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear energy Content: Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits", "qid": 37, "docid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00028-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6761245131492615}, {"content": "Title: should kid own phones with service Content: I will be arguing that children should not be allowed to possess phones with service. My opponent's first and only point regarded one's safety \"in cases of emergencies or someone got hurt or sick or if you got lost or need help and stuff like that.\" However, one does not need a phone with service to contact the police department, 911. As part of the \"Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,\" all phones, with or without service, must be capable of calling 911 (S1).Studies suggest that cellphones are unhealthy for youths. They pose many healthy concerns which may impact them greatly in the future. For example, in a study published by the NRPB in December 2004, scientists found that there were indications that radiation from cellphones may damage DNA. A study from April 2004 shows a correlation between mobile phone use and auditory nerve tumors, and research in 2003 links cellphones to impaired brain function (S2). Scientists have concluded that cellphones may double a child's risk of getting a tumor on a nerve connecting your ear to your brain, damage cell membranes, radically decrease cellular production of energy and disrupt the communication between cells (S3). Cellphones are also a great deterrent of sleep. In a study of 10,000 16 to 19 year olds, researchers in Norway foudn that the longer a young person spent looking at an electronic screen before going to bed, the worse quality sleep they had. Those who spent more than four hours a day looking at screens had a 49% greater risk of taking longer than an hour to sleep and were 350% more likely to sleep for under five hours a night (S4). Being that sleep is crucial for youths, for physical and psychological development and for energy, many researchers discourage children from using cellphones.Sources:S1) https://www.fcc.gov...S2) https://www.newscientist.com...S3) http://articles.mercola.com...S4) http://www.independent.co.uk...", "qid": 37, "docid": "aecf7370-2019-04-18T12:27:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6748807430267334}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones Content: even though cell phones are great they can also produce hearing problems and brain damage. because phones are becoming so great more people are getting them and peole are spending more time on them cell phones kill honeybees.....these days honey is used by hr8 patients & they would also someday die if this is continuously followed.", "qid": 37, "docid": "4c2cac7d-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00008-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6727790832519531}, {"content": "Title: should kids have cell phones Content: Thanks for the debate Pro.There were no rules or definitions, so I'll just get into it right now.This should be fun.*Introduction*It seems these days cell phones are everywhere and are virtually used for everything.We organize meetings, mess around with silly games and apps, and even order food via our cell phones.Most people will tell you that the life they live would be much more difficult without these devices.That's right, I said people.The problem is that kids are not people, so they neither have a purpose nor the ability to use cell phones.I'm going to negate this resolution that kids should have cell phones, because kids lack the ability to operate cell phones, kids have no use for a cell phone, and the dangers of leaving a cell phone in a kid's possession pose risks for both the kid and the cell phone. *Animal Rights*I get it.You want those conscious creatures, mainly mammals it seems, to be treated humanely and be afforded basic rights that humans have.On one hand, owning a cell phone isn't a right, so fighting for non-humans' cell phone rights is as silly as it is inaccurate.On the other hand, by giving kids a cell phone, you necessarily treat the kid inhumanely, because the cell phone parts are choking hazards if chewed and the lithium battery contains manganese dioxide, a known poison.So, while I sympathize with animal lovers, I've gotta draw the line at owning cell phones...shouldn't those phones go to people who need them first?My opponent may have a special place in his heart for kids, heck, my opponent may even have a kid living with them, for whom they think a cell phone should be designated.But if they truly love their kid, they'll keep them safe from harm.*Dangers*What would a kid use a cell phone for?If anything, I could see the kid chewing the phone to pieces, destroying the expensive device and endangering the kid at the same time.If you think plastic, metal, glass, and manganese dioxide is a delectable treat for kids, then by all means animal lovers, kill a kid and give them a cell phone.Personally, I'd like to avoid a future rife with this: https://www.google.com...Definitionsshould - used to indicate obligation.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...kid - a young goat.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...have - possess.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...cell phone - a mobile phone.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Conclusion*Therefore, I reject this resolution that young goats should have cell phones; the reasons should be obvious.", "qid": 37, "docid": "3904e0eb-2019-04-18T12:30:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.672410249710083}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans Content: Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. \"I derived this information from a reliable website.\" Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is \".org\" or \".gov\"! Anyone can just get a \".com\", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: \"A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it\"s not clear if they\"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain\"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.\" https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a \".org\" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma \" a specific type of brain tumor \" for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.\" https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a \".org\" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00001-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6721118688583374}, {"content": "Title: Kids don't need mobile phones. Content: My opponent has completely disregarded that mobile phones can be useful and in the case which I presented, even paramount to saving someone's life. For this she should lose conduct, as the case she presented is faulty. A home phone can't be accessed outside of one's home, this could hinder you from trying to call emergancy services. Sine you can't carry around your homephone a far distance from your house, it's a little useful when you're out in a canyon and someone has broken their leg. My opponent makes an anecdotal fallacy, with a faulty premise, I'll say what she means with some syllogism -I'm a kid and I don't use a cellphone. -I'm still alive C: No kids need cellphones. Obviously this kind of reasoning is completely illogical. My opponent states that Cellphones are a distraction for kids, yet fails to provide evidence. She is the one making the claim and doesn't even present evidence for her case. I really hope she learns from this debate. My opponent says that phones are to call people with, not to play games. She implies that all people use phones to play games on which is not the case, AGAIN she doesn't provide any sort of evidence to back up her ridiculous claims This debate is about whether or not kids need cellphones, and says that since kids don't need games, they don't need phone. Again, completely disregarding my case. Cellphones are not only used for playing games. A phone provides easier access to email, my opponent disregards this completely.", "qid": 37, "docid": "6b7ea9e3-2019-04-18T15:51:16Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6699916124343872}, {"content": "Title: Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps Content: Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.", "qid": 37, "docid": "9e69ad73-2019-04-18T16:17:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.669840931892395}, {"content": "Title: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved Content: These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6696167588233948}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00014-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.66652911901474}, {"content": "Title: Should we use cell phones in school Content: you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch", "qid": 37, "docid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6638785004615784}, {"content": "Title: This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Moblie Phones. Content: Thanks for Pro to accept.Hello today our topic is that This House Believes that Children should be Allowed to Own and use Mobile Phones. I disagree because of 4 reasons. My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use. My second reason is that Mobile phones are too expensive for children. My third reason is that Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school. My fourth reason is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. First I will tell you about Mobile Phones for children. The United Nations estimates that there are currently as many as 4.1 billion active mobile phone subscriptions. Modern mobile phones can perform a wide variety of functions, such as taking and sending photographs and video, playing music and games, and surfing the internet and accessing social networks. Their main use, however, remains for voice calls and for texting short messages. As prices of both phones and calls have come down in the past ten years or so with increased competition, they have become much more affordable for young people. This has raised questions about whether children should own phones, and if they should be allowed to take them into school. Schools in different countries, and within countries, take very different views on this issue. In many European schools, especially in Scandinavia, mobile phone technologies are actively used in education and to communication with students. Other schools allow them to be carried, but say they must never be turned on in school hours. Some (for example, New York schools) ban them entirely. Proponents of children being given mobile phones argue that they keep them safe, within reach of their parents at all times and are essential for maintaining friendships and social cohesion, whilst opponents maintain that they are susceptible to abuse and do not have the best interests of the child at heart.Now I will go on my first argument that My first reason is that There are long-term health risks to mobile phone use.\u201cThere are possible potential long-term health risks from using mobile phones. In May 2011, the World Health Organisation classified the radiation emitted by handsets as \u2018possibly carcinogenic\u2019. It has been widely accepted that the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones are absorbed into the body, \u2018much of it by the head when the headset is held to the air\u2019. Because children\u2019s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks \u2013 the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them. As Christopher Wild, who headed a study into the health risks of mobile use, instructed, \u2018it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting\u2019. The damage, despite not being conclusive, is potentially serious enough to warrant caution and preve.\u201dNow I will move on my second argument which is Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Mobile phones are too expensive for children. Even if basic models are cheap to buy, calls are expensive and charges soon mount up because \u2018what kids really want to do is text-message their friends, download music or play games\u2019.[1] Many young people run up big bills their parents have to pay. A few rich families might be able to afford this, but for many parents the hours their kids spend on their cell phones are an uncontrollable expense they cannot cope with. Others are under peer pressure to get the newest, most stylish phones with all the latest gadgets.Banning mobile phones would at least partially reduce the financial strain on poorer families.Now I will move on my third argument which is Mobile phones are inappropriate distractions in school.Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students\u2019 attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce \u2013 students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, in 2005 60% of cases involving taking unauthorized items into exam rooms involved mobile phones, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.Now I will move on my fourth argument which is that Mobile phones are open to abuse. Mobile phones are open to abuse, offering activities which are very inappropriate for children. The ability of modern phones to display graphics has led to the rise of mobile pornography, sexting, gambling and cyber-bullying. Most parents restrict their children\u2019s television viewing and computer use, but it is much harder for them to monitor mobile phone use. In 2004, British mobile phone operators, in an effort to combat mobile abuse, enacted regulation that prevents children purchasing phones with unlimited internet access Though this demonstrates a problem has been identified, the solution does not address phones bought by parents for their children or children who already own phones with unlimited internet access. Given this, it is best that children are not allowed to own them.For these reasons we urge you to vote for CON.Sources:http://idebate.org...;", "qid": 37, "docid": "d67b4952-2019-04-18T14:32:14Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6627873182296753}, {"content": "Title: Should students use phones in school Content: Did u know wifi is actually a form of radiation? The wifi waves are electro-magnetic and a study published by Princeton university shows that they actually can be harmful to children. Yes children with disabilities can benefit from specific programs but why do they need their own personal devices to do so? Technology is very important in the modern day but schools need to find a way to balance between traditional schooling while keeping up with our rapidly changing world. BYOD isn't the way.", "qid": 37, "docid": "fdbb8e69-2019-04-18T16:08:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6620894074440002}, {"content": "Title: Are cellphones safe Content: the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved", "qid": 37, "docid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00006-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6609611511230469}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones Content: Cell phone is the most important thing in our life. we use it to see how people are when something happens. We communicate with people. Now days there are gps on our kids phone which can track them down. Also people use as a daily need. So i know cell phone is one! <3 all who like this >>> People get more brain damage from listening to people who claim cell phones create brain damage than they ever would from a cell phone. People are spending more and more time on them because they are a tool that aids and eases our society. We have music, movies, games, gps, communication and the internet at our fingertips wherever we are. That is beyond incredible", "qid": 37, "docid": "4c2cac7d-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00009-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6597775816917419}, {"content": "Title: mobile phones are a curse for todays youth Content: mobile phones.....in todays world what we know mobile phones are just 'Fashion' youngsters spend lots of money in just buying the latest handsets...and just show off.... it leads to brain tumours, cancers,,... it is a threat to life...", "qid": 37, "docid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00006-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6589454412460327}, {"content": "Title: No to modern technology Content: as what i have known modern technology can harm people such as radiation(for example) can cause death to human lives.", "qid": 37, "docid": "4c2cac7d-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00019-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.6582086682319641}, {"content": "Title: do smart phones make kids dumber Content: Last year the Librarian of Congress warned that texting was responsible for a drastic decline in American sentences, but that opinion wasn't backed up by any scientific evidence. Now, a team of Australian psychologists has come a step closer to proving that mobile phones are destroying our ability to think. The researchers show that children who use mobile phones respond to higher-level cognitive tasks faster, but less accurately, than those who don't. 94% of Australians use cell phones, and the cognitive psychologists were testing for the negative effects of exposure to mobile phone radiation, especially among children, whose brains are still developing. In addition to fears that cell phones cause cancer, one earlier study found that school-age children who had been exposed to mobile phones as infants or in utero were almost twice as likely to be hyperactive or disruptive as those whose parents used land lines. The good news is that radio waves from mobile phones won't fry young brains or turn kids into delinquents. The bad news is, cell phones actually make children dumb (M. J. Abramson, G. P. Benke, C. Dimitriadis, I. O. Inyang, M. R. Sim, R. S. Wolfe, and R. J. Croft, \"Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents\" Bioelectromagnetics 30.6 [early view, August, 2009]). Of the 317 seventh-graders who participated in the Australian study, 77% owned their own mobile phone and almost all the rest had used one. The children reported an average of eight calls and eight text messages a week, with heavy users logging as many as fifteen. Even though these figures seem low -- what 13-year-old would acknowledge receiving so few texts? -- those who used cell phones more responded to a battery of cognitive tests much faster, and much less accurately, than those who seldom called or texted, or those who didn't use mobiles at all. Specifically, the psychologists found that as mobile phone use increased, children learned to perform tasks more quickly, but their ability to remember things declined: \"The accuracy of working memory was poorer, reaction time for a simple learning task shorter, associative learning response time shorter and accuracy poorer.\" Findings were the same whether children called or texted, and since texting involves very little exposure to radiation, this suggests that it's the act of phoning, not the radiation, that accounts for decreased cognitive ability. The researchers went so far as to suggest that mobile phone use also correlates with impulsivity, and that cell phone utilities like 'predictive texting' actually condition children to favor speed over accuracy. (For other research on texting, click here and here; for the impact of texting on literature, click here; for its impact on politics, click here; for its impact on language development, click here). But reports that cell phones are destroying our brains are premature. Even the Australian researchers acknowledge that it might be unwise to depend on the accounts of thirteen year olds for accurate information about how many calls or texts they receive each week. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that mobile phones cause children to respond faster to assigned tasks (ever try to get a cell-phone-enabled thirteen year old to do their homework in a hurry?) or to make their answers less accurate (they can text perfectly without looking at the keyboard; can you?).", "qid": 37, "docid": "7864ca28-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.6570348739624023}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00035-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.6565964221954346}, {"content": "Title: The mobile phone do more good than harm. Content: Greetings opponent. I could see the effort you put in for the argument. It is dramatic enough for one to believe that mobile phone do more harm. However, I would like to keep the excitement going. It is indeed true that internet is accessible via many devices like computer, Ipad etc. I would like to highlight a point that opponent overlooked, the screen size and usage. I broke down the devices into three category namely, laptop, tablets and mobile phones which I wanted to compare a few key stats on each device. If one boarded the bus any random day and looked around his/her surroundings, it won\"t be a surprise to find that half or maybe more of the commuters are using phones. Of course, it is also fair to say that some use tablets and few use laptops. While one might rethink about why most of the commuters use phone instead of other devices, I think it is safe to say that mobile phone are actually easier to carry around and they can make phone calls. It may not be their main use any more but most of us still want to be able to speak to our friends and family when out of the house. It is also true to say that some commuters prefer to watch movies and thus a tablet might be a better choice to them, however it normally won\"t be the first choice for most people. For the second point, I find it rather interesting to compare digital dictionary and dictionary application in the phone. It would be less pleasing to reiterate the differences between hard copy dictionary and dictionary application again. I believe not many would fancy flipping the pages to find the matching alphabet. Now going back to the point, I believe it does cost money to buy a digital dictionary. If one looked in app store in one\"s phone, online dictionaries namely Dictionary.com , Oxford, Merriam-Webster etc; those dictionary applications are all free. I therefore come to the conclusion that if both dictionaries give the same information or an explanation for a particular word by just typing a few alphabets, it is understanding enough to say the online dictionary is more considerable. Thirdly, I do agree with what the opponent mentioned regarding about the issue regarding pupils using mobile phones in school. Debates are going on in figure out whether students are allowed to use mobile/cell phones in school. One of the example, from (http://www.debate.org...) .Although this includes a little of integrity and helps from teachers, situations like this needs a relatively long period of time to resolve. I looked through what opponent had pointed out regarding about addictions. I did some research and would like to share this research report (http://www.researchgate.net...) carried out 6 years ago. As the opponent suggested that \"reliable sources\" including Wikipedia might be giving the false information , I want to point out that this website contains reliable resources. It contains results carried out from experiments about addictions of problematic phone users, the causes and effects. Although this report does not directly link to how I want to go against my opponent\"s view, one could have more idea about the issue of addiction. It is clear that this might be one of the harm mobile phones carried and had been seen as a problem as far as researches had proven. From http://www.webmd.com...... that opponent had highlighted out respecting to the issue of checking phone regularly, it is understood that it could be a habit that might be harmful to the users. However, suggestions made from (http://thenextweb.com...) that might help to get rid of this habit. Now, one could argue back that not a lot of people will follow the suggestions and led a better lifestyles. However, if that one among ten people would want to change for the better , I believe it\"s an improvement that is worth being glad about. While what the opponent suggested might be true, it would be better to suggest a few examples to go against my point. In my view, I think it is safe to say that having a soft copy or a hard copy is fine. However I believe most shoppers prefer soft copy when out for a shopping spree. It would be rather difficult to carry a piece of paper written with a list of stuffs we wanted, however mobile phone could play a more significant part in this situation. If one argue back regarding about efficiency and the price, I would like to stress that jotting down notes do waste papers and pen ink. Thus mobile phone has indeed became a great part of our daily lives due to its usefulness. On the next point, I would like to ask my opponent a question. If you are suggesting that not many students will actually follow the teacher's instruction, how many will? I believe not everyone are addicted to mobile phone like its drugs or smoking, but what percentage of pupils will improve on their usage of phone after the speech or lecture? If there is after all an improvement made after the speech, I do believe one might spend their life more wisely. Now, does it really matter how many students would follow the instructions? Of course after admitting that you use a phone, how sure are you that only a few people out there use mobile devices wisely? And if we considered mobile phone as a multi-purpose device, why are we classifying entertainment as something that will harm us? If one argue that mobile phone could only be used for educational purposes then it should be for sure that mobile phone should not even exist in the first place. People should continue to use hard copy dictionary and spend time reading books for evidences. While it seem to most people phone has been used for entertainment and is pretty much of waste of time. From the source: (https://www.psychologytoday.com...). Sure, it's easy to make fun of fans and celebrities and Americans riveted to their televisions watching obese people exercising and getting weighed, but who says people have to engage in serious activities all the time? If we look at what most people have been doing most of the time throughout human history, it's probably not discussing moral philosophy and inventing calculus. And part of the reason for that is that people need rest and recovery time and enjoyable activities: without some sort of stress relief we would self-destruct. While it seems like the amount of time spent in front of the mobile screen is increasing, it is also obvious that mobile devices are becoming a great part of our life. It is possible to infer that people seem more happy with mobile phone and this might reduce stress. Interactions via phone might be important, urgent or compulsory during some situations and could help save many lives. From the source my opponent had given, (searchenginewatch.com) it is however not very convincing as it is stated that it researched on 2March2013, about 2 years behind the present. I would like to restate that I'm not only stressing about inspiration quotes in this case but also other positive entertainment resource that would make one's day. Touching on the topic of cyber bullying, from what the source provided, it is sure that parents are informed about situations like this. They were also taking part in this survey that supports my opponent's statement. Like I said earlier in my argument, parents should indeed get informed about this situation. It is however understood that children are still being cyber bullied now and the only way to reduce it is to prevent it. From source:(http://www.stopbullying.gov...) both parents and children could play a small part in this prevention. I shall not be disappointed because it indeed need people who are educated and well-taught. This need plenty of time and maybe generations after generations so that people will fully understand what their actions or words could do to one individual. I would like to skip the topic of Amanda Todd because it is disrespectful to touch on this topic in the form of debate. I apologies and may she rest in peace. It is a little irony from what you had suggested regarding about the resource. If 90% of the internet resources are not true, are you indirectly suggesting that whatever people had been researching for might not even be half true? If you are suggesting 90% of the internet resources are not true, where the evidence(s)? Are you absolutely sure that the evidence(s) you are going to support lately might be true too? Or is it(them) among the 90% which is untrue. As such, you might gotten misinformed and potentially 'dumb down'. For my last point, it is true that internet do has negative influence. While it contain negativity, it also contain positive vibes. One of the negative examples might be Amos Yee, but it is understood that no all are like him. Not everyone carries the negative mindset around and upset others. There are indeed plenty of human beings out there who left a mark in this world. I should end here due to my tight schedule. It is indeed very enjoyable to have such a tough debate with you, my opponent. Hope to hear from you soon.", "qid": 37, "docid": "257b9024-2019-04-18T14:44:28Z-00002-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6557356715202332}, {"content": "Title: Ban cell phones for people under 16 Content: A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that \"The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women.\" (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.", "qid": 37, "docid": "53fc0783-2019-04-18T16:30:32Z-00002-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6554215550422668}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today Content: I believe that cell phones are doing way more harm than good. When you walk down the street all that you see is people walking down the street with their phones in their faces. When we didn't have cell phones people actually talked to each other", "qid": 37, "docid": "8f540882-2019-04-18T11:13:47Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6553999781608582}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org should not demand your cell phone number to access certain features. Content: For maximum clarity, I will simply review the debate and show How I have won. So first to my own case, 1. Security- My opponent has conceded this point; vote for me. 2. The number is not used- My opponent claims I make no actual rebuttal here, but I urge to please review my statements. what I said is indeed a rebuttal, it covers my opponent's argument's and clarifies my point. However along with my opponent's insidious attack, he goes on to claim that I don't understand human nature. I would like to point out, that I am twenty years old, my opponent is fourteen; logically I must understand human nature more than my opponent as I have had longer to see it in action, second- I work in retail; trust me when I say I've seen the good and bad in humanity. Also my opponent's only real attack is still only an objection based on suspicion. 3. Limited usage is not the end of the world- My opponent doesn't cover the arguments I made, vote for me. Now I will proceed to my opponent's case 1. Some people may not have a cell phone- Once again, my opponent is avoiding the topic, those who have more get to do more. as awful as this might sound it's an undeniable truth in the society we live in. so why then,should those who do have cell phones (Which we've already determined is the more enumerated portion of society) lose out? this would violate the utilitarian ideology we've founded our society upon! 2. Having to borrow the cell phone of a friend/family member is an outrageous solution- I'm not going say anything here, instead I just ask you to review the debate and look at just what my opponent said in refutation towards my attack on him simply being suspicious. Vote for me here. 3. What will they do with my number- My opponent drops this point, he instead opts to talk about his own suspicions again; do not look to these vote for me. now that I've covered everything said thus far, I want to point out some things my opponent claims I've advocated in the course of this debate ========== -I should not care about users without cell phones. -That one argument means nothing because of one comparison you deem unreasonable. -Debate. org is not a place for talking about Debate. org. -I should trust Debate. org with a piece of my personal information without any knowledge of the site because. .. it's Debate. org? ========== I'm neither going to waste your, nor insult your intelligence pointing out the obvious flaws here, instead I offer you this as fodder in the fire that is the reasons you need to vote for me. and so in conclusion; my final words in this debate. You cannot allow my opponent to win this debate, he provides no logical backing on why he ought to win, he provides no empirical evidence to advocate his point, and the sum total of his logic re simply his own unfounded suspicions, and general distrust towards society. while on the flip side, I offer you logical, and sound reasoning; I've shown the usefulness of having members verify themselves with their phone. And so for all of these reasons, we can see no other vote in this round than for myself. (also, this system helps prevent vote-bombing since you need to verify by phone to vote. not a voting issue I know, as this is my last speech, but I thought I point that out. )", "qid": 37, "docid": "488542ed-2019-04-18T18:55:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6546274423599243}, {"content": "Title: Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions Content: \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now.\"", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00052-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6544027328491211}, {"content": "Title: Drivers don't get better with practice on cell phones Content: \"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show.\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \"'And you don't get any better with practice,' Strayer adds. In his lab, subjects who reported they use a cellphone a lot when driving 'show every bit as much impairment' than those who do so infrequently.\"", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00058-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6534521579742432}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones should be banned in schools! Content: I apologize if I ever offended you, con. I pasted half of your argument into mine to make rebuttals easier.Banning phones in school has been hotly debated everywhere, especially here on the Internet. Both sides (agrees to ban or against) are understandable in every way, but all we need to know is which side is totally acceptable and superior than the other. While cell phones certainly offer students increased communication abilities, providing students with a tool for added safety and parent contact, many public school leaders assert that cell phones are a severe distraction in the educational process. The following are sourced.[1] According to the National School Safety and Security Offices (NSSSO), cell phones have been an increasingly negative disruption in schools: \u201cWe have opposed policies allowing or encouraging students to have cell phones and pagers in school. On a day-to-day basis, they are disruptive to the educational environment. This also has been the general position of many school districts over the years.\u201d The NSSSO argues that allowing cell phones for safety reasons is inaccurate. As they explain, \u201cChanging policies under the guise of cell phones being a crisis tool for student safety is, in our opinion, a knee-jerk reaction and is not \u2018the answer\u2019 to school crisis preparedness that some may believe it to be.\u201d In fact, oftentimes school and security officials report that students falsely call in bomb threats or reports of threats on their cell phones as an over-reaction or as a prank; in such cases, these cell phones can force the entire evacuation of a school, while also making it nearly impossible for security teams to try and figure out where the call was placed, and which student(s) made the call.These are based from the number of public schools the strongly disagrees in allowing phones within the school premises. Rebuttals\"Mobiles can save the lives, though it is necessary to be with every kid in school, because they can use it to inform their families in case of any emergency.\"For this one, I agree, but I stated the cons behind this on the very first round. To let things be clear and to refresh minds, let me quote what I said: \"2.) 'For emergency' Is the most used excuse in this kind of topic. Parents think of cell phones as a connection to their children in an emergency. But I wonder what the last situation was that genuinely called for an immediate phone call to a child. In most cases, contacting the hospital or the police would seem more urgent. And parents can always call the school's main office to reach their children.\"Scroll up if you do not believe me, but these are the exact wordings from my previous argument. \"Mobiles as a library:You can get any information you need by single click. it actually enables you to have a world in your hand.\"This is the reason why we have libraries within almost every school. Everyone would agree that books are far superior than looking for it on the internet. On the web we can never be sure that the article that we read about Science or maybe History are actually true. For all we know, someone unexperienced could post false informations on the topic. But with the books that are in the library, we are certain that the statistics or data written in these books are accurate because authorized and skilled authors wrote them.Using a phone can be quick, but when it comes to real infos, I'll have to wonder what the point is.Con also declared:\"Mobiles are socially important:I am sure if yourself does not carry a mobile in school, your mates would laugh on you, because you may not find anyone without mobile, therefore if you dont have you would feel awkward and that would show you cheap, though mobiles are socially important.\"Have we been lost on the subject? We are only talking about banning phones in school, but it doesn't mean that we do not have them.\"Mobiles make you easy reachable:You can be reached anytime and anywhere, and this can be done with mobiles.\"This is similar to the one with the emergency calls. Parents can call the teacher or the school. If this is the only reason why we should lift the ban, then it is not reasonable enough. This is the only appropriate reason why this debate hasn't ended for years. If this is the only problem, the parents can have the advisers' phone numbers to contact their children. This might be ridiculous to hear, but the truth is, phones are the top contributor in decreasing children's interest in school. So if this is the right way, it must be done.\"I will give a live example for you, suppose your little brother has fallen from roof and your mom and dad is on a long trip, and you are the only one living with your brother, in the same time he is fallen from roof, you are in school, what if you dont have mobile and you are not aware of your little brother!!though accept it that mobile should not be banned in schools, because you would never know what gonna happen next!\"Again, this is identical to the previous one. Communication, again and again.I suppose calling the authorities is better if I ever experienced this kind of accident. Calling parents that are in a long trip isn't the priority here. Your brother must be in a hospital so the first thing that I would do is to call the teachers and have them call the ambulance. If the injury is not that severe, bringing it to the school nurse is alright. The teacher can call the parents on the trip just to let them know what happened.Rebuttals against con's rebuttals:\"-Cheating:I would like to state, that no where in the world is allowing mobiles during exam! though cheating in exam is pointless!It is not as simple as you think, that you can ever cheat through your mobile during exam, and if you think you are a bright kid you dont need to cheat!!\"No one is allowing phone during exam, yes, and that is equal to prohibition from school. Cheating in exam is pointless. That's also why schools should ban them. Not every child is smart enough to realize that. \"-Texting:I think pro is forgetting about the topic! The topic is banning mobiles in school not in class!\"I am not forgetting about the topic, con. Where exactly is a class? It's in a school.\"1. Schools are having policy for banning mobiles inside the class! and during the class time no kid is allowed to use their mobiles, if they ever use they are banned in the class but school does not bear the right to make the mobile banned in school.\"Disallowing it in class is also as important as banning it in school. Cheating is possible when in class. It's also possible in school. \"2. there are reasons for those kids who set behind and they are not concentrating in the class! that is the responsibility of school master to check whether the kid is interested in the subject or not and they should find out if the teacher is not boring for them, though we can say a good system in schools would never stop kids to use mobile!if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!\"Banning phones is equal to removing the top contributor of losing the students' interest in school. Therefore, we are reducing the chances of having a stupid society in the future. It's the responsibility of the school master to know if the kid is interested? School masters' job is to run the school smoothly, not for making sure that the students are interested or not. \"if they trust on their education system they should not make the mobiles banned!\"? Con, you should definitely check if this sentence is correct. I Think you could figure it out yourself without someone pointing it out for you. They should trust their education system if they ban phones.Con, mobiles are definitely used for entertainment when in school. It's useful outside, but within the school it isn't helpful. To answer your question, I home study because I currently reside in a foreign country with a foreign language and a foreign culture. Source:http://www.publicschoolreview.com...;", "qid": 37, "docid": "fea6e8c3-2019-04-18T15:16:16Z-00002-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6529957056045532}, {"content": "Title: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Content: Cell phones should be allowed on school campuses and classrooms as they can serve as a reliable source for an emergency at the moment. A cellphone can also be a reliable source for information or research on a topic or school assignment.", "qid": 37, "docid": "f3661df1-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6528892517089844}, {"content": "Title: Students should be allowed full use of their cell phones during school hours. Content: My opponent continues to talk about a ban of cell phones. A ban is a legal or formal prohibition. Beer was banned once, and it could not even be seen unless for certain uses.. However, unlike like this ban on alcohal, cell phones are allowed to be in the student's back pack or pocket, when alcohal was not. This means that there is no cell phone band, but a restriction of use on cell phones. He also said that cheating has occured before the cell phone. Yes, this is true, but cell phones are not as easy to catch compared to people passing notes. Students today have found ways to hide cell phones and when they need knew ones, they will create them. My opponent said that a longer period for the phone to be away from its owner should counter my countinuous flow of rule breaking and punishment. It can only holt the process until the student gets the phone back, which would still be a continuous flow that can only end at permanant loss of the phone. My opponent brought the point of an emergency occuring outside of the school. He is saying that students should have their cell phones on in case of a random emergency that may have a low risk percentage of occuring. Unless this emergency is already known by the student, then he or she should not have their cell phone on. During school hours, students could use their cell phones to send a threatening text message to someone. This could be endangerment of a life, punishable by law. Making a great chance that the school could be seen negatively for not preventing these things does do harm to the government because the school system, or education, is usually looked upon to be the best . \"ban.\" Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 22 January 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...; \"Cell Phone and Pager Issues.\" National School Safety and Security Services . 2008. National School Safety and Security Services . 22 Jan 2009 <http://www.schoolsecurity.org...;", "qid": 37, "docid": "35c427c4-2019-04-18T19:32:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6526214480400085}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00030-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6525061130523682}, {"content": "Title: Nuclear Power Content: Thank You Mr President for an insightful look into the \"bennefits\" of nuclear power. Now onto my rebuttal! Nuclear power is safe? I would have to consider the claim by my opponent that nuclear power is safe, to be a little more than a stretch, it's outright false. There are several factors my opponent failed to consider. First let's consider the health effects on the uranium minners! https://www.scientificamerican.com.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... https://www.epa.gov... Since most uranium minning is not done in western countries, most westerners are unaware of the effects that plague uranium minners, and that extends to the enrichment process as well. My opponent seems to downplay the effects of major meltdowns. When radioactive material is released on as large of a scale as it was at chernobyl, the radiation becomes omnipresent. It doesn't act like a liquid or a chemical which are influenced by matter, instead it radiates through the air, the vegetation on the ground, and the ground itself, including groundwater, insects and animals. It moves through solid earth as if the earth isn't even there. It contaminates the earth, the insects, the animals, the vegetation and groundwater in the effected area for hundreds of years. Only 25 to 40 deaths can be inextricably linked to the Chernobyl meltdown, but the World Health Organization says that number is probably far higher, but since radiation sickness effects each person differently, it would be impossible to directly link each death to that specific incident. Furthermore, the WHO (the organization, not the band) has noted a rise in cancer and infant mortality rates in the effected areas of the Chernobyl meltdown. https://www.usnews.com.... http://www.world-nuclear.org.... More than three quarters of the nuclear power plants in the US have reported some kind of radiation leak. My opponent also brings up the fact that sea levels are rising which should also be of concern for all of us because nuclear power plants need large amounts of water, so they are built near water. It may not take a mega earthquake to cause the next nuclear accident. Because of global warming, powerful storms happen more often, these storms may be a risk to the \"safety\" of nuclear power. In March of 2014, a Malaysian flight with more than 200 people went missing. Officials believe the pilot purpously took the plane off course and flew it into the ocean, it has never been seen or heard of since. Could a nuclear technician with suicidal feelings be capable of sabotaging a reactor and cause unspeakable damage to lives? This scenario is conjecture I know, but in my mind, the only way to know with 100% certainty that it can't happen would be to prohibit nuclear energy. http://gizmodo.com.... There's also the storing of radioactive waste, which has to be stored, cooled, and monitored for 100,000 years. The facilities that store the waste has to be maintained and checked for leaks, and guarded because of the hazards it can pose to humans, and its appeal to terrorists. This does not sound safe to me. None of these problems would arise from renewable energy. If the glove don't fit, we must prohibit! Nuclear is NOT clean. My opponent points out that solar and wind farms need backup generators far more often then nuclear, he also points out that nuclear plants produce far more energy. I don't dispute those claims, but when you put them into context, you realize that nuclear would need to rely on backup generators just as much, if not more. Nuclear plants produce more energy than solar or wind, but when a nuclear plant is down, it would need more, or larger generators to compensate for a higher energy demand. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my opening statement, energy saving batteries are becoming cheaper and more efficient, which eliminates the need for backup generators. I also pointed out that nuclear has to rely on GHG burning equipment for minning and processing, and trucks and trains for shipping. The process of creating nuclear energy is NOT free of GHG emissions. http://www.sciencedirect.com... Thermal pollution is also an environmental concern posed by nuclear power. Cost!!! When you take into consideration the cost of building an energy producing facility, and the cost of gathering and processing the fuel needed for the energy source, it gives you a wider spectrum of the true cost of your energy. This type of calculation is called \"levelized cost\".http://energyinnovation.org.... When you take all these points of analysis into consideration, nuclear doesn't do as well when compared to many different types of renewables. I must also point out that this analysis doesn't take into consideration any possible environmental impact posed by each power source, so renewables would fair even better vs traditional power sources. My opponent seems to be prodding me to argue for prohibiting nuclear power immediately, however I see no need for this resolution. I think as renewables become more of a mainstream option, countries will recognize that traditional power sources are obsolete and will no longer renew the contracts needed for continuing production. Furthermore there is nothing in the proposal by my opponent that suggests I have to adhere to an \"immediate end to nuclear\" argument. Testify, bsh1.", "qid": 37, "docid": "f074f877-2019-04-18T12:16:57Z-00006-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.651825487613678}, {"content": "Title: Mobile Phones Used by Children Content: Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....", "qid": 37, "docid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00004-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6513959169387817}, {"content": "Title: 100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones Content: Cell phones keep kids safe. Access to emergency services is in their pockets at all times. Every kid in America can have instant access to police or medical services. This is a safer world for children and one where parents can rest easier at night. Rebuttals 1. In today's world there is just no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers. My opponent quotes a source saying that 2.5% of people are pedophiles and between 1% and 5% molest children. This is fear mongering lies. If you follow his link you'll see they quote their stats from the source I quote (coming up). That source states that between 1% and 5% of teachers molest children. I believe that's where the 1% to 5% number came from. I'm not sure about the 2.5% number. It looks like they cite their stats for the first 10 or so provided but get lazy with the last 30 or so. So these numbers can't be trusted. http://www.cpiu.us... Upon reading the stats that are cited on that page. It would seem that most children victims of rape and molestation are assaulted by people they know. 96% of females are raped by people they know. Only a total of 1/7 of victims were assaulted by strangers. This means cellphones would not likely be a contributing factor to a child getting raped. I'd say if anything, having a cell phone is a deterrent to a stranger trying to scoop up a kid and rape them. 2. My opponent ha not shown how having a phone causes addiction to porn or social networking and how such addictions would be negative. That being said, a parent does have the capability of restricting access to certain content on the phone and spotting these addictive tendencies early is probably a good thing.", "qid": 37, "docid": "ec1fbf3f-2019-04-18T15:36:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6512593030929565}, {"content": "Title: Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines Content: Arthur Weinreb. \"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \"The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up.\"", "qid": 37, "docid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00071-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6508561372756958}, {"content": "Title: Parents should ban their children from the use of smartphones Content: WORTHY opponent! Please forfeit the rounds of this debate as I have taken the wrong side. I'm con, so I should've talked about the advantages of mobile phones for children. Thank you.", "qid": 37, "docid": "f0ba99c6-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.6504541635513306}, {"content": "Title: cell phone being banned while driving Content: \"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. \" Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. \"Cell phones often cause accidents. \" No, they don't. \"Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. \" Prove it. Thank you.", "qid": 37, "docid": "f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6496394276618958}, {"content": "Title: how young is to young to have a cellphone Content: Ok so i say that cellphone not smartphones are ok for kids and young adults to use. here is something for you to fight 911 calls.", "qid": 37, "docid": "d289045-2019-04-18T12:21:21Z-00001-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6492964029312134}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars probably saves lives", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00031-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6489758491516113}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Content: Btw. when i got into this debate i thought i was agreeing with the cell phones doing more harm, Lol considering im new to this but yea i messed up", "qid": 37, "docid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6489148139953613}, {"content": "Title: should we use nuclear power Content: Since we both agree that Nucler power is unsafe, that should be a prevailing argument for this debate. Despite how helpful it maybe , since we cannot be assured of safety it cannot be used. It's like saying that we will let a wolf live in the house because he is helpful in some way. Safety first. Impact of a single disaster wiped out any financial benefit and destroys generations to come.", "qid": 37, "docid": "11aa3029-2019-04-18T12:23:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6487354040145874}, {"content": "Title: The mobile phone do more good than harm. Content: Hello opponent, before I proceed with my argument, I shall convey my thanks to my opponent who has started this debate. I really hope that this debate will turn out to be interesting and fun. Now, let me get on with my argument. Cell phones are technological devices that are widely used all over the world. Around the world, mobile phone sales have increased from more than 100 million units per year in 1997 to an estimated 779 million units per year in 2005(which is more than the increase of human population) .They act as great tools for communication during every day life and emergencies. They also serve a purpose to connect people from all over the world to join in an event and bond together. Although cell phones may be argued to be hindrances in the class room, they are now helpful to classrooms and learning. In addition to telephony, modern mobile phones also support a wide variety of other services such as text messaging, MMS, email, Internet access, short-range wireless communications (infrared, Bluetooth), business applications, gaming, and photography. Cell phones make it easier for people to communicate and interact with each other without really knowing another in person. In today\"s day and age, communication is almost everything. People do not have the time to meet with every person they need to talk to. Being able to reach these people at any time makes cell phones convenient devices that are only helping people in their daily lives. Also, when parents are out with their children or their children are out by themselves, their parents can contact them at any time to ask where they are. If their child is lost, they can either call them, or use tracking devices on many cell phones nowadays to find them. My claim is supported by a study done by pewresearch.org. It states that 89% of online teens say the internet and other devices in their lives like cell phones, iPods, and digital cameras make their lives easier, while 71% of their parents agree. 5% of people think that cell phones are a bad thing. Another study done by pewresearch.org states that 98% of parents of cell-owning teens say a major reason their child has the phone is that they can be in touch no matter where the teen is. Cell phones are good devices not only because they are helpful for communication and dangerous situations, but because they are helpful in classrooms. Liz Ritter Hall said that cell phones have the capability to become the \"Swiss army knife\" for student research and organization. In class rooms, cell phones can be \"data collection tools\"audio recorders, digital cameras, and digital camcorders.\" All these new uses for cell phones in class rooms makes them very good educational devices. Students can do fast researching and answering with their cell phone devices using online dictionary or simply google them. If cell phones can be useful and educational in class rooms, they are obviously helping and doing more good than they are harm. Cell phone also serve a purpose for people to understand each other better through social media apps like Instagram, Facebook ,Twitter etc. Social media apps allows people to share the moments in their life by pictures and discover people who will be able to inspire them into a better person. Cell phone also allow people to have a better understanding of the other parts of the world through videos and pictures that can broaden one\"s horizon. Cell phones act as excellent safety devices and are useful during emergencies for people of all ages. They can be used to contact parents and help when there are in unsafe or risky situations. According to an American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) poll, 56% of people over the age of 65 cite safety as a reason they have a cell phone. A majority of cell phone users (57%) who report that they have an annual household income of less than $30,000 say that they have cell phone service for safety and security reasons. Cell phones may be argued as distractions at school, however cell phones are now actually being used in classes for educational purposes, so they are helping education. Cell phones also allow the access to online learning during e-learning day for the primary and secondary pupils when they were supposed to study at home. Additionally, cell phones have been argued to be distractions on the road. However there are laws now that prevent cell phones from causing accidents and driving interferences. Although there is a slight environmental damage issue that cell phones have created, the problem is being quickly turned around by informing people about electronic recycling. And though cell phones have been found to cause brain damage, in order for brain damage to occur, cell phones must be used for heavy amounts of time for over many years. Additionally, cell phones must also be right next to the head in order for it to cause any damage. Although cell phones do have disadvantages, they also have benefits. They are important and convenient, making our lives much easier. For the reasons that we have stated, we prove our point that Cell phones do more good than harm.", "qid": 37, "docid": "257b9024-2019-04-18T14:44:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6486833095550537}, {"content": "Title: Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good Content: Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel \"worried or uncomfortable\" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated \"they felt the need to switch off\" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.", "qid": 37, "docid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.647569477558136}, {"content": "Title: Embracing cell phones in school Content: Cell phones is a very controversial topic in a school system, but the instigators reasoning is wrong. Many if not all teachers have cell phones. Wall/hard-wired phones are in every room. The teacher/instructor can just use that. Phones should not be used in lockdown/fire situations anyway do to the unsafeness and the fact they JUST SHOULDN'T.", "qid": 37, "docid": "626e3202-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00002-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6473549604415894}, {"content": "Title: This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones. Content: Actually, I am not a beginner. I've been doing debate for about 1 year. My time ran out so I accidentally forfeited. Calling my account a dummy account and myself a beginner goes against the conduct rules in this debate, which shows that I have a high chance of winning. But, since I accidentally forfeited last round, I will now present my arguments. Arguments I will present: 1. Bad for Health: 2. Games/ Game addiction Firstly, bad for health: Information below are from http://www.medicaldaily.com... and contain lots of information about bad health as a result of mobile phones. Negatively Affects Emotions The presence of a cell phone while two or more people are talking face-to-face can generate negative feelings toward the person who has his or her device visible. In two studies conducted at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, researchers studied the effects of a mobile device during a nose-to-nose conversation. In the first study, 37 pairs of strangers were asked to spend 10 minutes talking to each other about an interesting event that happened in their lives within the past month. Half of the participants were seated in a secluded area with a mobile device present on a desk nearby whereas the other half remained without a cellphone. The results of the study showed that those who had a mobile device nearby were perceived less positive by the stranger, compared to the other participants without a cell phone present. In the second study, researchers included 34 different pairs of strangers who were asked to discuss trivial topics while others were asked to discuss significant events that occurred in their life. Half of the participants chatted with a mobile device while with the stranger and the other half had a notebook. The results of the study showed that those who spoke about significant events in their lives with a notebook present experienced a feeling of closeness and trust in the stranger, unlike those with a cell phone. \"These results demonstrate that the presence of mobile phones can interfere with human relationships, an effect that is most clear when individuals are discussing personally meaningful topics,\" said the researchers of the study. Increases Stress Levels The high frequency of cell phone use can have negative effects on our stress levels. The constant ringing, vibrating alerts, and reminders can put a cell phone user on edge. In a study conducted at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, researchers examined if there is a direct link between the psychosocial aspects of cell phone use and mental health symptoms in young adults. The participants of the study included 20 to 24 year olds who responded to a questionnaire, in addition to a one-year follow-up. Researchers found high mobile phone use was associated with stress and sleep disturbances for women, whereas high mobile phone use was associated with sleep disturbances and symptoms of depression in men. Overall, excessive cell phone use can be a risk factor for mental health issues in young adults. Increases Risk Of Illnesses In Your Immune System The incessant touching of your phone can harbor germs on your handset. The greasy, oily residue you may see on your cellphone after a day's use can contain more disease-prone germs than those found on a toilet seat. In a study conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Queen Mary, University of London, researchers sampled 390 cell phones and hands to measure for levels of bacteria. The results of the study showed that 92 percent of the cell phones sampled had bacteria on them \" 82 percent of hands had bacteria \" and 16 percent of cell phones and hands had E. Coli. Fecal matter can easily be transferred by cell phones from one person to another. Increases Risk Of Chronic Pain Cell phones require constant use of your hands, especially when sending text messages and e-mails. Responding to messages at rapid speed can cause pain and inflammation of your joints. Back pain is also common with increased cell phone use, especially if you hold the phone between your neck and shoulders as you multitask. \"Long periods of cell phone use cause you to arch your neck and hold your body in a strange posture. This can lead to back pain,\" says Healthcentral.com. Increases Risk Of Eye Vision Problems Staring at your mobile device can cause problems in your vision later in life. Screens on mobile devices tend to be smaller than computer screens, which means you are more likely to squint and strain your eyes while reading messages. According to The Vision Council, more than 70 percent of Americans don't know or are in denial that they are susceptible to digital eye strain. Secondly, game addiction. Smart phones have lots of games, and games cause lots of problems. Look below: THE LEARNING BRAIN ON GAMES Practicing anything repetitively physically changes the brain. With time and effort, you get better at the specific task you're practicing, whether it's shooting at the enemy in a video game or hitting a baseball. Those repetitive actions and thoughts stimulate connections between brain cells, creating neural pathways between different parts of your brain. The more you practice a certain activity, the stronger that neural pathway becomes. That's the structural basis of learning. \"Use it or lose it\" applies not just to muscles in the body, but also the brain. Neural pathways that are not used eventually get pruned. In the early 2000s, most research suggested that perceptual and cognitive training was very specific to the task at hand. That's one of the problems with many brain training tools: it's easy for people to improve on the individual mini-tasks they're given\"say, arranging a list in alphabetical order or completing a crossword puzzle\"but those tasks don't always translate into better thinking in general. Video games seem to differ from other kinds of brain training. \"Unlike some other brain training tools, video games activate the reward centers, making the brain more receptive to change,\" explains C. Shawn Green, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Studies show, for example, playing action video games enhances visual capabilities, such as tracking multiple objects, mentally rotating objects, and storing and manipulating them in the memory centers of the brain. That holds true even for the most maligned action-entertainment games. Such games also require players to think of an overall strategy, perform several tasks simultaneously, and make decisions that have both an immediate and long-term impact. \"That's very much like the multi-tasking inherent in most jobs today,\" says Dr. Willis. \"These young people may be better equipped to switch between tasks easily, adapt to new information, and modify their strategy as new input comes in.\" Useful skills, to be sure, but exercised excessively they can also become problems. After all, when kids become so accustomed to multi-tasking and processing large amounts of information simultaneously, they may have trouble focusing on a lecture in a classroom setting. THE VULNERABLE BRAIN ON VIDEO GAMES The very nature of action-entertainment games not only attracts young people with focus, attention, and anger issues (particularly in the case of violent games); it also tends to reinforce these negative behaviors. While a number of companies have tried to create beneficial games for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they've had limited success. \"It's difficult to make games that are exciting for kids who have attention issues, but not so exciting that the game reinforces ADHD-like behaviors,\" says Dr. Hummer. Instead, kids with ADHD often play action video games to flood their senses with visual stimulation, motor challenges, and immediate rewards. In this environment, the ADHD brain functions in a way that allows these children to focus, so much so that they don't exhibit symptoms, such as distractibility, while gaming. \"One of the big issues from a treatment perspective is: how do you tell a kid who has been running the world online and experiencing high degrees of sensory input to function in the real world, which is not very exciting comparatively?\" says Dr. Greenfield. The stakes may be higher for a child with anger and behavior issues who finds solace in violent video games. While experts disagree about what (if any) impact violent games have on actual violent behavior, some research shows a link between playing violent games and aggressive thoughts and behavior. For a kid who already has an aggressive personality, that could be a problem, say experts, since video games reward those aggressive tendencies. In fact, two separate studies found that playing a violent video game for just 10\"20 minutes increased aggressive thoughts compared to those who played nonviolent games.", "qid": 37, "docid": "a0c60838-2019-04-18T15:04:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6471185088157654}, {"content": "Title: Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! Content: Being able to call 911 or call someone you know for help is absolutely safer than being in a dangerous situation alone with no way of contacting the outside world. Even if you don't think phones make things safer, they don't make things any less safe. Therefor, having the phone on the wall didn't necessarily make things any better for anyone.", "qid": 37, "docid": "a2dd679-2019-04-18T15:46:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6464661359786987}, {"content": "Title: children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones. Content: Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.", "qid": 37, "docid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6462308168411255}, {"content": "Title: Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14 Content: I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today\"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.", "qid": 37, "docid": "337d5b0b-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6460458040237427}, {"content": "Title: cell phone should be allowed in middle school . Content: Fact Set \" The average U.S. cellular phone user uses 490 minutes of cellular time per month. Late in 2002, cellular phone use in the U.S. overtook the use of landline service. \" As of September 2003, it is estimated that one in three students aged 10 to 19 have a cellular phone. \" In a September 2003 poll taken by an online mobile retail company only 10 percent of respondents said it was acceptable to talk on a cellular phone while on school property, including classrooms. Arguments in favor of allowing cellular phones \" Cellular phones are necessary for safety. Their use on September 11 demonstrates how helpful they are in allowing parents and students to contact each other in an emergency. \" The Columbine attacks and other instances of school violence show how helpful it might be to give students the ability to contact emergency personnel while at school. \" Schools can require that students turn off their cell phones during classes, but students would still have them for use in an emergency or to check messages in between classes. \" Cellular phones can be set to not ring during class, therefore minimizing the disruption to the learning environment. Regulating cellular phone usage would be better than banning them altogether. Arguments against allowing cellular phones \" Cellular phones distract students and teachers by interrupting classes and disrupting the learning environment. \" Cellular phones have often been linked with the sale of drugs and other illegal behavior. \" Messages can be given to students by contacting the school. There is no need to reach them by cellular phone. \" In the event of an emergency, students should focus on following the instructions of school personnel, not using a cellular phone to contact their parents or other relatives. They will have the opportunity to contact their families once the emergency is over. \" The odds that a school will be the target of a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds that students will be distracted by using a cellular phone during class or during the school day.", "qid": 37, "docid": "160682d8-2019-04-18T18:08:30Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6456985473632812}, {"content": "Title: Public Schools Should Allow Texting In Classrooms Content: 1. Yes, I believe that there should be some kind of protection around the room to avoid texting: -There are different devices that the network \"people\" can get to physically drain the battery to all phones if they are in a certain area. 2. True. You are true to say that, that sentence is false. (: 3. It kinda depends on the teacher/school. but... -Phone taken away -Phone goes to office -Parents have to come get it Thanks :) & Good Luck!", "qid": 37, "docid": "5762bb58-2019-04-18T19:16:00Z-00003-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6452876329421997}, {"content": "Title: Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand... Content: Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.", "qid": 37, "docid": "e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6451550126075745}, {"content": "Title: Science is the greatest integrator of human societies Content: I would like to rebut some points and provide some more in depth information. 1) It is true that if you want to keep up with the society and its fast-changing pace, the ability to use technology is a necessary skill to equip oneself with. If one does not know how to use a simple laptop or mobile phone, he/she will find it hard to survive in today\"s society. I understand that by staring at the screen for too long, it will result in illness (as you said), be it on purpose or for work. There is no way to really solve this problem now, but we can\"t say so in the near future. People would tend to spend most of their time online and this will result in mental disorders or other illnesses like short-sightedness. Most patients with mental disorders and take in certain drugs or medicine to control their emotions so that they do not get too excited and harm themselves or the people near them. This is only a supportive treatment to the main one, which is to attend counselling. Also, there is this new screen protector that can decrease the impact of staring too long at a screen on the eyes, so short-sightedness can be reduced through technology. Also, the mutations that I mentioned about in my previous argument is genetic mutations caused by the overtaking of drugs and medicine. The mutations caused by radiation is not related to the medicine industry, but I will elaborate further on that. Radiation may cause genetic mutations but if the nuclear plant is well-protected and isolated, the benefits will raise above the risks. Since my first point is related to the medicine industry, I shall only elaborate on how radiation helps to cure people. But, radiation also helps in many other ways, like industrial-wise, agriculture, sterilisation and the environment. Perhaps the most important use of radioactive materials is in medicine. Radiopharmaceuticals\"drugs that contain radioactive material\"are important in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. They can be injected into the body, inhaled, or taken orally as medicines or to enable imaging of internal organs and bodily processes. Millions of people in Australia and around the world have benefited from the diagnostic and therapeutic qualities of radioactive materials. In 2002\"03 alone there were over 590 000 nuclear medicine services in Australia. In medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment, around 500 000 patients have benefited from a radioisotope produced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Also, I personally feel that the fact radiation coming out of our phones is destroying the aerial fauna is a little bit exaggerating. Radiation is given off by our phones, but it is a minute amount compared to a nuclear plant. Even though most of the population uses the phone, the radiation given off by our phones (as a scientific report states) have short half-lives and will decrease to background levels within days. Actually, people used to live for a shorter lifespan. Scientists have roughly estimated that our ancestors (in the 1880s) only had an average lifespan of around 39 years, but now, we have a rough average lifespan of 80 years. (you can check out https://www.theatlantic.com... for more information, they have a graph) 2)It is true that unemployment rates have been raising in certain countries, but robots actually do not increase unemployment rates and instead, decrease them! You might be familiar with the Little Giant ladders manufactured by Wing Enterprises, Inc. in Springville, Utah. When the company\"s sales increased through infomercials a few years back, strains on the production process appeared. To deal with rising demand, Wing Enterprises acquired welding robot systems from Lincoln. Productivity increased 30% according to Brian Nielsen, an automated fusion technician with Wing. This helped Wing to build a new facility three times its original size and expand from 20 to 400 employees. Furthermore, Crown Equipment, the Greencastle, Indiana-based manufacturer of electric fork trucks, acquired three Lincoln robot systems to make specialized parts that created a new market for the company. This provided the foundation for an expansion that increased the company\"s total number of employees from 200 to 335. These examples illustrate that properly implementing technology like robots to support corporate strategy can ultimately lead to reduced costs, improved productivity, operational efficiency- and employment gains. Also, an increase in robots means an increase in people/industries to manufacture them, programmers, designers, and inspectors. This will result in an increase in employment rates as more people will be needed to support this industry. 3) Cars do not blow up that easily, there are several conditions to fulfill before a car can truly blow up. Firstly, the fuel's gas must, in someway, fill up inside the car. And remember: in both cases it have to be in the right concentration. One possible real situation where all of this can happen is a car accident. But note that: if the fuel tank is full, the probability to explode will be lower since it don't have enough space for the oxygen. Therefore, in an accident, it is more likely that the car burn than explode. The most \"likely\" scenario where car may be in a position where it does something which makes it appear to an outside viewer to have \"exploded\" (not including an installed explosive device) would be the following: A fire starts in either the engine or the passenger compartments of the car. The heat of the fire melts a fuel line (or whatever may have caused the fire punctures the fuel tank) and the mixture of fuel and air reaches a level where it explodes when exposed to an open flame. This would give the appearance, to an untrained eye, that the car itself exploded. However, only the fuel powering exploded and not the vehicle. This is also fairly rare, as a car fire usually consumes the fuel powering the car or the car is extinguished before its fuel can possibly ignite. It is true that true online platforms, more people might be brainwashed into being a terrorist. But the security web online or in one\"s computer prevents people from viewing websites deemed as unsafe. There is no direct way to use science to counter mass massacring with the gun, but the government can maybe impose some laws to stop it??? (your last point is too hard to counter :CCC, because the counters are more of social reasons) If we want something good, there will be a price to pay, and unfortunately science is just like that. (P.S. Thanks for leaving a space! Really appreciate it :D)", "qid": 37, "docid": "a75f0734-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6445379853248596}, {"content": "Title: Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous Content: Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. \u201cHands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.\u201d MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90", "qid": 37, "docid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00017-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6445018649101257}, {"content": "Title: Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives Content: \"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says\". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - \"In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving.\"", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00047-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6426823735237122}, {"content": "Title: Cellphone is very useful nowadays.. Content: You posted the argument that cell phones were very useful and you posted as pro, whereas I took the side of con and disagreed with you. I know my place in this debate; the question is, do you? It's hardly professional to attack the opponent; I really hope that you don't let this be your downfall. I will post a link that I used for my arguments, a citation if you will, and I hope that you will read it through and then make up your mind which side I'm on\u2026 Or rather, which side you're on. http://www.politicsdaily.com... I urge voters to vote \u2018con' for this debate is rather one sided. 1) I have provided fair arguments that my adversary never acknowledged. 2) I have put in a reference, even though it's only one. 3) I have been watching my grammar, and even though no one is perfect it shouldn't be too difficult to see who took more time writing their debate. 4) I have not attacked my opponent, not even once whereas he is calling me a fool. (I think) I urge pro to try a little harder, don't worry we all have to start somewhere. If you'd like then I'd personally give you a couple of tips that I've picked up; all away from the public eye. Please consider my offer.", "qid": 37, "docid": "b8d953f8-2019-04-18T19:21:29Z-00000-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6426244974136353}, {"content": "Title: Kids should have cell phones Content: At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O", "qid": 37, "docid": "a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6424774527549744}, {"content": "Title: Cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. Content: Recent news articles and media outlets have surmised that cell phone usage is a leading cause of brain cancer. http://www.cnn.com... This debate will prove, one way or another, if the media has a foundation for making the aforementioned claim.", "qid": 37, "docid": "26d40999-2019-04-18T18:23:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6422957181930542}, {"content": "Title: Phone on the wall, it was better for us all! Content: I don't actually own a cell phone, by the way, so I'm not biased here. Cell phone's batteries last for quite awhile. I doubt most power outages last for over 24 hours. Plus, most phones come with car chargers. Power outages don't really affect phone usage at all. I doubt anyone's afraid to sit in their own house without a phone, but if I were walking down to the corner store after dark to pick up a snack, I'd certainly feel safer with a phone in my hand to dial 911 just in case anything happened. Taking advantage of the systems we have set up for safety and convenience isn't codependence. One could argue that computers are just as bad as cell phones, but here you are online.", "qid": 37, "docid": "a2dd679-2019-04-18T15:46:53Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6413142681121826}, {"content": "Title: People should not be so addicted to their cell phones. Content: \"Also, people can take their phones with them on cars, but it should certainly not be used, as it is illegal and a very dangerous movement.\" Con Yeah, but if you watch An inconvenient tooth by Al Gore you will learn that one of the causes of Global Climate change is overpopulation. The dangerous situation that cellphones create in cars is good for the environment.", "qid": 37, "docid": "fcff2e33-2019-04-18T14:12:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.641191303730011}, {"content": "Title: Banning cell phones in cars Content: Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00040-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.640833854675293}, {"content": "Title: Society can't \"trust judgement\" of drivers with cell phones Content: \"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction.\"", "qid": 37, "docid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00044-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6408304572105408}, {"content": "Title: technological advancements Content: What's your point. You simply stated both sides of the argument proving both sides of the argument. The question is, do you agree or not? Anyways, here my argument for the pro side. You stated, \" The medical advancements caused superbugs that can only be cure by more medical advancements and will only lead to more supebugs. Also , communicating with people you can't see often is nice but most people use their phones for much more than that. People use their phones to text the same person 24/7 which is very unnecessary. People also use their phones to go on social media all the time. They forget how to communicate with people in the real world a lot of the time. Having this much technology has poisoned this generations brains into thinking t at we cannot live without our phones. Most people wouldn't leave their house without their phone. Some technology like light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial to us. But things like cells phones and ipads are very unnecessary and are becoming more detrimental.\" What in the world are superbugs? You never defined them... What you just stated about superbugs made 0 sense. Since I am the pro side... Our human race would not be able to survive without medical advancements in technology. Look at the Black Plague or the Potato Famine. They are simple sicknesses to cure nowadays but back then the Europeans did not have any medical knowledge or technology. Thats why 2/3 of Europe died during the Black Plague... You have no facts lol. People did not forget how to communicate with other people; people choose not to. All you have to do is put your phone down and go outside. Not that hard. You said light and ovens and heat/cooling are very beneficial. This depends. Some emit radioactive waves. Our cell phone and necessary. How in the world are we going to connect with outer people without them? Without phones, we would be redoing pony express pretty much again. Overall... Your argument is complete bias and opinion ._. and you didn't prove a single thing. You attempted to prove my side too. lol", "qid": 37, "docid": "6aa3d910-2019-04-18T15:25:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6407417058944702}, {"content": "Title: Debate.org has an unnecessary verification process. Content: Rules: 1. There will be no swearing or derogatory terms directed at either individual, however they may be directed at anything or anyone else.2: Have a basic understanding of American English. You don't need to sound like you graduated with a Ph.D in English, just dnt telk lik3 dis k thx3: Sources are completely optional as this is more of an opinionated debate.4: This is a serious debate on a non-serious topic. Don't half @ss it because it's a \"dumb\" debateFailure to comply with these rules will result in me calling you a fool. That's about it.--------------------------------------------------------------------- Today is the first time I've heard of this website, and after reading a really bad debate by both sides, I went to cast my vote. To my discouragement though, I was prompted with two preventive measures: I must provide my cell phone number, and complete three debates in order to vote (and I also assume comment as well as other functions that I couldn't seem to do). A CellPhone: Not everyone has one nor does everyone want one. \"But PRO, there are more cellphones in the world than there are people!\" I realize that, however that doesn't mean everyone has one. Plenty of individuals have more than one cellphone, sometimes one is for work and one for leisure. Other times, people just buy a new cellphone that is more up to date, and they'll just leave their old ones in a drawer somewhere. The amount of phones increases but the amount of users stays relatively the same. Debate.org does not take into account the people without cellphones who still want to participate.CellPhone Privacy: Giving all of our numbers to one collector is a serious risk. A skilled hacker can break into the database and collect these private details. Other companies with personal data collections have been compromised before, and I can say with certainty that it will continue to happen to other companies, perhaps even this one. 3 Debates Requirement: I understand where they're coming from with this, they don't want trolls or bots ruining all of the debates so they have this wall here to prevent that. However, seeing as how debates can last anywhere from three days to six freaking months, it becomes highly inconvenient for people that just want to do something as simple as leave a comment.", "qid": 37, "docid": "ce6385c9-2019-04-18T13:53:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6394938230514526}, {"content": "Title: It should be illegal for people to use cell phones while driving Content: Contention 1: The original study [1] also says that \"Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.\" Many drivers with cell phones were able to quickly call emergency services; there are many other unrelated benefits of cell phone usage. According to a large study done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [2], the risks associated with talking on the phone are no worse than those associated with performing any other similar task in the car, such as eating. If cell phone usage were to be banned, it would be necessary to also ban many other similar tasks. In addition, the cost of banning cell phone usage is rather high [3]: \"the cost of banning cell phone use while driving is about $700,000 for each quality-adjusted life year saved. That is 30 times more expensive than achieving the same public health benefit with driver airbags, and ten times more expensive than achieving that benefit by keeping the speed limit on interstate highways at 55 instead of 65 MPH.\" Contention 2: This is nothing but a statistic; it lacks proof. Many crashes may be caused by cell phone usage, but this is outweighed by several factors. For one, there is the economic cost of preventing potentially crucial calls from being made while in the car. Yes, life is more valuable than simple economic costs, but at what point do we draw the line? Would we be willing to bankrupt a nation just to save one individual? No, and this is exactly why the economic cost is important. Two, we must take into consideration the entire population. There are billions of people who ride in cars every day; only 600,000 or so per YEAR get in an accident, and barely half of those even involve any injury. The cost of cell phone usage is rather small. To help balance my opponent's statistics, it is worth noting that someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.1% (only just above the legal limit for operating an automobile [4]) is five times more likely to get in an accident than someone who is talking on the phone. Contention 3: The core of this argument is very similar to the core arguments of #1 and #2, so my arguments can be cross-applied. But to add something extra, I ask, why is this a reason to ban cell phone usage? There are surely more economical ways to reduce the risk of an accident. Education and encouragement are powerful tools that we ought to utilize. Simply making cell phone use illegal is invasive, excessive and unnecessary, not to mention an infringement on personal liberty. Contention 4: No direct source to this fact has been given and I cannot find the original source, so it is difficult to respond to. However, it has been found that banning cell phones would cause a great deal of economic hardship [3]. Contention 5: This is an example of an appeal to authority; it is fallacious [5], and should be disregarded. Contention 6: False. See rebuttal to contention 2. In conclusion, the side effects of cell phone conversation while driving are minor and the costs of banning cell phone use are great. [1] New England Journal of Medicine <http://content.nejm.org...; [2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov...; [3] Harvard Center for Risk Analysis <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...; [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.nizkor.org...", "qid": 37, "docid": "8f405a57-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6387659311294556}, {"content": "Title: Mobile phones make sure that we are safe Content: Mobile phones mean we are never out of contact with our friends, parents, guardians, or if necessary our school. They provide a way we can quickly contact someone if we are in trouble or are lost. Mobiles are most clearly helpful if caught in a large scale disaster such as a flood or earthquake as we can tell rescuers where we are. But they are also helpful for every day security. With a mobile phone parents know where we are and can be quickly contacted if we feel unsafe somewhere.", "qid": 37, "docid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00009-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6382952928543091}, {"content": "Title: Does technology make our lives better. Content: First i would like to extend my framework that was not refuted throughout this debate. (as a reminder) it stated \"if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or more damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate. \" Because the majority of my opponents last round was copy and pasted from wikipedia i will briefly touch on a few of his closing arguments, and then use the rest of my round to support my own arguments. Back onto his first point he persists with his argument basically saying that weather satellites outweigh the inherent harms of technology (since according to my framework we are putting everything on a scale). Yes, all of the wikipedia articles that were provided by my opponent make these satellites sound pretty cool, and i'm sure that they are useful in the many ways the articles stated, but that is just one aspect of one area of the large world of technology. We could pick little cool technological advances from anywhere and debate the pro's and con's of each one, but that doesn't make sense. My opponent provided a broad resolution so i assumed we were discussing technology as a whole, and these satellites compared to the rest of the huge world of technology does make them relatively insignificant. In his second point he talks about medical technology, but the fact is that much of the things we use medical technology for are caused by technology. Cancer is even caused by technology. Cancer can be caused by Ionizing Radiation, and Chemical Carcinogens. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Obesity is largely due to our adaptation to technology, we don't even need to leave our house anymore if we dont want to. \"Technology is like a pencil. The pencil is there for you, but it is you that have to take it, and it is also you that have to decide what to do with it. You could just throw it away, or use it properly. \" But people arent using it properly, and the resolution states \"technology makes our lives better. \" not \"technology could make our lives better if we choose to use it properly. \" There are always people who are going to use it incorrectly and it will impact us all as a whole. \"When I talked about ipods, I was giving it as a general example, covering all the discomforts came from listening to the old-fashioned radio. \" I was giving a general example as well. i was in no way referring to your example. At the time nobody was dealing with discomforts from listening to the old-fashioned radio. Nobody knew that there was any better, and that is why the quality of the life you live can't be impacted by technology you dont yet have. My opponent closed with a definition of quality of life that states that there are two aspects to quality of life, physical and psychological. It is for this reason that i find Abraham Maslows Hierarchy of Needs a good basis for us to debate upon, but i will get to that later. My opponent went on to describe how technology helps give us a better quality of life. \"1. -Pills that are made with modern technology can help us in getting back appetite and having a balanced diet. 2. -surgeries with better devices based on modern technology keeps us healthy. 3. -technology used in security reasons such as door locks and such can save us from both physical and mental pain. Your close friends or relatives might be attacked from invaders and robbers, causing you a mental pain, and your friend a physical/mental pain if we did not have modern technology to keep us safe. 4. -Again, surgeries and pills can cure diseases. \" My opponent stated no sources but i will go off of his arguments anyway. first pills made with modern technology to help us diet are only necessary because of our rising obesity issue that is directly linked to technology. Furthermore, these pills are an example of a short cut that technology has made for us. No need to lose weight by actual dieting and getting exercise, we have pills that can do it for us. second, he talks about surgeries, but once again many surgeries that we have are given only because technology exists. third he talks about security with locks and everything, but technology has also created a way to pick those locks four was basically the same as one and two. On to my case I. Addiction to technology We have become addicted to technology, and can no longer live without it. My opponent never refuted this fact and accepted it as an inherent danger to our society. extend my first point II. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. My opponent never refuted this either. However, just to reiterate my argument. Maslow gave us 5 needs for the quality of our lives to be good. he covers both physical and mental aspects that my opponent used for his definition of the quality of life in his third round. Technology does support or fulfill, any of the 5 needs, and actually harms some of them. extend my second point. III. The Inherent Harms of Technology I gave several good examples, such as cyber terrorism, nuclear warfare, obesity, online predators, and technology adaptation throughout this round as harms of technology, but i have one more specific example of technology gone wrong. I dont know how many people have heard about the Chernobyl disaster, and it would be difficult to summarize it in a debate. Basically in the Soviet Union they buried a bunch of their nuclear weapons equipment and such in a big hole with a concrete shelter, the shelter cracked and there is an underground lake below where they buried it and \"if the wall of the reactor building or the roof of the shelter were to collapse, then large amounts of radioactive dust and particles would be released directly into the atmosphere, resulting in a large new release of radioactivity into the environment. \" which could kill us all. . http://en.wikipedia.org... and that is only part of the problem with Chernobyl, but it proves that technology is a double edged sword that can do a lot of harm even though it provides convenience. In conclusion, technology is not what improves our quality of life or in other words makes it better, and even if it were, the bad that comes with technology is at the least equal if not outweighs the good technology provides.", "qid": 37, "docid": "ffc4ca19-2019-04-18T19:41:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6378014087677002}, {"content": "Title: Why cell phones should not be allowed in classrooms Content: Yes there is a possibility of the phone's being dangerous during an emergency as they could sound off during a break in but a solution for that is to have a rule in the class stating that when one enters the classroom their cellphones need to be turned to silent. With the research projects , yes students might goof off and go on their social media pages rather than researching for their assignment, but in the end they'd be the ones hurting their grade. It's on them to do the work or goof off.", "qid": 37, "docid": "f3661df1-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6373735666275024}]}
{"query": "Should marijuana be a medical option?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Should medical marijuana be legal or no?", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8632771372795105}, {"content": "Title: Should pot be legalized Content: My opponent concedes that marijuana can have medical benefits. The fact that people use marijuana to get high in no way shows that it should not be legalized. Other drugs can be used to \"get high\", however their beneficial effects allow them to stay legal. English Syllogism 1. Drugs that have more medical benefits than medical costs should be legal.2. Marijuana is one such drugC. Therefore, Marijuana should be legal. Classical Syllogistic Translation 1. All B is L 2. m is B. C. Therefore, m is L.", "qid": 38, "docid": "3f13792b-2019-04-18T16:30:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8125218152999878}, {"content": "Title: Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal Content: I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8074632287025452}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f", "qid": 38, "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8038858771324158}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Let's get started off with the contentions. 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. 6) User's choice. The consumer is not forced to buy, smoke, or use marijuana in any way. It has no negative repercussions to anyone aside to the consumer. Marijuana does not make you do anything. If you choose to purchase and smoke marijuana, it is your choice, and the government should not prevent you from ingesting what you will, be it alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to his next round. SOURCES . http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com... (1)(8) . http://tinyurl.com... (2) . http://www.nowpublic.com... (3) . http://www.changetheclimate.org... (4) . http://abcnews.go.com... (5) . http://www.drugpolicy.org... (6)(7)", "qid": 38, "docid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.799062967300415}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: ======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.", "qid": 38, "docid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7976727485656738}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.", "qid": 38, "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7958852052688599}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Medical benefits of marijuana outweigh potential risks", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00074-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.792570948600769}, {"content": "Title: Marjiuana should be legal Content: My opponent did not say \"Medical Marijuana should be legalized. \" He simply said that Marijuana should be legal. While I do not find this completely fair, he has not broken any written rules. I am Con Marijuana, Pro medical Marijuana. Therefore I will be playing somewhat of the devils advocate. Just because something feels good to people who are sick, is not a reason to legalize it. Marijuana is proven to be a dangerous drug. Some of the short term effects are: 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). 2. Problems with memory and learning. 3. Loss of coordination. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. There are many reasons why these things can be bad, I will go through them one by one as quickly as I can. 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). This is very dangerous, the reason is because people will take the drug and drive at the same time. Car accidents will go through the roof. This is an example of death with Marijuana. What people like to do is say that no one has died because of Marijuana. Well, no one has died of a cell phone, yet many people die from talking while driving. 2. Problems with memory and learning. Children these days already are failing in school. Why would we want to add to that? They need all the memory and learning they can get. 3. Loss of coordination. This corresponds with number one. More accidents, more deaths. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. This also corresponds with number two. But not only for kids, people need all the brain power they can get. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. Some people do not even know that they have a bad heart. Marijuana could hurt these people. It would be no use to use on most sick patients. Lots of them have a bad heart. Many people who take the drug for medical purposes get addicted to it. Many people do not get addicted to it, but there are some that do. There are also many other dangerous effects. Like sleepiness, an altered sense of time and space, hallucinations, delusions, disorientation. Marijuana contains more than 400 different chemicals; this is bad for obvious reasons. Marijuana also can lead to lung and/or throat cancer. (Again, they don't die of Marijuana, just cancer. ) Your father's theory sounds good, but there can not be a law based off of it. Just because 8 out of 10 people say that there is a KFC on the moon does not make it true. Something else to consider, there would be a major increase in health problems. Therefore, there would be a major increase in the cost of health care. No one in any country wants this. I will stop here for now and look forward to your response. May the force, again. AND I AM YOUR FATHER! !! ! SOURCES: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...", "qid": 38, "docid": "f49fbe84-2019-04-18T19:09:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7919729948043823}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs Content: The fact that there are alternatives to medical marijuana for many treatments is not necessarily an argument against medical marijuana. It is always important to have many alternatives, largely due to differing personal preferences, beliefs, and physical reactions to different drugs.[15]", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00118-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7894927859306335}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.", "qid": 38, "docid": "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00009-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7884015440940857}, {"content": "Title: Medical cannabis Content: Look at this from a different point of view. In your argument you stated \"Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses\" There are many other medications that are being developed and have been developed for quite some time that have effects similar to the effects of cannabis without the risk of being used for the wrong purposes. In many cases the use of medical marijuana is abused by the patient who requested it, they over exaggerate the pain that they are in, it results in a more medication then they would need. \"Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers\" This is not always true as the illness is not always well known and there is little research out for it, sometimes patients request more than is necessary. Medical marijuana is also very expensive and is not always covered by insurance companies. In short marijuana is pointless and not necessary for pain relief. In the least the only thing it would be good for is a substitute for other drugs out there that are better known and are more efficient pain relievers.", "qid": 38, "docid": "7e67fe99-2019-04-18T15:47:36Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7875299453735352}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized. Content: NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.", "qid": 38, "docid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7874904870986938}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: This is for a devil's advocate tournament. I hope for a really fun debate - I'll try and offer something different from the usual boring old arguments that always seem to get presented for medical marijuana.This first round is for acceptance. I'll start my case in round two.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00005-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7857798337936401}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Content: About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary", "qid": 38, "docid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7853941321372986}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Content: If you wish to accept, please apply in the comments section. 4 rounds, 10k characters and open voting with a minimum ELO of 1,500. Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Definitions: [1] Medical Marijuana- Marijuana used to relieve pain and treat disease. [2] Legal/ Legalize- actions or conditions that are permitted or authorized by law. Structure: Round 1: Con's rules and TOU while Pro accepts. Round 2: Opening Arguments, NO Rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion. No Semantics No trolling No profanity Sources 1. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) 2. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)", "qid": 38, "docid": "6f02a9c0-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.78533935546875}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal Content: My first debate!Round 1: AcceptanceI think Medical Marijuana should be legal and ther are many benefits.Definitions:Marijuana - Marijuana (marihuana) Cannabis sativa L., also known as Indian hemp, is a member of the Cannabaceae or hemp family, thought to have originated in the mountainous districts of India, north of the Himalayan mountains.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...LETS DO THIS!", "qid": 38, "docid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00005-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7847673892974854}, {"content": "Title: Medicle Marijuana Content: It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7836194038391113}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be legalized Content: I think that Marijuana Should be legalized because it can be used for much more that just medical use. I believe it can be used for things like clothes, string, sowing material and of course medical use. Now I now there are some people out there who would disagree with me and that is fine but i have knee issues and every now and again my knee dislocates do to sporting activities and when I am given morphine and multiple doses to be exact it still isn't enough to ease the pain, I also have other medical issues as well and there some points that I wish had something to ease the pain.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d6ea1958-2019-04-18T18:02:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7834372520446777}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.783319354057312}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: I thank Con for their response. I will attempt to negate my opponents points. Your negation of my contention of Medical marijuana was that of \"I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn't't want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets.\" The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, otherwise known as the FDA, could easily control the usage of marijuana if it was legalized. Your first objection to my second contention were that of the military has access to certain things that the general public does not. Well, you could extend this access to certain justice and crime associations, such as the CIA or the FBI, which could be used to allow the pain reliving effects of those groups. Your second objection to my second contention was that of there are better alternatives for pain killer which have less side effects. Marijuana has a greater effectiveness as a pain killer than most other pain killers. Wars may produce a near death injury, while allowing the use of marijuana as a pain killer, can allow the pain to be eliminated near instantly. Your third contention stated attempted to show that certain drugs are less harmful than marijuana. According to NORML, \" In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.\" In refute of the THC spray, I doubt the majority of users of marijuana have discovered said THC spray. Users may also prefer actual marijuana experience over the THC spray. (1)http://norml.org... (2)http://www.annieappleseedproject.org... (3)http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu...", "qid": 38, "docid": "d0a91598-2019-04-18T18:36:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7831549644470215}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Now then let the games begin. A. You say that medicinal marijuana can CAN be a safe and effective treatment. For some very serious medical conditions that are a huge concern for our society. Of the conditions you did state, i will say you are valid on 1 of them. That being pain, as to my knowledge Marijuana does act as sort of a pain killer, except without the high of some of the other pain killers out there like vicodin. But that goes to say how much pain would be required to needed for one to get said medicinal marijuana. To go on, one could simply fake pain to abuse the system, trust if it is legalized that would happen in great numbers. Furthermore, I would like to know how that is if you can show it to me if not it is of no matter, how it can help treat such illnesses such as AIDS, Cancer, epilepsy, etc. B. Now also how would you ensure that it is actually getting to those who need it and it is not just going to any random person who can present a card or something saying they have legal access to the marijuana? I say without at least a proper way of ensuring it gets to the right people Marijuana should remain illegal. Since there has also been no proven way to ensure all laws are enforced, since there is always a loophole or an exception of some kind. No one can justify making marijuana legal since it could and would be abused by a variety of people. No matter what the medicinal trials show about the drug, and how it MAY benefit people. Legalizing Marijuana would only fuel the rampant illegal use of it in our nation. It would give people a reason to then abuse the system and obtain marijuana for their own personal and selfish needs. It could also cause a lot of corruption in the form of a pharmacist selling said Marijuana on the streets or, in the back for a huge profit of their own personal gain.", "qid": 38, "docid": "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00008-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7830886840820312}, {"content": "Title: Medicle Marijuana Content: As my opponent has forfeited their last round, they dropped every single argument I made in Round 2. I have shown that there is no need to use medical marijuana. We have multiple drugs with the same purpose for every condition that marijuana is thought to treat, including the individual chemicals from marijuana that help to treat these conditions.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7812137603759766}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes. As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.", "qid": 38, "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7789469957351685}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Full resolution: \"Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7758275270462036}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.775473415851593}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Medicine Content: I accept the challenge! If you allow sick people marijuana as medicine, they may become addicts once they are better, and begin to use it illegally. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a recreational drug, and should remain illegal.", "qid": 38, "docid": "89fd39b5-2019-04-18T18:04:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7750568389892578}, {"content": "Title: Medicle Marijuana Content: \"It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use.\" I will admit that marijuana has medicinal properties. That being said, every problem that marijuana helps to treat already has multiple LEGAL treatments that are more effective. Take glaucoma for example. Medical marijuana, when it was legal, was primarily used to treat this. However, glaucoma is now treated by latanoprost, bimatoprost, timolol, and epinephrine, just to name a few. Furthermore, scientists have suceeded in synthetically producing the ingredients in the marijuana plant that give it its medicinal properties. I would think that using this would be highly preferable to unnecessarily altering your brain chemistry. Unless, of course, the patient is using marijuana primarily to get high.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7744005918502808}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00007-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7738596796989441}, {"content": "Title: Medical Cannabis Content: I completely disagree with making the decision to make marijuana a legal medication. Yes, it does have many benefits as a medical drug. However this can also be labeled as a mind controlling substance. There are different types of cannabis and not all strains are actually used for medical purposes. I believe marijuana should remain under strict watch among doctors, distributors and health professionals. I must also add the criminal and violence aspect of this as well. U.S citizens aren't out causing voilence over tylenol or aspirins. But there are infact doing so over this cannabis, as it is my literal definition of a \"drug\". I would not stand firm and call this a \"medicine\" or \"medication\".", "qid": 38, "docid": "e1d1a698-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7734652161598206}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00063-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.772704541683197}, {"content": "Title: Pick your own debate! Content: My opponent is using a huge logical fallacy; he is claiming that because medical marijuana doesn't have medical purposes for all medical conditions that the medical conditions it does have medical purposes for do not count. The fact remains that medical marijuana has several medical purposes such as alleviating neurpathic pain. A ban on medical marijuana would result in the ban of a medicine that works better than any other medicines, resulting in worse health out comes and a worse off health care system. My opponents post is also lying the source i posted studied the addictive potential of some medical marijuana the studies found that certain medical marijuana extracts do not result in addictive properties or addictive behavior. medical marijuana is different then regular marijuana because in medical marijuana they take out the harmful and addictive chemicals and only use the chemicals that have medical purposes. this means that every time my opponent links to marijuana having unhealthy effects he is comparing apples and oranges, and therefore his comparisons are invalid. For example a scientific study found that medial marijuana improved the mental abilities of people with Alzheimers. So basically a ban on medical marijuana would be an example of the government telling doctors how to treat patients. it would also be an example of the government telling millions of sick people that they cannot legally consume medicines that improve their medical condition.", "qid": 38, "docid": "ffcf93d6-2019-04-18T18:36:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7712906002998352}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: I'm fairly new to this site and to debating but this is a controversial issue that I have opinions on. I accept this debate but I would like to state that I'm not against medical marijuana if it is approved by a doctor.", "qid": 38, "docid": "6231a7a5-2019-04-18T17:16:52Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7706671357154846}, {"content": "Title: medical marijuana Content: i will break my rebuttals down into bullet points that are more easy to understand for people who may currently be taking their prescription ;) 1. once again, the debate is over the use of marijuana (the plant) for medical use. 2. yes i said THC has benefits, so if you would like to put THC in pill form and prescribe that, it would be fine and i believe it is already in existence but no other medicinal drug is smoked. 3. nicotine and caffeine have medical benefits but we dont refer to cigarettes and cola as alternative medicines. 4. tobacco and alcohol can be ingested in many ways as well. you can make a drink out of them, cook with them, and you can even mix alcohol with dry ice and inhale the steam to get drunk which may be fun and all but we still dont call them alternative medicines, they are recreational drugs just like marijuana. 5.smoking a medicine is never a \"best way to take it\" you could maybe put THC in an inhaler if you want to inhale it though and it would work just like smoke without the side effects. 6.im comparing marijuana smoke to all smoke, not just cigarettes. all smoke is bad just as you said. i could also compare marijuana to tobacco that doesn't have added chemicals. 7.ive heard all kinds of claims, statistics and studies on marijuana that oppose everything youre saying such as marijuana having 3 times the tar that cigarettes have, THC weakening your immune system etc. but unlike you, i choose not to believe everything i hear and read which is why i am not posting all kinds of random stats as you are. i dont want people to have to trust mine or someone elses word, i want them to use their own reasoning and see if they can follow my logic. so my argument allows people to rely purely on their own reasoning while yours forces them to trust someone elses findings. most people including yourself understand that smoke is bad for you and that is all that you need to know in order to conclude that marijuana shouldnt be touted as a medicine, it should be treated like a recreational drug and people should be aware of its dangers. anything else is false advertisement. 8.it doesnt matter how many health benefits pot has, it should be put in pill form like every other medicinal drug. theres no reason to smoke it, we dont live in the stone age anymore. 9.once again, i dont buy into all these stats and studies but i cant believe that youre acting like its not a bad thing that lung function declines after 10 yrs of smoking. 10.i didnt say pot has no pros but just think of how much more unhealthy oxicodone would be if it were taken in smoke form. in pill form you can have the benefits without the harmful side effects. 11.theres medicine that you can and cant overdose on but none of them are in smoke form. 12.my friend that has a card to buy medical marijuana smokes with other people in the room. i could see many idiots smoking in the house with kids or their kids coming in the room before the smoke has cleared up.", "qid": 38, "docid": "35e725d0-2019-04-18T18:13:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7703067064285278}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Alternatives to marijuana should be used to ease the terminally ill", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00046-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7702553272247314}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use Content: Marijuana should not be legalized for medicinal use, just because it relieves pain. The drug in mention might relieve pain, but also would harm the body, and cause more threatening side effects to the patient. Since marijuana does do harm to the body while relieving pain, patients should instead try pain killers that do less damage to the body. On another note By legalizing marijuana for medicinal use, the percentage of illegal marijuana trade would go up drastically. Drug dealers could possibly fake illnesses to get said drug, or people with illnesses that requires said drug would get the drug and sell excess drugs to another party. examples of drug dealing through legalization of medicinally used marijuana Party A fakes a disease to get the drug Party A then sells drug to party B another example Party A has ms and gets subscribed a marijuana based drug Party A sells marijuana to party B who overdoses, and dies. Party A goes to a different hospital/pharmacy and gets a different prescription for a pain killer 1 month later party A refills his prescription for the marijuana based drug and sells to party C who has negative side effects cycle repeats through the whole **** alphabet", "qid": 38, "docid": "66907055-2019-04-18T19:31:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7701659202575684}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana Be legal Nationwide Content: Contention 1: Ease of AccessIt is truely easy to acquire Medical Marijuana in America. For the number one example I'll give you our Bluest State in California as an example. Journalist Adam Brown reviewed California's law and revealed that in California and several other states, including DC, that you could be prescribed medical marijuana if, \"you have a debilitating condition like \"general pain\" or \"mild depression\" or \"unspecified symptom syndrome.\" [1] We can see that this isn't a black market issue and it's a sugar coated way of legalization of marijuana for the general public without officially doing it. I mean let's alll be honnest here. We've all suffered from some sort of \"general pain\" in our life time, does that mean that we should all get Medical Marijuana? It's simply wrong and we can see that this is a close connection to Brave New World's Soma. The fact is that many Medical Marijuana advocates would argue that it's mainly used for cancern, but if we observe Colorado we can see that over the majority of the people perscribed Medical Marijuana isn't cancer related and is something perposterous that wouldn't even get a person any type of perscription medicine. [2]We can plainly see that we cannot continue with further legalization of Medical marijuana until we see major reform here, so that the above attrocities are corrected.Contention 2: Safety ConcernsThere are several safety concerns surrounding Medical Marijuana. Like first one can see that Medical Marijuana involves the chemical THC which has been found due to a recent study to increase the rate of brain tumors. [3] They have found that the THC in Canibas slows the bodies anti-tumor responses to a near stop allowing tumors to increase and become more previlent. Many studies show that THC can slow down tumors, but when it is mixed with cannibas and not soley THC injected into the body we can see that it has the oppoisite effect. UK cancer institute director Lesly Walker has found that contrary to popular belief that \"It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis,\" [4]Another study showed that smoking 1 joint increases the percentage that one could get Lung Cancer by 8% and that smoking 3 joints is the equivlence of smoking 20 cigarettes. [5] Other studies have shown to cause many other mental disorders like Skizofrania [6], panic attacks/aniexty [7], and after smoking the joint it increases the rate of a heart attack by 5 times! [8]We can simply see that these risks are way to much and especially for that of Medical Marijuana being used the way that we've seen it be used and the ease of access being way to much we can simply see that these side effects are not worth a tiny bit of being high because of your \"pain.\"Sources1. (http://www.cracked.com...) 2. (http://www.mapinc.org...) 3. (http://www.jimmunol.org...) 4. (http://www.reuters.com...) 5. (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 6. (http://www.schizophrenia.com...) 7. (http://www.panicattacks.com.au...) 8. (http://www.drugabuse.gov...)", "qid": 38, "docid": "ce3ef40f-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7693109512329102}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Content: Contention 1: Ease of AccessIt is truely easy to acquire Medical Marijuana in America. For the number one example I'll give you our Bluest State in California as an example. Journalist Adam Brown reviewed California's law and revealed that in California and several other states, including DC, that you could be prescribed medical marijuana if, \"you have a debilitating condition like \"general pain\" or \"mild depression\" or \"unspecified symptom syndrome. \" [1] We can see that this isn't a black market issue and it's a sugar coated way of legalization of marijuana for the general public without officially doing it. I mean let's alll be honnest here. We've all suffered from some sort of \"general pain\" in our life time, does that mean that we should all get Medical Marijuana? It's simply wrong and we can see that this is a close connection to Brave New World's Soma. The fact is that many Medical Marijuana advocates would argue that it's mainly used for cancern, but if we observe Colorado we can see that over the majority of the people perscribed Medical Marijuana isn't cancer related and is something perposterous that wouldn't even get a person any type of perscription medicine. [2]We can plainly see that we cannot continue with further legalization of Medical marijuana until we see major reform here, so that the above attrocities are corrected. Contention 2: Safety ConcernsThere are several safety concerns surrounding Medical Marijuana. Like first one can see that Medical Marijuana involves the chemical THC which has been found due to a recent study to increase the rate of brain tumors. [3] They have found that the THC in Canibas slows the bodies anti-tumor responses to a near stop allowing tumors to increase and become more previlent. Many studies show that THC can slow down tumors, but when it is mixed with cannibas and not soley THC injected into the body we can see that it has the oppoisite effect. UK cancer institute director Lesly Walker has found that contrary to popular belief that \"It absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis,\" [4]Another study showed that smoking 1 joint increases the percentage that one could get Lung Cancer by 8% and that smoking 3 joints is the equivlence of smoking 20 cigarettes. [5] Other studies have shown to cause many other mental disorders like Skizofrania [6], panic attacks/aniexty [7], and after smoking the joint it increases the rate of a heart attack by 5 times! [8]We can simply see that these risks are way to much and especially for that of Medical Marijuana being used the way that we've seen it be used and the ease of access being way to much we can simply see that these side effects are not worth a tiny bit of being high because of your \"pain. \"Sources1. (. http://www.cracked.com...) 2. (. http://www.mapinc.org...) 3. (. http://www.jimmunol.org...) 4. (. http://www.reuters.com...)5. (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) 6. (. http://www.schizophrenia.com...) 7. (. http://www.panicattacks.com.au...) 8. (. http://www.drugabuse.gov...)", "qid": 38, "docid": "6f02a9c0-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7693109512329102}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: Introduction I would like to start by thanking my opponent for responding. As he has stated that he is back home and can write more sophisticated arguments. I will now begin with mine: Rebuttals Pro has stated that he cannot deny the fact I have kindly placed before him. However, he has also stated that it is a matter of how one interprets the facts. I mostly beg to differ. It is true that you can interpret facts your own way, but only to a certain extent. There happens to be more cons than pros to medicinal marijuana, which stands to prove that I am correct. Pro stated that \"[marijuana], when taken in moderation and with caution, can be beneficial for those who desperately need it.\" It is true, but doctors cannot always know if a patient will have a positive or negative reaction to it. Pro has assumed that I am not aware of the fact that medical marijuana does not have to be smoked. I am indeed aware of this. Moving on, I will talk about how Pro has continued to refer to the fact that these facts all have to do with how you interpret them. Again, this is true, but facts are facts. My opponent has admitted that the facts I gave are undeniable, however has continued to refer to interpretation. Lastly, I will refer to Pro's reference to what I stated about there being different cures to illnesses. He has said that \"[f]or many illnesses, there are NO alternative cures.\" That happens to be false. We just have to find those cures. Conclusion As the viewers can see, I have given plenty of facts towards why it should not be legal to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. My opponent has accepted those facts, however slightly denies them. I will say one thing: Facts are facts and they cannot be denied. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win.", "qid": 38, "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7689757347106934}, {"content": "Title: Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes Content: Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1).Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana:1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses.2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients.3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world.4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state.5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2).[1]: http://www.teenink.com...[2]: http://www.medscape.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00002-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7688989639282227}, {"content": "Title: weed Content: I think that marijuana is an option that should be available to those that choose to use it. Just as one could go to a coffee shop for an energy boost, You should be able to go buy some weed to calm yourself down, Or just for fun if you want. Also, Comparing marijuana to grass isn't really fair. You wouldn't add grass to a pasta dish, But you probably would add basil. All plants aren't the same, Is my point.", "qid": 38, "docid": "81c398a9-2019-04-18T11:20:39Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7679998874664307}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legislation should not pass. Content: Medical marijuana as well as recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized in the United States. I do not live elsewhere so i wont include any other countries. Medical marijuana may have certain benefits, but they are not benefits that out do any other type of medication allotted. Marijuana is a drug. It fogs up your brain and changes your perceptional views of reality; as well as your five sense. Cocaine is also a drug. Cocaine has some benefits. It wakes you up. So should cocaine be legalized in a sense that all professionals are using it to stay awake for work; like energy drinks? I personally don't think so. Medically speaking individuals will begin to find any reason and sore to take the drug. To even have fun and enjoy. That's a little strange if you have a traditional mindset. The world should not go down the wrong path. Marijuana will usually make a user eventually lazy, paranoid, and slow. It is proven that it slows your ability to learn. Recreational use, is a big no no. Recreational use makes it look acceptable to children and young adults. Would you like to walk around and just smell marijuana all the time, lets be honest some people may not think its that pleasant. Would you like to go into work where your coworkers are high? Or out to eat and the couple is high behind you? If many people were stoners it would be a major downfall to society. But in the end it would just weed out the people whom don't fall into social pressure and choices. Children don't need to be exposed to such drugs and them to be embellished and shown as something beneficial. People used to say it was a gate way drug. Looks like society itself will enter the gate lol. Many people whom smoke marijuana are usually the people who want it legalized. Those who haven't experienced the drug may have different opinions. Someone who has smoked in the past. (No longer a user) Am happy to have stopped. In doing so life changes, and it becomes more brighter, and honestly more yourself (and cleaner). There are different choices people can take to ease their pain than taking illegal drugs. HOWEVER (a whole other piece of mind) There is a chance medical marijuana could benefit certain people. But these specific people who get seizures, and have life threatening issues, that only cannabis should treat should have special access to the governmental system in which they specifically receive medical marijuana. Only to those who have had excessive testing. People are trying to get certified because they have a scratch or slight back pain, that is not what the drug is for. Other opinions are welcomed!", "qid": 38, "docid": "2bdac55a-2019-04-18T13:14:01Z-00004-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7670053243637085}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7659170627593994}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option Content: 1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, \"There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases,\" Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, \"That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,\". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, \"Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50\u201070 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke,\" This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.", "qid": 38, "docid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7656790614128113}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be Legalized! Content: Okay, first of all I would like to say that I do not EVER want to do drugs and put myself in that kind of danger. If Marijuana is legalized, think about all the danger that that would put people in. Even though, the taxes might give our government the money, it's not worth the risk of people dying in order to do so. Also, if marijuana was made legal, think about all of the health problems that would occur. I don't think we need to be paying anymore money for health care. I also understand that you made a point how scientists have yet more to study about marijuana. The government is in fact keeping us safe because WE DON'T really know what's in Marijuana. If they said that we could have it anytime we wanted, think about what that would do to people everywhere. Smoking is already harming people enough. The second-hand smoke? We would all have to deal with that too. So back to my point, we could at least WAIT to find out what is in marijuana and see if it IS safe, and wait for them to keep the law or not. I agree though with your point about your topic on \"If Marijuana was legalized we could study the chemicals in Marijuana in more depth and maybe find cures for such \"UN-curable\" diseases\". I think that scientists and doctors with degrees should be able to study marijuana, but I don't think it should be open to everyone. I thank you for listening to my debate.", "qid": 38, "docid": "5703a6b0-2019-04-18T19:01:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.764626681804657}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00006-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7640656232833862}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should Legalize Medical Marijuana. Content: This round dosen't call for rebuttals, so I will now state my case. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Medical Marijuana. As Pro, I will be giving the voters substantial arguments and proof that Medical Marijuana does more good than bad. In my argument, we will not only look at the medical aspect, but how Medical Marijuana helps the economy. C.1 Health Benefits of Medical Marijuana There are many ill and terminally ill people in this world. Allot of them suffer due to the lack of money to buy proper medication in which they need, because prescriptions can be pretty costly. As stated in my definition of Medical Marijuana (Marijuana used to relieve pain and treat disease.) It has been proven that Medical Marijuana can relieve pain. Chronic Nerve Pain According to WebMD (A medical website)A Canadian team has found that [1] \" Three puffs a day of cannabis, better known as marijuana, helps people with chronic nerve pain due to injury or surgery feel less pain and sleep better\" You are probably thinking this may be some made up scenario, but it's not. According to Mare Ware a M.D, he states [1] \"About 10% to 15% of patients attending a chronic pain clinic use cannabis as part of their pain [control] strategy\" Not only did he give us this information, but he also conducted a test on 21 men & women (average age 45) who suffer from chronic pain. He found that: [1] After each of the five-day trials, participants rated their pain on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 being the worst. The highest dose, 9.4%, provided relief, Ware says. \"They reduced their pain down to 5.4,\" Ware says. \"Those on placebo were at 6.1.\" Although that difference may seem modest, 'any reduction in pain is important,\" Ware says. The concentration of 9.4%, Ware says, is lower than that found in marijuana on the street. \"On the street, it's 10% to 15% THC, more or less,\" he says. \"We've shown again that cannabis is analgesic,\" Ware says. \"Clearly, it has medical value.\" Side effects were reported, including headache, dry eyes, numbness, cough, and a burning sensation in the area with pain. The cannabis relieves pain, Ware says, by 'changing the way the nerves function.\" As you can read by the definition, Medical Marijuana can be used to relieve pain. Here is proof that is does actually lessen the pain with those who suffer chronic nerve pain. Cancer Medical Marijuana has also been proven to either 1. Cure some types of cancer 2.Slow down the caner or 3.Relive pain and nausea caused by chemotherapy. Don't just take my word for it though. According to Canger.org, Medical Marijuana is actually beneficial and helpful to cancer patients. [2] There are 2 chemically pure drugs based on marijuana compounds that have been approved in the US for medical use. Dronabinol (Marinol\u00ae)\" is a gelatin capsule containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that\u2019s approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy as well as weight loss and poor appetite in patients with AIDS......Based on a number of studies, dronabinol can be helpful for reducing nausea and vomiting linked to chemotherapy.\" \"Dronabinol has also been found to help improve food intake and prevent weight loss in patients with HIV. In studies of cancer patients, though, it wasn\u2019t better than placebo or another drug (megestrol acetate).\" \"Nabiximols has shown promise for helping people with cancer pain that\u2019s unrelieved by strong pain medicines, but it hasn\u2019t been found to be helpful in every study done. Research is still being done on this drug.\" As you can see, Medical Marijuana helps reduce symptoms of cancer. We all know that chemotherapy is a dreadful process and tends to make the patient even sicker. Medical Marijuana can only help these people who suffer with these symptoms, so what's the harm in that? [2] So, how can How can marijuana affect symptoms of cancer? \"A number of small studies of smoked marijuana found that it can be helpful in treating nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy.\" \"A few studies have found that inhaled (smoked or vaporized) marijuana can be helpful treatment of neuropathic pain (pain caused by damaged nerves).\" \"Smoked marijuana has also helped improve food intake in HIV patients in studies.\" \"There are no studies in people of the effects of marijuana oil or hemp oil.\" \"Studies have long shown that people who took marijuana extracts in clinical trials tended to need less pain medicine.\" \"More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in laboratory dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer. \" So why shouldn't we legalize it when it's been shown to comfort people with deadly diseases? I mean even the Cancer foundation even recognizes it as a humongous help because it can kill cancer, slow it down, and most importantly, comfort and relive pain of the patient. Now that we have focused some on the medical aspects, let's take a look at how Medical Marijuana can boost the economy. How Medical Marijuana is beneficial to the economy. So, it may be hard to believe, but Medical Marijuana can help and boost the economy. [3]https://halcyonorganics.com... -Increase Revenues Without Tax Increases- \"Cannabis is a $25+ billion dollar industry. Currently, all of those revenues go directly to cartels and criminal gangs. Through regulation and taxation, we can transform these black market billions into taxable revenues. This new income can bolster our state economy without raising taxes on main street.\" Decrease Government Spending \"Cannabis prohibition is expensive. Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, estimates that state and federal governments spend an excess of $20 billion per year fighting this little green plant. Much of this cost comes from burdening our justice system, wasting law enforcement\u2019s time, and using $125/day of taxpayer money incarcerating cannabis offenders. To add insult to injury, these efforts continue to fail as cannabis is more available than ever before.\" Fortify Infrastructure and Social Programs \"Applying the increased revenues with the decreased expenses caused by medical cannabis legalization yields a net gain in the billions. This \u2018new\u2019 money can be used to fortify our many distressed and underfunded public works programs like the lagging education system, build new roads that reduce traffic and increase Social Security and Medicare benefits for our seniors.\" Weaken Criminal Organizations \"How do gangs and cartels have the same weapons that our military uses? Why do drug dealers drive $100,000 cars? Because selling illicit drugs is a wildly lucrative and untaxed business. Legalizing and regulating medical cannabis will take this profit center away from murderous criminals and transfer it to licensed and regulated businesses. By taking these revenues from organized crime, we can significantly weaken them financially. Additionally, we will be able to control how and to whom medical cannabis is dispensed by setting responsible standards to which businesses must adhere. Liquor stores ID customers, drug dealers do not.\" As you can see, legalizing Medical Marijuana will not only help those who suffer from illness, but it also helps boost the economy. It's quiet clear that the positive, outweighs the harm. Sources [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.cancer.org... [3] https://halcyonorganics.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "6f02a9c0-2019-04-18T14:40:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7628856897354126}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: Greetings! My position in this debate is that Marijuana ought not be legalized. As a utilitarian, my reason for this is that the benefits of such an action would not outweigh the negative effects. I shall respond to Pro\u2019s points in the relevant sections, and present one counterpoint of my own afterward. Counterpoints: First contention \u2013 Marijuana for Medicinal purposes: (The resolution states \u201cMarijuana ought to be legalized,\u201d as opposed to \u201cMarijuana ought to be legalized for medicinal purposes.\u201d Furthermore, the argument from medicinal purposes is made as its own point in Pro\u2019s argument. Both of these lead me to believe that Pro wished Marijuana to be legalized for all purposes as opposed to those simply medical in nature. Keep this in mind as I state my position on this point.) Objection 1: You have not cited any sources for this point. Keep in mind that you share the burden of proof for this debate. Objection 2: I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn\u2019t want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets. Second contention \u2013 Wartime use of marijuana: Objection 1: In a similar case as with my second objection to the first of Pro\u2019s points, the military has access to many things that the public simply does not. It is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge that marijuana has a place among military personnel without opening it up to the public. Objection 2: There are more effective pain killers available which have less severe side effects. If I were to choose a drug for pain relief for the people going to war for me, I would be choosing one which has less of an effect on a person\u2019s mental state, such as acetaminophen of ibuprofen. In severe cases, such as those in which the pain is incapacitating anyway, drowsiness should be accepted, and so stronger painkillers could be used. The issue comes with administering a hallucinogenic drug to a person in full control of an assault rifle. Not only would this be dangerous in and of itself, it would be amplified by the fact that it would be self-administered as opposed to something one needs to report to sick-bay for. Third contention \u2013 The catch-all category: \u201c\u2026less harmful than\u2026\u201d Tobacco: The only thing I can say to this is that it is patently false. Tobacco may be more addictive because of the nicotine. However, marijuana smoked vs tobacco smoked has about 50% more benzopyrene, which is the leading chemical under suspect for causing lung cancer in tobacco smokers. [1][2] Additionally, tobacco smoke has limited short term effects on cognition, being no more altering than caffeine. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, increases heart rate, is a depressant, and has impairing effects on coordination and decision making skills. Long term effects of tobacco are limited to a lengthy list of cancers and respiratory problems. Research on marijuana is limited, so an acknowledged gap in information exists relating it to cancers. However, other respiratory problems generally attributed to tobacco are, in fact, present in people who smoke marijuana alone. [3] Alcohol: Again, this is demonstrably false. Alcohol has detrimental effects all over the brain. It impairs the ability to solve simple problems through reason, resulting in impaired judgment; it impairs fine motor skills and muscle coordination; and it impairs hearing, vision, processing associated with those senses, and ability to speak. Marijuana has all of these effects [4] and more, including, again, hallucinogenic and heart-rate and blood pressure increasing effects. In a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, almost 40% of drivers stopped for reckless driving who were not under the influence of alcohol were under the effects of marijuana. [5] \u201cLimiting the use of marijuana restricts personal freedom\u201d: Prohibiting people from possessing child pornography also restricts personal freedom. There are cases in which restriction of freedom is a good and necessary thing. I don\u2019t think I need to elaborate much more on this point. \u201cLegalization would mean a lower price: thus, crimes linked to marijuana would be reduced\u201d and \u201cStreet justice related to drug disputes would be reduced\u201d: There is a strong correlation between marijuana use and other crimes. [6] Contrary to what many think, possession and distribution are not the only crimes associated with marijuana. Marijuana impairs cognitive reasoning abilities, and can make a person more likely to behave with disregard to other laws. \u201cIt would be a source of additional taxing revenues\u201d: About $83 billion per year is spent on cigarettes [7], and about half of this is taxes. About 20 metric tons of tobacco is sold annually. [8] An estimated 15 metric tons of marijuana is smoked annually. [9] This gives us a total of approximately $30 billion dollar revenue from our hypothetical marijuana tax. Given our nearly $750 billion military budget [10] this amount really does pale in comparison to the amount this nation spends. This minor benefit is not enough to nullify the downsides. \u201cPolice and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes\u201d: In relation to the total number of arrests made, those made because of possession of marijuana is actually rather low, at barely more than 5% of the total. [11] Given that people all over the nation are still ticketed for going 5 over the speed limit, having a turn signal out, or having an expired license, I\u2019d say that police time and resources aren\u2019t all that precious. As with the above, this is not enough of a benefit to tolerate the other consequences. \u201cDrug busts often trap adolescences in a flawed system transforming them into lifelong criminals\u201d: Objection 1: I don\u2019t understand what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that children whose parents are charged are put into foster care? Are you suggesting the children are placed into detention centers? In either case, see objection 2. Objection 2: You provide absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Again, as you do have a burden of proof to carry, I do expect some evidence which I can dispute. Until then, this claim shall be disregarded as unsupported. Even without my objections to Pro\u2019s points, there is the valuable fact that we can have the effects of marijuana without the harmful effects of smoking them. Canadian scientists have developed a THC spray which, when absorbed though the red lining in one\u2019s mouth, imparts the same psychological effects of marijuana without the harm to the lungs. [12][13] Summary of my points: A \u2013 None of Pro\u2019s contentions are persuasive enough to allow the legalization of marijuana in the face of B \u2013 The harmful effects of legalizing marijuana. C \u2013 One can impart the effects of smoking marijuana without actually smoking it. Therefore, Marijuana ought not be legalized. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.pnas.org... [5] http://www.nejm.org... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://www.cdc.gov... [8] http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org... [9] http://www.drugscience.org... [10] http://www.gao.gov... [11] http://www.fbi.gov... [12] http://thcsprays.com... [13] http://www.news-medical.net...", "qid": 38, "docid": "d0a91598-2019-04-18T18:36:17Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7628061771392822}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana ought to be legalized Content: I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d0a9155a-2019-04-18T19:00:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7627760767936707}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana should be legal. Content: I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.", "qid": 38, "docid": "94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.761672854423523}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Content: It will not be an issue. Secondly, I would like to begin with stating my arguments and reasons. Because this is not the round for rebuttals, I will not talk about Pro's main argument until round 3. Arguments Facts about medical marijuana: Medical marijuana can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting, treating HIV/AIDS, and reducing muscle pain (Wikipedia). It can also prevent epilepsy. However, it works \"by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves (WEBMD). \" All chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous. Here are it's uses: Improving appetite for people with AIDS Glaucoma Multiple Sclerosis Why it should not be used: According to webmd. com, \"cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system\", \"long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse\", \"marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]\", and \"it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD). \" Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center). As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Other treatments: Anyone who knows as much as I do about biology knows that there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses. I am sure Pro is aware of this as well. For certain diseases, such as diabetes, people need insulin. Getting insulin used to be difficult. Now, however, we genetically altered a certain bacteria to generate it. Using that knowledge, one can assume that there are other cures to epilepsy, glaucoma, and sclerosis. Conclusion In this round, I have stated the pros and cons to medical marijuana. As Pro, as well as the viewers can see, there are more downsides to it that upsides. The list of cons is longer and the alternative cures are obvious. Here is my conclusion: Using marijuana for medicinal use is unnecessary and should not be done. I patiently await Pro's rebuttals. Thank you. MLA Citations \"Medical Cannabis. \" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://en.wikipedia.org...;. \"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD. \" WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.webmd.com...;. \"Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. \" Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.", "qid": 38, "docid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7611545324325562}, {"content": "Title: Individuals have right to pursue what they believe are best treatments. Content: Individuals have a right to pursue treatments that they believe are in their best interest, and which do not come into conflict with the rights of other patients. Medical marijuana qualifies as a such a treatment, which many believe is best for their ailments, and so should be allowed to pursue.", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00152-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7601879835128784}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis should be legalized Content: \"Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, and by numerous other names is a preparation of the cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine.\" This is my definition of Cannabis, or what we will be calling it; Marijuana. I will be arguing Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but for recreation purposes as well. We are not talking about legalization in a specific country, just legalization period. The rules are as follows: 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: 1st argument (1 point only!) 3rd round: 2nd argument (2 points only!) 4th round: Rebuttal We will be only doing rebuttals in the fourth round. Good luck my friend DarthKirones", "qid": 38, "docid": "b4affe28-2019-04-18T16:19:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7598898410797119}, {"content": "Title: Should Marijuana be legalized Content: I appreciate that my opponent has made his case in round one, giving me to open with a rebuttal, as I do best (especially given the constraints of the debate).When my opponent says that he thinks marijuana (cannabis) should be legalized, he has not specified where. He also has not stated what about it should be legalized: its possession, its traffic, its cultivation, or anything else. He has just jumped in and stated that it should be legalized, and stated some of its uses. The traffic and possession of marijuana has indeed been decriminalized in a number of countries, so my opponent is being rather ambiguous in his opening argument.Your use of yourself as an example is interesting. I'll do the same: in a sports injury, I once suffered stress fractures of the lumbar (large vertebrae). I did not receive an accurate diagnosis, or treatment, for months, yet took no pain killers. You do not need to be stoned to endure a knee injury.I shall make my own case in one of the next rounds.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d6ea1958-2019-04-18T18:02:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7597275972366333}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7596913576126099}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00008-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7596913576126099}, {"content": "Title: Medicle Marijuana Content: I would think that using this would be highly preferable to unnecessarily altering your brain chemistry. Unless, of course, the patient is using marijuana primarily to get high. Like I said marijuana that is used for medical purposes is not just being prescribed to anyone you have to go through certain steps and on to the part about it having other solutions.. Lets look at a common cold, you can use Vick's or dayquil and many others but sometimes peoples chemistry doesn't work well with that drug and they could be allergic to it. Wouldn't you rather have another alternate out there for example marijuana, that you can take and it could help you out.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7594171762466431}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: This is a four round debate. The first round is for presenting our positions, but the debate officially starts in Round 2. I would prefer to debate this with someone who feels strongly about the position, and not just playing devil's advocate or semantics. This is my basic position, and will get into further detail pending my opponent's response. Do not accept if you are only going to debate the specifics of my position rather than the overall legalization position. If your concern is regarding the personal preferences I set forth in my own hypothetical situation legalizing marijuana, then you are not truly against the legalization of marijuana. This is not a debate about degree of legalization, nor is it abut decriminalization vs. legalization. This debate is about the status quo vs. ANY form of legalization, liberalization, or reform of marijuana laws in favor of non-violent users. Thank you. 1- Marijuana should be legal in small quantities (3 oz. or less) for personal use to responsible adults over the age of 21. 2- Marijuana should be considered for medicinal purposes for a variety of illnesses including, but not limited to depression, fibromyalgia, scoliosis, crohn's disease, HIV, AIDS, patients on chemotherapy, migraines, insomnia, and others. 3- Marijuana should be taxed and regulated by the individual states, and proceeds from taxation should be used to fund treatment for drug abuse, studies for alternative medicines like marijuana, youth education programs, etc. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should not be considered a crime. 5- Means of legal acquirement of marijuana should be established with federal protection so that those which follow their state laws need not be worried about federal prosecution. I await my opponent's introduction, and hope this turns out to be an informative debate for all.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7593381404876709}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00061-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7591640949249268}, {"content": "Title: Marijauna legalized in the united states Content: I believe that in the united states we should incorporate medical marijuana federal level, for various reasons. I am willing to discuss these reasons ethically who will step up. BTW this is my first debate", "qid": 38, "docid": "d904448b-2019-04-18T17:20:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7587068676948547}, {"content": "Title: Medical weed Content: Weed should be alowed in medical cases because weeed is not that harmful to the patient and if you are gonna put patients to sleep you might as well give them confort and put them at ease.", "qid": 38, "docid": "55bc6b55-2019-04-18T19:17:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7586119174957275}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.758584201335907}, {"content": "Title: Legalization Of Marijuana Content: Hey, I have decided to accept this. I would love to begin. Well first of all Marijuana is terrible for you. Some people may not even use it as medication. Yes I understand it can be used for helping the Ill but there may be other drugs to help with that, that we have not discovered yet.", "qid": 38, "docid": "55508c0e-2019-04-18T19:13:15Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7583355903625488}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) Content: I was wondering when I would get a response. I find this topic very important and enjoy debating it. As per your request, I will focus on medical as well as recreational purposes this round. To begin with, marijuana used medically has proven very useful for a medication. Your fact that marijuana has some negative side effects is true; smoking anything in general can harmful for your lungs. However, the panic attacks, paranoia, etc., are effected by the environment and you mood when smoking. To go along with that, what strain of marijuana smoked does matter. Certain strains will make you more tired and sluggish or active and energetic. A main use for medical marijuana is that it reduces pain. Medical marijuana advocates in other states have said that when diagnosed, they have tried pills or other \"big pharma\" recommendations. When these do not work, many turned to alcohol. Once medical marijuana was allowed, they reported that they had finally found a medication that worked and had less side effects along with the fact that they worked better for them. As for the recreational reasons, the U.S. has an incredibly high incarceration rate; the highest in the world. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana related arrests, 88% of those were for simply possessing marijuana. If marijuana was decriminalized and legalized recreationally, the arrest rate would in turn drop. Another use of recreational marijuana would be that it would reduce the number of deaths from other, much more harmful drugs. In states with recreational use, especially with Colorado, deaths related to Opium, which can be made into pills or drugs such has heroine, have decreased dramatically. If we were to instate proper laws, like those in states with medical and recreation use, (age requirements, laws against smoking in public, issuing proper medical use licenses) along with creating proper laws making driving while under the influence illegal, medical and recreational uses will prove useful and helpful, as well as fun. If it is alright with you, may we discuss the economic effects of legalization next?", "qid": 38, "docid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7576960325241089}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.", "qid": 38, "docid": "6231ab47-2019-04-18T16:20:48Z-00008-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7567934989929199}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana should be legal Content: I apologise to my opponent for the delay in getting this up, and for the abbreviated nature of this argument. Recently, my country legalised medicinal cannabis use (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since then, we haven't had any significant cases of abuse. Our insurance costs have not skyrocketed, and niether have our taxes. We are not a destination for drug tourism, and we have not undermined our anti-cannabis stance in wider society. When people take medicinal cannabis, their doctors first assess their condition. The doctor's \"do no harm\" mantra prohibits them from proscribing anything that is significantly harmful for the patient. Obviously, most if not all medicines have side effects, but we allow doctors to assess what will work best for the patient because they - not the government - are the ones who know the medicine best. Ultimately we leave the decision down to the patient when a range of options are available for the same reason. To presume that some government buraeucrats have a better understanding of each patient's individual condition (if you will excuse my RoyLatham-esque expression), and thus what treatments should be available, is to undermine the entire healthcare system. Healthcare is a personal thing. Our right to life confers a responsibility for it, and our responsibility for our life empowers us to choose what medicine we take. We make exceptions in various circumstances - for young children, for instance, and for mentally impaired people who cannot understand what is involved with these decisions - but in general the rule is that illness does not rob us of our general autonomy, but rather extends it. It allows us access to public facilities, such as hospitals, just as it opens up access to prescription drugs, for the simple reason that we cannot make a choice when certain choices are prohibited. As a principle, we feel it is entirely consistant with the role of the healthcare system to legalise cannabis. You can't make a full medical choice when certain medical options, endorsed by many scientists globally, are not available to you. For instance, cannabis causes pain relief. It would be a mistake to assume that cannabis is not the right pain reliever for anybody. That's why the choice must be available, in these kinds of difficult medical situations, not narrowed down to a few government-approved alternatives. I personally do not believe there is any evidence cannabis cures anything, or has any helpful effect beyond suppression of symptoms (such as pain). However, since doctors will not have the prescribed the medicine in any situation where it would be harmful, the cannabis would never be used when it is harmful to the patient's health. Since a person who's in hospital all the time undergoing chemo is not exactly going to be drug driving or doing property crime, there's no harm to the public either. Furthermore, research on cannabis is still ongoing. Perhaps it has some helpful effect that science has not yet isolated. It must be the patient, informed by the advice of their medical professional, who makes that decision, not me, because I have no responsibility for their health. My contention is that it should be on the basis of harms to the patient, not the benefits to the patient, that medicine is administered. We already accept the principal that the relative value of benefits must be decided by the patient because we allow patients to refuse treatment. Since cannabis has no real harms when administered in the right way under proper, doctor-specified and recommended conditions, as and when appropriate, there is nothing wrong with medicinal cannabis legalisation. We do not ban the use of placebos if patients want to take them voluntarily. Patients can, if they so wish, hug a teddy bear instead of undergoing chemotherapy and pray to God to remove the desease. These are examples of placebos, and they confer no benefits, nor do they have any particular harms. Cannabis can, under most circumstances, fall in the same category. In the remainder of circumstances, doctors will intervene. As can be shown with countries where it has been legalised, such as New Zealand, this does not translate into a broader problem for society. If you don't accept medicinal marijuana, then as a principle, you deny patient autonomy. You limit the scope of healthcare. But what is of greater value than human life? Even if cannabis has few, if any, beneficial effects, that is no grounds for banning it as a choice. That is why we need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use.", "qid": 38, "docid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7565276622772217}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: General statements in favor of medical marijuana", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00071-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7563904523849487}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Legalization Content: This is a difficult topic for me to pick a side on. I'm not just talking about marijuana being legal for medical reasons, im focusing on the legalization for recreational use. a lot of people use this drug everyday, and view it as a form of stress relief. but instead of relieving their stress they might just be covering up their problems and concerns briefly.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d9e092bc-2019-04-18T18:38:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7560741901397705}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: I just realized that my topic was a bit vague. What I should have said was \"Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use\". While I still disagree with medical uses, I am most passionate about it being legalized for recreational use. I strongly believe it should not be. You were right regarding the THC chemical. I have no problem doing some more research as you requested, but I hope you can respect that I feel there are better ways to handle medical problems than using marijuana. So, with this topic established, how do you feel about legalizing marijuana for recreational use? The way I see it, doing so would greatly endanger communities.", "qid": 38, "docid": "86fcaef8-2019-04-18T12:12:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7558305263519287}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Unhealthy effects of Marijuana outweigh medical benefits", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00068-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7555713653564453}, {"content": "Title: marijuana should be legal man.... Content: Hello BongMan, Thank you for starting this debate. I would like to use my round to ask you a few questions. 1. Do you think marijuana should be legal for medical purposes or for pleasure? 2. What are your thoughts on marijuana's harmful effects? 3. Should there be an age limit on who can take the drug? 4. Should there be a limit on how much of the drug one can buy? 5. Please, please do not be offended, but I realized that you are apart of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in order for me to have a full debate with you, I would like to ask you if that is what you fully believe, and if you really do live in Jamaica. Thank you, I look forward to your response.", "qid": 38, "docid": "37920915-2019-04-18T19:16:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7553265690803528}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Medicine Content: this was fun- my first debate ever. well here it goes- Maybe marijuana isn't as harmful as it is rumored to be, however, does not take away the fact it is still harmful. it causes hallucination, lung infections, and obstructed air ways.heart race and anxiety, just to name a few. Overall, you have made a very strong argument on legalization on marijuana as a recreational drug. However, you have completely missed the focal point of the debate- marijuana as medicine. You have provided no evidence of how marijuana could be used as medicine. My closing statement is that as you have no evidence supporting your claim, we may not assume that marijuana is a medicine without solid evidence.", "qid": 38, "docid": "89fd39b5-2019-04-18T18:04:03Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7547708749771118}, {"content": "Title: Pick your own debate! Content: 1)Around half a million Americans use medical marijuana, also this only includes 12 states given that not many states allow medical marijuana. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... 2)According to everyone who uses medical marijuana it benefits them. Also I've already posted a source that links to a couple dozen studies that show that medical marijuana has real health benefits. Again my opponent is making a huge logical fallacy. He is saying that because medical marijuana doesn't provide medical benefits for every disease that the diseases it does provide benefits shouldn't count. I said this in my earlier post but clearly my opponent decided to ignore it or didn't even bother to read my post. There is nothing wrong with regulating the medical industry; what is wrong is the government banning medical marijuana. This is wrong because it is the government telling doctors how to treat patients and it is an example of the government telling sick people that they cannot have effective medicine. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. Every medicine has its complications, and side effects, this does not make those medicines worthless saying so is ridiculous. My opponent is using another logically fallacy. He is saying that because most societies haven't legalized Medical marijuana that the health benefits of MM are invalid. It would be like saying that in the 1400 since almost no nation had democracy that democracy would be a bad thing. Even my opponent admits there are scientific double blind studies that show MM having medical benefits, therefore even my opponent agrees with my side.", "qid": 38, "docid": "ffcf93d6-2019-04-18T18:36:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7545456886291504}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: I propose that Marijuana should be legalized. I believe that it's a spectacular opportunity for those who are dealing with the hardships of life to escalate in terms of mood or disease. Studies have shown that Marijuana has the capability of stopping Cancer, curing Glaucoma, reversing effects of Tobacco and ameliorating lung health, decreasing anxiety, ridding of Dravet's Syndrome, etc. C1) A substance that is able to prevent the effects of negative thoughts and emotions, diseases, and seizures should be legal. C2) Without Marijuana, you are going to have people who are outright stressed out, get seizures, and are withering from diseases. P1) Marijuana should be legalized (everywhere) There is a good reason for why police officers think Marijuana should be legal. 3.6 Billion dollars were spent against the usage of pot in 2010. I believe that is an insanely large sum of money to be spent on something as simple as Marijuana usage, which is good for you, and we should be spending this large weight of money on crimes that are actually dangerous, like assaulting others drunkenly. If Tobacco is legal, then why on earth should Marijuana should be illegal? Since Marijuana can reverse the effects of Tobacco and keep your lungs in a healthy state, that makes it even better than Tobacco itself. Sources: 1] http://www.businessinsider.com... 2] http://www.rollingstone.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "21af0c6a-2019-04-18T14:47:21Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7545174360275269}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: My bad I read the post wrong. I believe medical marijuana is a legitamate way of treating a sickness (within reason of corse. ) But marijuana that anyone can receive would catastrophic in that anyone could receive marijuana even younger children. Meaning that if my theoretical son Timmy wanted some pot to smoke with the cool kids and I happened to be in possession of it he could easily get it. Of course fast too he might be able to receive some from other children. And the transfer of marijuana would be legal too, as the government would have no way of determining who can receive marijuana whether the person is responsible or not. Also I never said alcohol nor cigerets should be aloud. In all reality they should be illegal as well but that's a debate for later", "qid": 38, "docid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7544333934783936}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized Content: First I will address your questions that I was unable to squeeze into my previous argument. 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? The other benefit being the alleviation of nausea and vomiting. Yes, I acknowledge the proposed benefits of the substance, but disagree with its effectiveness and overall safety. Moreover, I think the negative health effects of smoked marijuana outweigh the potential benefits, and in some cases can worsen a patients condition by weakening their immune system. 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? No. There is no reason to add another pain killer to the market when there are already numerous legal, effective alternatives. Sure, all drugs have side effects that are of health concern, but marijuana has a more consistently negative effect on patients. Countless studies have shown marijuana to be far more harmful, and less effective in several areas, than the legal alternatives. 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? Absolutely. My intention for mentioning cocaine legalization was not to contrast the severity of the negative health effects, but to point out the nonsensical reasoning of legalizing a harmful drug. In other words, marijuana is not a safe drug, neither is cocaine. Both are effective as a drug, particularly for pain relief, but both have negative health effects that outweigh their respective benefits. 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? Drug abuse fuels degeneracy. If the government must play the role of mother to protect the health and well being of its citizens, so be it. 5. Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? Absolutely. The legalization of marijuana would be to let the lion out of its cage. People need to realize the importance of the illegality of this deleterious drug and the importance of government quarantine. It is imperative that we keep the beast caged at all costs. We must learn from the history as well as the present severity of the health epidemic created by the abuse and addiction of alcohol and tobacco. We don't need another such epidemic to legally creep into public domain and have use become influenced by social pressures of conformity and normality upon society in the manner as has occurred with alcohol and tobacco. NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Tobbacco cigarettes, yes. There is no reason for it, and it has become a social health epidemic. It is an addictive, harmful drug that is claiming lives by the truck load. It may not impair your judgment and perception in the same way marijuana and alcohol do, but the long term effects are well documented. As for alcohol, there have been various studies that have shown that an occasional drink may actually be beneficial for your health. I do not think alcohol should be banned, but that those that drink irresponsibly should suffer a more severe penalty. However, I don't think either of these are on a par with the severity of marijuana abuse. Most major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not safe and effective medicine. Some of these organizations include: --The American Medical Association --The American Cancer Society --National Multiple Sclerosis Association --The American Glaucoma Association --American Academy of Ophthalmology --National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke --National Institue of Dental Research --The Natioanal Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Several government agencies of both party affiliations have also opposed the legalization of medical marijuana. These organizations include the Drug Enforcement Administration and the US Public Health Service. Their latest finding, as recently as 1994, was affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. Frequently, pro-legalization advocates put forth unscientific, non-scrutinized or analyzed anecdotal statements from people with a variety of illnesses. We aren't told whether these individuals were using marijuana prior to the illness or if perhaps they are using marijuana in combination with other medication. Had the individual had a recent thorough medical exam? Or is he or she justifying their use of marijuana, experiencing a placebo effect, or experiencing the intoxicating effect of smoking marijuana? Such anecdotal evidence would not pass in a peer reviewed journal. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, \"In the last half of 2003, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the continental United States.\" The National Eye Institute (NEI) reports, \"there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that marijuana or its derivatives are safe and effective in the treatment of glaucoma.\" None of NEI's marijuana-based research studies demonstrate that THC can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure enough to prevent optic nerve damage from glaucoma. Dr. George L. Spaeth, the first President of the American Glaucoma Society and Director of the Glaucoma Service at the internationally known Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia has \"not found any documentary evidence which indicates that a single patient has had his or her natural history of the disease altered by smoking marijuana.\" Dr. Keith Green, Director of Ophthalmology Research at the Medical College of Georgia, states, \"It is clear that there is no evidence that marijuana use prevents the progression of visual loss in glaucoma.\" In 1996, Harmon J. Eyre, Executive Vice President for Research and Cancer Control for the American Cancer Society stated, there is \"no reason to support the legalization of marijuana for medical use.\" Joanne Schellenbach, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society, said her group feels there is \"no need to treat the side effects of chemotherapy\" with marijuana. There are ample legal pharmaceuticals available to do this which don't present the [medical] problems [caused by] inhaling,\" she said. Dr. David S. Ettinger, associate director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, and a nationally respected cancer expert, has written that \"There is no indication that marijuana is effective in treating nausea and vomiting resulting from radiation treatment.... No legitimate studies have been conducted which make such conclusions.\" Quotes from \"Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Permitted\" by Robert L. Maginnis Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. There are other legal, safer, more effective drugs on the market, and no need for marijuana. Legalization of marijuana, either medicinal or recreational, will encourage use, not dissuade it. The negative effects of marijuana are well documented, while the positive effects of medicinal use have failed to stand up to the rigorous tests of science. clsmooth, it has truly been a pleasure debating with you. I chose you specifically because I had seen a few of your debates before, and felt you were the best challenge available. You certainly delivered. I look forward to future debates with you. Thank you for the lively, persuasive, insightful debate! P.S. I got a good laugh out of the mirapex reference with the urge to gamble!", "qid": 38, "docid": "8e815158-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7539289593696594}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.", "qid": 38, "docid": "174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00004-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7538465857505798}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: ====== Rebuttal ====== [QUOTE] 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. [/QUOTE] The main chemical used in \"medical marijuana\" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make \"medical marijuana\" contain only 3% THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? [QUOTE] 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) [/QUOTE] Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal. [QUOTE] 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. [/QUOTE] This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc... Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation. Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse. Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others causing them to go insane and crime rate may possibly go up and thus, this would do harm to others. ======= Arguments ======= 1)People say that marijuana can make the user \"happy.\" Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, \"happiness\" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. 2)What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. 3)It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. 4) Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana. ===== Sources ===== http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.justice.gov...", "qid": 38, "docid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7537233829498291}, {"content": "Title: Regulation of Marijuana like alcohol Content: I agree that marijuana has medical benefits, as i simply is true. however, I would say our agreement may end there. 1) Marijuana use has negative side effects. Your argument made it seem as though marijuana was safe and harmless. Whether or not this was your intention, i ought to address the medical problems that arise from marijuan use. Marijuana users, in a University of Sydney study, were shown to have higher instances of psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis. It is also as addictive as tobacco, also being as likely to induce cancer. With potential drivers, marijuana can be just as life threatening as alcohol. Marijuana causes imapired reaction time and abilities, a vital driving tool. another, possibly more sinister side of marijuana is its gateway potential. Have you ever seen the show \"Intervention\"? Many times, the first drug that these addicts try is marijuana, eventually leading to more serious and dnagerous substances. While the \"Gateway Hypothesis\" is not an innate quality of cannibis, it is still a prevelant factor amongst users. 2) An age limit would have no effect on marijuana's availablility to minors. Making marijuana legal would simply make it easier for the suppliers to these kids to have easier access to the drug. There is no evidence to support that an age limit of any kind would decrease weed usage amongst minors. It would more likely increase it, as stated in my reason above. Simply because it is easily available to minors now is not justification that it should be legalized. This would only aggravte the problem. 3) Marijuana being used for tax leverage is a dangerous road. Simply stating that marijuana should be legal for tax reasons is absurd. Marijuana, as I have established, has many downsides to it. Legalizing it in an excuse to gain revenue sets a dangerous precedent. What may be marijuana today could become methamphetamine tomorrow. Selling out the american people like this would be furhter proof that the government doesnt care about its people. Would you be ok with the government allowing the sale of heroin so it could be taxed? Hopefully not. Doing so shows that money is more important than the welfare of the people. The same principle applies to marijuana. 4) The answer to cartels is not through legalization Cartels do not care about the law. Legalizing it would not stop their activity, in fact it would just make it easier for them to do it. The real problem with cartels is that they can hop the border at any moment whenever they want. A better idea would be a stronger border patrol, rather than laxing drug laws. 5) Marijuana is under the same scrutiny as any drug Marijuana is (as stated) a potentially harmful drug. Like Cocaine. Or Heroin. Or LSD, shrooms, pcp, etc. If we legalize marijuana, a potentially dangerous substance, then we must legalize other drugs as well, since the same arguments for weed could be made for any of these drugs. Here's an example. Opium, when used in small and controlled doese, is simply a pain reliever. It is used by people anyway, and thus it ought to be legalized so that we could gain tax revenue for it. Legalizing opium would thus put the chinese mob out of business, by allowing the government to sell it and compete. Police need to not arrest people just looking for pain relief. Now obviously opium is a dangerous drug, but it too easy to apply the same argument. Legalizing marijuana sets a bad precedent. I also had issues with you saying marijuana is more dangerous than a doctor's pills. I'd like some verification of this, before I am accept it. Also saying they are making \"criminals out of inncocent people\" is fallacious, considering that they have broken a law and thus are no longer inncocent. k, your turn. you did actually a pretty good job in that round.", "qid": 38, "docid": "43987864-2019-04-18T18:13:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7534327507019043}, {"content": "Title: Non Medical Use of Marijuana SHOULD Be Legal in the United States Content: Non medical use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because of it's history, it's positive impact on people, and because it will make the state a better place. Marijuana has many uses, not just to be smoked, but to make cloth and paper. Think about how using marijuana for these purposes would benefit this state as a whole. Marijuana could be a BILLION dollar industry, if just that. We could get out of debt as a state because of the uses that marijuana has. Marijuana also has SUCH a positive impact on people; medically and non medically. Non medically, marijuana stimulates the brain and relaxes the body. It allows people to think about things more heavily and opens the mindset of many people. Medically, marijuana stops seizures, kills cancer cells, treats glaucoma, helps control and regulate blood sugar, has the ability to prevent suicide, has the ability to lower violence, and helps police to focus on the ACTUAL criminals. So why isn't marijuana legal if it does all of these good things? The answer, the government. Now, trust me, I'm not one of those people who believe that the government wants to destroy humanity or are \"coming after us\", just bear with me. Think about it; if marijuana has the ability to cure cancer, treat glaucoma, regulate blood sugar, prevent suicide, stop seizures, and lower depression... what would that mean for the billion dollar medical industry? That's right, they would lose money. If marijuana has the ability to lower depression (which causes people to act out in violent nature), steer people away from other and more dangerous drugs, lower violence in communities and states... what would that mean for the billion dollar prison industry? They would also loose money. As well as the tobacco industry. And this is why the government doesn't want marijuana to be legal. If people aren't suffering, and dying, and needing to go to the hospital, and if people aren't committing crimes, and SELLING MARIJUANA, then those industries would lose LOTS of money. And of course, our selfish, money-hungry government does not want that.", "qid": 38, "docid": "2a0ef4cd-2019-04-18T15:56:01Z-00003-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7526147365570068}, {"content": "Title: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) Content: In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.", "qid": 38, "docid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00003-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.752556562423706}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: I hope to help 16kadams in his/her attempt to start a career in politics. I have seen him/her participate in several debates. I saw one debate on this topic in which the person who posted it only allowed a 10 minute period to post arguments so that rounds were automatically forfeited. I hope he/she accepts this invitation and I look forward to the debate. Round 1 is acceptance. I will be arguing that medical marijuana should be allowed, so the burden of proof will be on me to show why it should be allowed. My opponent will be asked either to point out why I have failed to prove my point or to prove me wrong.", "qid": 38, "docid": "174dab15-2019-04-18T18:38:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7525268793106079}, {"content": "Title: Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana. Content: Con begins by questioning the legitimacy of medical marijuana and how one would go about getting it. Currently, at least 14 states allow for medicinal marijuana; you have to register for a card and then talk to your doctor about a prescription. The information which Con requested can be found here [1]. However, Con is right in stating that it is still illegal at the federal level. While I completely disagree with this legislation, this debate is not about whether or not pot should be legal, or even if it should only be legal for autistic kids. If that were the case, it would have been clarified in R1. However, you'll notice that R1 only talked about the lack of autistic kids in gangs and how/why they should be allowed to cut and sell drugs for profit. So, that is exactly what Con has to defend in this debate. Rebuttal: 1. Con's point makes absolutely no sense. I said, \"For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic \"children\" do not fit within these parameters.\" That argument makes perfect sense -- my personal feelings on legislation do not apply to autistic CHILDREN (the subject of this debate). Con says that this isn't relevant, but clearly it is. 2. Con concedes the first part of the argument, but then claims that he's not telling the children to disobey their parents ~ he thinks they should be allowed to smoke if their parents agree. Well, as I already pointed out (so yes, I did refute it), it would be irresponsible for parents to be encouraging their under-age autistic children to smoke pot. That is a decision for someone of legal age to make. Further, people with autism are considered to be mentally handicapped [2] and in many cases, they're literally retarded [3]. So, given the CHILD'S age (under 18) and the probability that they're not capable of making those kinds of decisions, Con is advocating that a parent use their kids to study something that is not proven to be effective and in fact can severely harm them. This seems like it is violating the child's rights. While pot can be an incredible tool of medicinal value, it can have devastating effects on one's mental health - particularly those who are already susceptible to mental deficiencies. For instance, in addition to weakening the immune system, marijuana has been linked to the acceleration of mental disorders such as paranoia, depression, uncontrollable aggression, bipolar psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. [4]. So, for a child with autism, this can potentially be incredibly dangerous. 3. I pointed out that there were beneficial and less harmful treatments for autism than marijuana. Con countered this by saying (a) I haven't pointed out any, and (b) that I was wrong because there are no known cures. He's right about the second part - there is NO known cure for autism, including marijuana... so this is a moot point. As far as the alternatives, how about: sensory integration therapy, dietary modifications, occupational and physical therapy, play therapy, social stories, picture exchange communication systems, vitamins, etc. [5]. So, now that we've cleared that up, Con's next part of the argument claims that we should allow for this kind of testing specifically to see if/how marijuana can help with autism. A few things - Based on the evidence and knowledge that we DO have, we can infer or at least draw some kind of conclusion about the prospective benefits and whether or not this would be a good endeavor to look into. Also, why does this testing have to be done on CHILDREN specifically? Most importantly, I already detailed how one could go about getting a marijuana registration card, talking to their doctor about medical marijuana, and doing this in a safe and legal way. However, I do think people should consider the risks (especially as it pertains to other mental health disorders and associations regarding pot). 4. Regarding the legality of this issue, it was never clarified in R1 that we were discussing changing the current laws. Moreover, it was not implied or specified in the resolution. So, when I accepted this debate, the only thing up for discussion was the resolution and what Con posted in the first round: \"Since we can't easily force gangs to accept autistic children among their ranks, we need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, and cut for profit.\" While I think pot should be legal (that's obvious), I don't think it should be legal for children as I have mentioned. Further, if it becomes legal, it should be legal for STUDIES and an advancement of science as my opponent said -- not for autistic people to consume (without knowing the dangers), sell and cut for profit. The basic point, though, is that even if it WERE legal - that doesn't necessarily mean that people *should* smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate. 5. Con concedes that having an autistic gang is unethical and unfeasible. [[ Update ]] So it seems to me the only arguments in question are: 1. If those under 18 should consume pot (Con says yes) 2. If parents should be able to give their under-age and mentally ill children pot (Con says yes) 3. If pot with all of its negative connotations to mental health should be administered to mentally ill children when there are other, healthier alternatives (Con says yes) In the first round, basically Con said that autistic children need a voice (they're not represented in gangs) and should have pot accessible to them. However, as I've pointed out, children should not have this option, and parents should seek healthier alternatives which have proven to be effective. Experimentation is fine, but it should be administered first to adults and those who would probably benefit the most (which science can help us infer). Plus, if this argument applies, then it should apply to ALL people that pot can benefit - which would be most people - not just those with autism. And again, this debate is about autistic children. Even if it were legal for these individuals, their parents should have the first and foremost say about what they ingest for medicinal reasons. Most parents would probably agree that this is a bad idea. [1] http://www.mahalo.com... [2] http://www.autismspot.com... [3] http://www.autism-resources.com... [4] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... [5] http://www.neurologychannel.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "71dd53dc-2019-04-18T19:14:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7523211240768433}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: My opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, \"happiness\" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: \"In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it \"shockingly easy\" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as \"primary caregivers\" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program.\" It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7521206140518188}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to \"promote the general Welfare\" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as \"the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens\" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who \"promise it doesn't affect them.\" Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7519864439964294}, {"content": "Title: medical marijuana Content: Hey there. I'm having a little trouble understanding...are you just against smoked medical marijuana? or medical marijuana as a whole? I'll argue for both. Medical Marijuana. Period. You said yourself, THC has health benefits. It causes hunger in cancer and eating disorder patients, dulls pain in patients experiencing it, and actually GROWS brain cells! (crazy, right?). Marijuana can be ingested for these effects in many ways, INCLUDING pills and edibles, and a doctor would prescribe a patient the best way for THEM to take it. Obviously, no lung cancer patient will be smoking weed to get better. I feel I don't need to argue this too much, because you brought up good points already yourself, so let's get to the main event. Smoked Marijuana Alright I'm gonna break down your argument here. You're right, all smoke is harmful. HOWEVER, Marijuana smoke is far less harmful than cigarette smoke, due to its lack of chemicals and the fact that marijuana is smoked far less than cigarettes because less is needed for its effects. Further more, the helpful effects of smoking marijuana FAR outweigh the hurtful effects, so you're wrong about people being \"tricked\" into thinking it will help them when it will only hurt them. I read about a study done where a hand full of people volunteered to smoke marijuana everyday to see how long it took for the weed to effect their lungs. The result? it was 10 YEARS before any lung function began to decline. Here's the article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... just because something has cons doesn't mean there's no pros. I mean, Oxicodone isn't very good for you either, but it is a commonly prescribed pain medication. People can overdose on all kinds of legal prescription meds, but you CAN'T overdose on marijuana. As far as your second hand smoke argument, It's not like a cancer patient is gonna be smoking weed watching TV with their kids, they'd be smoking it in a private environment, probably a hospital, where no others would be harmed. In conclusion, your argument has tons of flaws, but I happily await your rebuttal.", "qid": 38, "docid": "35e725d0-2019-04-18T18:13:42Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7519097328186035}, {"content": "Title: Legalizing marijuana Content: While my opponent has provided reasonable ideas that could work for the sale and production of marijuana, there is one slight issue. My opponent speaks as if this is will be actually done within the real world and that he knows how they will do it. This is not a debate about what we would personally do, but what would actually be done and how it would affect society. Health is huge today in the world. With a world population of over seven billion and continued to grow even more within the next century, we need to take into account that diseases, viruses, and bacteria are all a larger issue with a larger population. Being prescribed by a doctor is one thing, but using it recreationally is another. I will state no further new point as I already have previously. Our society's health and wellbeing is much more important that a boost to our economy - which can be done via anything else other than marijuana. I thank my opponent for a productive debate. Good luck with your votes.", "qid": 38, "docid": "aab6f238-2019-04-18T17:29:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7516385912895203}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: Marijuana should be legal for the following reasons. Also, I rushed this a bit. I apologize for not having a lot of time. 1) Marijuana can cure diseases: Using medical marijuana, there is an abundance of diseases that you can fight and cure with. One example includes glaucoma, which is an eye disease involving increases pressure in your eyes, which causes it to damage vision. Marijuana can decrease the pressure in your eyes and thus improve your vision. It is also able to reverse the effects of smoking tobacco, which is a legitimately lethal substance that can kill you over time. Marijuana can also increase your lung capacity and thus give you better breathing. Smoking tobacco is an issue today because too many people resort to it and we can't just stop that process by banning tobacco, so instead, we can give people marijuana to reverse the effects of tobacco and act as a substitution for tobacco. This only scratches the surface of what marijuana can do for you. It can also control epileptic seizures, can treat Dravet's syndrome, can stop cancer with a substance called Cannabidiol, can decrease anxiety, etc. http://www.businessinsider.com... 2) Marijuana is not lethal My first argument ties in with this argument. Marijuana has an annual death rate of 0, and deadly substances like tobacco has an annual death rate of 406,290. That is a big difference right there. Studies show that marijuana can steer people away from smoking tobacco, which is definitely a good thing. If you look at the amount of deaths tobacco causes every year compared to marijuana, you would see that marijuana is obviously the better choice. I have already demonstrated that it can cure other diseases, and with marijuana, we will have more happy people, less injured and ill people, and less deaths. Also, as an added bonus, marijuana can help people with their driving, and reduces car crashes by 8-11% 3) Marijuana helps with the economy. Taxing for Marijuana can give the U.S a grand total of 6 billion more dollars a year, and a minimum of 14 million dollars in a year. If the U.S can save billions of our profit, they can use the money for bigger issues and strengthen our economy as Marijuana usage continues to grow. Also, WeGrow would be able to set up more jobs for people. 4) Marijuana is beneficial for the environment. If Marijuana is legalized, it will allow high degree planters to grow Marijuana and waste less water and electricity. Otherwise, Marijuana would have to continue in the state of being grown by lower class planters who may be unaware of the consequences. Currently, 5 billion dollars is being thrown out of the window because of the use of electricity. Toxins are also emitted from Marijuana if it's planted and grown incorrectly, but which I'd certainly unhealthy. http://distractify.com...", "qid": 38, "docid": "eda04888-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00007-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7515257596969604}, {"content": "Title: Medical Marijuana Content: Refine the point you are arguing for. When reading through your Initial text, there were several points as to why you should think marijuana should be legal for. Should it be legal to the same extent that cigarettes and alcohol are legal? Should it be legal to cut down on the imprisonment of less dangerous individuals to society and leave space in prisons for violent criminals? Should it be legal for monetary gain to propose a more efficient way of create a federal monetary gain? Should it be legal because it is a means of a perceived safer way of medicating, than man made prescriptions? Should it be legal because that's just what you want? Refine your argument please.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d267acd4-2019-04-18T12:17:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7513384819030762}, {"content": "Title: Medical marijuana dispensaries Content: Marijuana is an effective medicine and treatment for many illnesses", "qid": 38, "docid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00075-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7513217329978943}, {"content": "Title: marijuana legalized Content: Alright this is my first debate. I know you may not think I am a good debater since no one has seen mine. Marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to the reasons that the high is too powerful for most people to control. I understand it is used for medical purposes as a painkiller, but there are other ways to relieve someone's pain.", "qid": 38, "docid": "6b19fe82-2019-04-18T18:49:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.750918984413147}, {"content": "Title: Legality of Marijuana Content: That is exactly why medicinal marijuana is available for medical use. But recreationaly, I don't think it will ever be legalized here.", "qid": 38, "docid": "678a1efc-2019-04-18T17:01:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.750910758972168}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Marijuana Content: Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States (to at least a level equivalent to that of alcohol's) . I will begin by presenting a few main statements and their subset points if they apply. I respectfully request for my opponent to refute them, then I will challenge their arguments. This is simply to establish a sense of organization, please and thank you. Also feel free to add any points you may have or to not address any of mine that you choose (if you don't however, I will assume you either acknowledge my point or cannot refute it). I do not wish to focus on other drugs besides cannabis although I intend to mention them for argumentative purposes if necessary. If you do not understand anything I say, simply ask and I will clarify, no need to be rude. My Arguments 1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization. a) Marijuana is not addictive. b)Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on c) Marijuana's supposed \"negative\" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true. d) The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed e) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user. f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased g) assuming it is true that marijuana's potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged. 2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization. a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country b)The medical benefits of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for many c) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, stopping drugged driving) d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. e)Cannabis integration would benefit our culture and uphold our rights as a nation under the constitution.f ) Violent crime revolving around marijuana will cease. 3.Marijuana Prohibition altogether is a colossal failure. a)The whole purpose of prohibition is to prevent use nationwide, yet, marijuana use is still very prevalent.b)Because of point a, the adverse societal effects of marijuana (however miniscule) are in effect despite of prohibition, therefore prohibition is purposeless. c)It is exactly the same as the 20's alcohol prohibition save for the failure to end it. 4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all.a) Proof of the government's failure to do this is how a constitutional amendment was needed to sign alcohol prohibition into law (and is now beng used to prohibit marijuana). This proves that the views this nation was built on differ from those that allow/support prohibition.", "qid": 38, "docid": "86fca3f3-2019-04-18T17:26:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7503765821456909}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized in Canada Content: This is the first time I debated this topic and I learned many things from my opponent. Before I begin my arguments, I will summarize the contentions used on each side. Pro believes that marijuana should be legalized for two main reasons:Marijuana is not a very harmful substance. Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailmentsMarijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmfulThe series of arguments I have used so far are:Long-term marijuana is addictive. Marijuana alters your brain structure. Marijuana Smokers Faces more Rapid Lung Destruction than Cigarette Smokers. Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins than Tobacco Smoke. Marijuana can cause impairment of the senses, which can then lead to accidents. Marijuana is not good for long-term economic growth. Most scientific research today agrees that marijuana is more detrimental to our health than it is harmful. Marijuana will lead to higher crime rates (as proven by the Amsterdam experiment)\"Legalizing\" marijuana will send the wrong message to teens, many of whom are not using marijuana for medical purposes, but for \"coping mechanisms\" or to appear \"cool\"Most scientists agree that further studies on marijuana are necessary to resolve the debate. Legalizing marijuana is easy, but banning it is difficult. If marijuana does prove to be detrimental to the health, and it does damage health, it would be costly for the lives of many individuals. Points 8 and 9 are built on the premise that prescription drug abuse is rampant, and that marijuana is currently used illegally. Regarding the second, legalizing marijuana would encourage more widespread use of the drug for \"casual uses\", as people would perceive the government to be stating that \"marijuana is not harmful\". Points 7 and 10 can exist together logically (for instance, if 51% of the research points against \"medical marijuana). Pro has so far refuted points number 3 (which I will concede), and has tried to refute points 6, 7, and 10. As of the last round, Pro has not refuted my other arguments or countered my defences, so I extend them. I will now begin my arguments. Opponent's First ContentionMarijuana is not a very harmful substance. This is an argument stated repeatedly by my opponent. However, there is much uncertainty regarding this topic. For instance, all of the below sources (there are many more) agree that research on marijuana is inconclusive. . http://www.revisiondrugs.org...http://archive.coloradoan.com...http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com...http://www.medscape.com...Dr. David M. Labiner, a neurologist with the university of Arizona, said that while there have been anecdotal evidence about the medical properties of marijuana,\"there is limited high-quality evidence about the efficacy and virtually no data about the safety of using marijuana or cannabinoids\". Pro also claims that Huffington Post is a reliable source. While Huffington Post may or may not be a \"reliable\" source, the data they used is not. With such a wide variety of results of the effects of marijuana, we should consider the entirety of the scientific research regarding marijuana. Today, experts agree that that the debate on marijuana is inconclusive, though most of the research is against the claim of \"medical marijuana\". Pro has not refuted this contention as my opponent has only looked at a few studies for marijuana, and hasn\"t looked at the studies as a whole. Consequently, we should not legalize marijuana, as the risk is too great (If the drug proves to be damaging, banning marijuana later would be very difficult and costly for the lives that had been exposed). Marijuana also has higher levels of hydrogen cyanate and ammonia (and other toxins) than tobacco smoke. This is easily quantifiable and cannot be refuted. Marijuana contains hundreds of chemical compounds. The effects of these compounds cannot be easily determined. Opponent's Second Contention: Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailmentsAgain, my opponent\"s position is uncertain as the benefits of marijuana are uncertain (shown above). Cocaine was the \"miracle drug\" prescribed a couple of decades earlier by doctors. Look how that has turned out today. Opponent's Third Contention: Marijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmfulThere are two arguments which speak against this. One of them being that marijuana can already be prescribed in Canada (Though it is not \"legal\" in the way that Pro described it). If you truly believe in medical marijuana, are willing to take the risk, and your health is in a state which require you to take the drug, you can take the lengthy process to acquire it. The process is listed below:. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...Which means that Canadians can already use it to replace dangerous drugs such as morphine if they truly deem it necessary. Second, marijuana may be harmful. If this is true, then we want to limit the effects of cannabis on society. Maybe most importantly, cannabis is mostly used recreationally and to improve people's \"quality of life\", not as medicine. If that is the case, when government decides to legalize marijuana, it will send a message to citizens in Canada that marijuana is safe (when there isn't enough evidence), and drastically increase the rate of use. For my concluding statement, I would like to point out that it was once legal for pharmacies to sell marijuana in Canada. However, the pharmacists themselves removed themselves from this law, stating that they were uncomfortable distributing products without enough research. . http://www.ctvnews.ca...Until more conclusive evidence can be found regarding marijuana, we should maintain the status quo. The status quo does not equate the complete banning of marijuana, and only maintains a strict control over the distribution. This is ideal for the current imbalance of opinions surrounding marijuana. As the burden of proof is on Pro and my opponent has not proved why we should extend the selling of marijuana to pharmacies, I urge a Con vote.", "qid": 38, "docid": "111ea869-2019-04-18T15:43:17Z-00000-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7502724528312683}, {"content": "Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\" and \"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\"s right to care for him or herself\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...", "qid": 38, "docid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.749920666217804}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons.", "qid": 38, "docid": "59d20097-2019-04-18T15:00:04Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7490912675857544}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be legal in the United States Content: I agree we should stick to marijuana but i was just pointing out that marijuana is relatively harmless when compared to cigarettes or alcohol. I can see short term effects from second hand smoke from marijuana but not long term effects. If marijuana is taxed and regulated which is what I believe we should do we could regulate it like we regulate cigarettes. In most states you cant smoke smoke indoors. Medical marijuana in a pill form would be great as well but i also believe that people should be able smoke marijuana for medical reasons as well. Im going to be honest with you. I was very confused with that last paragraph so i wont respond to that.", "qid": 38, "docid": "1d872123-2019-04-18T16:38:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.749052107334137}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of marijuana Content: Addressing P1: Laws exist to limit personal freedoms for good reasons. There are good reasons for not legalizing this substance. These reasons are outlined in my premises in Round 1. Addressing P2: According to your argument, there is no reason to legalize marijuana. Consumers can purchase it either way. Addressing P3: Legal medicine has been found to have profound medical use with all that you mentioned. Addressing P4: There is no direct correlation between your premise and your argument. While this may be a fact, it does not imply that marijuana should be legalized. My arguments from Round 1 still stand.", "qid": 38, "docid": "575d7a7e-2019-04-18T16:34:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7483330368995667}, {"content": "Title: Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide Content: Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.", "qid": 38, "docid": "5992fb47-2019-04-18T13:36:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.748173713684082}, {"content": "Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Great! I will post my opening statement again for you to respond to. The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.", "qid": 38, "docid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7480724453926086}]}
{"query": "Should the federal minimum wage be increased?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Raise The Minimum Wage Content: I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e4c4f298-2019-04-18T12:58:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8747256994247437}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8423917293548584}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.", "qid": 39, "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00006-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8353099822998047}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: In round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON\u2019s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) \u201cProvide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.\u201d [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage \u201cone of the best antipoverty programs we have.\u201d. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: \u201cpoverty guidelines\u201d and \u201cpoverty thresholds\u201d [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in \u201c48 Contiguous States and D.C.\u201d is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: \u201cLast year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - \u201cI\u2019d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session \u2014 and probably in the four years I\u2019ve been health commissioner\u201d [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study \u201cin APHA\u2019s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.\u201d [3] A \u201chigher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid \u2014 the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.\u201d There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON\u2019s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living \u201cDespite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.\u201d CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes \u201cwe find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.\u201d [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.834047794342041}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00007-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8331538438796997}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: I accept the challenge and will debate that we should raise the minimum wage. The resolution or the con speaker did not define or say how far reaching this raise was or how much it will be, so I will debate that this will be a increase on the existing federal minimum wage. I would first like to state the purpose of the minimum wage. It has been and still is needed to prevent a slave like wage for work. FDR, who put the first minimum wage in place, stated that this was needed so people can support themselves. This minimum wage has to change and grow with the gain in inflation and growing cost of living. We still have now that the minimum wage still ends up getting you below the poverty line and in need of welfare programs which is of more cost to or already large deficit. A raise in the minimum wage and its effect on the economy has had a lot of research over it but nothing has come up with much conclusiveness. Many do show that there is a job loss in youth or low-skilled work, though usually only a small amount. However, I would argue that the majority of people will be helped by this increase in wage and the small amount hurt is insignificant. I am not saying that we raise it to 15 dollars an hour, just a modest dollar or two. Over half of the states already have a state minimum wage greater than the federal on so this increase will have little change. The Con speaker has brought up the problem of immigrant and youth workers. The problem is is that those workers are already competing with natives. Yes, immigrants may offer to work less but the work is the same. Many immigrant fill jobs with low supply. Also the change in youth employment would be very negligible and also is a non-issue. Many teenagers are already supported by their parents and the job is mostly for just spending. Many places of work also depend on teenage workers because the supply of older ones are not their, again showing that a raise would not change much. The issues that face black Americans are real and need to be dealt with. It will be with better focus on education and vocational training. Not raising the minimum wage is not a solution to the problem. We must also take into consideration that the raise increase will give more money to lower wage workers who will spend it, and thus, stimulating the economy. The faults in raising the minimum wage are present but there is a net gain in doing so modestly.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ce0a06a9-2019-04-18T13:25:18Z-00002-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8321212530136108}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.", "qid": 39, "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8310041427612305}, {"content": "Title: Do anything Content: I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)", "qid": 39, "docid": "1d5f1558-2019-04-18T15:25:13Z-00006-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8262982964515686}, {"content": "Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: The question here is whether the government should raise the minimum wage. CON seems to be talking about the United States, so I'll assume that we're talking about the United States. To win, CON has to prove that the government should NOT raise the minimum wage. On the other hand, I have to show that the government should raise the minimum wage. Current minimum wage in the US is 7.25 USD/hr. Nothing in the resolution says that I have to show how much the minimum wage should be raised. I just have to argue that it should be raised to win. First, I'm going to say why the minimum wage should be raised. Second, I'm going to rebut CON's case. Minimum wage should be raised: 1. Minimum wage should be raised because it does not pay a livable wage which creates an unfair burden on taxpayers and charities. The minimum wage should be raised because keeping the minimum wage where it is creates an unfair burden on taxpayers What basically happens is that because the federal minimum wage only pays $15,080.00/yr government benefits and private charities have to pick up the difference between \"what minimum wage-paying employers pay their employees\" and \"what it costs employees to survive\". Chris Lu, former deputy secretary of labor under the Obama administration writes in Time that: \"the federal minimum wage amounts to just $15,080 a year for full-time work. That translates into declining living standards, reduced economic mobility and a shrinking middle class. It mires workers and our economy in an impoverishing cycle created by inadequate pay. Far too many workers earning minimum wage turn to government assistance and food pantries to make ends meet. \" (Source: . http://time.com...) When workers earning the minimum wage have to turn to government assistance and private charities like food pantries to make ends meet, that means that corporations are passing off the external cost of employee labor to society and to taxpayers. This is basically a corporate handout that comes out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers, which is an unfair burden to place on society. The minimum wage should therefore be raised to alleviate this unfair burden on taxpayers. 2. Raising the minimum wage will stimulate economic growth. Economic growth in the service sector has not grown as fast as should have because the amount of disposable income for the majority of working Americans has not kept up with inflation. To illustrate, the minimum wage of 1968 would be $10.90 today. Except the problem is that inflation has exceeded minimum wage increases by a third. (Source: . https://www.pbs.org...) PBS reports that the unemployment rate was 3.6 percent in 1968 with a higher real minimum wage. (same source) So, that means that the unemployment rate is higher today \" at 5 percent \" than it was in 1968, while the real minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1968. Part of the reason for that is because consumers had more disposable income then, than they do now. By increasing the minimum wage, working consumers will have more money to spend locally, which they will (see source from Time above) and that will result in economic growth. One implication of that growth will be increased jobs. CON doesn't really have individual arguments, so I'll just rebut the ideas he talks about: CON claims that \"A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. \" This is false. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains that a higher minimum wage minimum \"won\"t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it \" thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. )\" (Source: . http://robertreich.org...) The only way that a higher minimum wage would harm business owners is if revenues didn't keep up with the increased cost of labor. The problem with that assumption is that it ignores the second-order implication of a higher minimum wage: more domestic economic spending, which would result in increased revenues, as the sum of the available literature suggests would be the case. CON claims: \"And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent. \" Again, this is wrong for the same reason as stated above. Increases in disposable income are going to translate into increased local spending, which will increase revenues and likely increase profits overall. In order to make the argument that companies wouldn't be able to hire more people, you have to assume that the only part of the business's account sheet which would change is how much they have to pay their employees. Except, the evidence above shows that this is false because of predictable increases in economic activity. (The Time and Robert Reich article) CON Claims: \"Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so\" This has absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage. If young workers want to gain experience and are willing to work for substandard wages, they can still take unpaid internships. The minimum wage has nothing to do with that issue. (. https://www.forbes.com..., discussing unpaid internships). More importantly, as Reich explains, \"Most low-wage workers aren\"t young teenagers; they\"re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. \" So, talk of teenagers is a red herring more or less for this issue. CON further claims \"increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. \" CON doesn't cite to this source so it automatically should be struck; he just makes a vague reference to it. But the question isn't whether increasing the minimum wage is \"proven\" to lower the poverty rate, because we're not talking about a specific amount to raise the minimum wage in this debate. To illustrate, if we raised the minimum wage by 0.01 USD, then that obviously would have very little if any impact on ameliorating poverty of any kind. The question is whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea or not. The evidence I've provided shows that it is, because raising the minimum wage will increase the standard of living, which (implicitly) means reducing poverty.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8259636163711548}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post \"no round, as agreed upon\" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.", "qid": 39, "docid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00005-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8258056044578552}, {"content": "Title: $15 Minimum Wage Content: The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4.", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a5dcb0b-2019-04-18T12:33:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8251166343688965}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Summary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON\u2019s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con\u2019s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON\u2019s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says \u201cSomething such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities\u201d, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional \u201cexample\u201d to try to sway the reader about an important question. \u201cWill an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?\u201dOne source referenced by CON is \u201cDo Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!\u201d which concludes that \u201cThe efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.\u201d [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON\u2019s claim. Here is what they say \u201cIn a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\u201d [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: \u201cAs of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour \u2014 before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.\u201d [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON\u2019s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON\u2019s \u201crebuttals\u201d - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card\u2019s study - CON says the study didn\u2019t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I\u2019m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I\u2019m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I\u2019ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald\u2019s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states \u201cI'll admit I'm a bit confused now.\u201dCON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON\u2019s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8242957592010498}, {"content": "Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: what pro fails to mention is that though I don't mention evidence to support my argument but he don't either he doesn't rebut my claims either. Should the U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15? The issue is nuanced: Raising wages would boost employee paychecks, but it could also cause cost-conscious companies to reduce hiring. But with many states taking independent action to increase wages\"and with a $15 federal minimum wage \"over time\" added to the Democratic Party platform last week\"we asked three faculty experts to discuss the implications. Boost jobs through an earned income tax credit, better education, and reduced licensing requirements Erik Brynjolfsson We\"ve seen median wages stagnate for almost 20 years in the United States. How can we increase them while also boosting jobs? Here are three ideas: One: expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC; Two: reinvent education; and Three: reduce occupational licensing. Here\"s how the EITC works. Suppose that someone is earning $12 per hour, and we\"d like to them to earn $15. With an EITC, they\"d get an additional $3 per hour worked from the government. The money to pay for this would come from general tax revenue including income taxes, or ideally increased taxes on carbon dioxide\" emissions, congestion, and other things we\"d like to discourage. One of the benefits of the EITC is that it encourages employers to hire more workers, unlike increasing the minimum wage. That\"s important because I\"ve been convinced by sociologists like Bob Putnam that work has value beyond the dollars it provides. It\"s good for society to keep people engaged in the workforce, and we should be rewarding entrepreneurs and managers who come up with jobs. Another way to increase both wages and jobs is by increasing the educational levels of our workforce. The wage gap between the most and least educated workers has grown enormously since the 1980s, and better-educated workers also have much lower unemployment rates and higher rates of workforce participation. But it\"s not enough to simply do more of the same. We need to reinvent education for an age where machines are increasingly doing cognitive tasks\"the second machine age. That means a greater emphasis on skills like teamwork, project management, persuasion, leadership, coaching, and creativity. I believe these can be fostered in the right educational settings. Last but not least, we need to reduce unnecessary occupational licensing. Over 25 percent of workers now require a license to do their jobs, a five-fold increase since the 1950s. While some licenses are important for safety or other reasons, research has shown that excessive licensing requirements reduce employment and mobility. Requirements vary widely across states: Michigan requires three years of education and training to become a security guard, while most other states require 11 days or less. Having more people working and earning good wages is good not just for the people we help, but for all of us: People who work are more engaged in community, creating a virtuous cycle. If we do these three things, we\"ll be on track to becoming a richer, more engaged, and more dynamic nation. -- ErikBrynjolfsson, professor of information technology and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy A higher minimum wage, by region Simon Johnson I\"m in favor of an increased minimum wage, but there is a valid question of \"by how much?\" Would you lose jobs as a consequence of increasing the minimum wage above some level? Labor economists have studied this carefully, and while there is no consensus, it\"s not difficult to support an increase to $12 per hour on the basis of the available evidence. In areas with higher living costs, a higher minimum wage can make sense\"and some states are already planning to phase in $15 per hour over several years. However, especially in less heavily urbanized areas with a lower cost of living, a higher national minimum wage could have unintended consequences, in the sense of reducing hiring and potentially increasing unemployment. -- Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management A modest, stepwise increase over time Thomas Kochan It\"s clearly beyond time to increase the minimum wage. But it\"s a political stalemate: It has less to do with economics than politics. Congress has not acted positively on labor legislation for a long time. They block essentially all changes in labor policy, whether it\"s increases in wages, updating hourly wage legislation, or in other areas of labor relations law, all of which badly need to be updated. The stalemate has led states to take action on their own. Half the states have recognized the need for an increase. It\"s time to catch up. We\"re at $7.25, which is ridiculous. My view is that $15 is a reasonable target for the future, but we should raise it in steps at the federal level. An immediate jump to $15 would be too abrupt a change. It could have significant negative employment consequences. If we increased it step-by-step with a goal toward $15 over a period of years, it wouldn\"t have significant employment effects. We could start at $10, then go up to $15 over four years. President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \"income inequality.\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. Studies Mark Wilson, \"The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws,\" Policy Analysis No. 701, June 21, 2012. Richard V. Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan, \"The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation Revisited,\" Cato Journal, Vol. 13, no1 (Spring/Summer 1993). Clifford Thies, \"The First Minimum Wage Laws,\" Cato Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1991). President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against \"income inequality.\" In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. The debate over raising the minimum wage has been a hot topic after President Obama explained in his 2014 State of the Union Address that he intends to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, an increase of over 40 percent. While the President and his supporters claim that this increase would greatly benefit the economy and result in no loss of jobs, the opposition claims that this would be detrimental to minimum wage employees, resulting in 500,000 fewer jobs. In the following article, we\"re outlining the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8242781162261963}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00007-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8234549760818481}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing that the US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I would like more my opponent to note that I agree that the US Federal government should raise the minimum wage one dollar every year until we get to 10 dollars in order to make small businesses adjust to the wages. Now, I will begin my case. -------------------------------------- Democracy Advantage: Before, I begin to state the statistics on how many people in America support an increase in the minimum wage; I want to stress the importance of this argument. The Founding Fathers intended for our representatives to listen to what the American people want. These are one of the fundamental principles of America, and what defined our country in the 1700s as a democratic nation. My opponent is libertarian. If there is anything libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can agree with; it is that we should all be able to agree that when 76% of Americans agree on simple legislation that should be passed, than the government is obligated to listen and pass the legislation a majority of Americans want to be passed. If the government does not listen to the pleas of the American people, than our democracy is not functioning properly. 76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage. A great majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 dollars an hour. I offer this question to my opponent. I believe that if the government continues to deny the pleas to raise the minimum wage, than how can we still call ourselves a functional democracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits: My opponent is of the few in America that claim that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs. I will debunk this popular myth in this contention. Note that 73 million people are paid hourly wages. 1. Improved living standards: The first benefit is that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 16.5 million low-wage workers would benefit from a $10.10-per-hour wage, including 900,000 workers who would climb above the poverty threshold. A more recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government- and state-sponsored financial-aid programs --------------------------------- 2. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers who would receive nearly 40 billion dollars in additional wages over the phase in period. ------------------------------------ 3. GDP has been proven to increase roughly by 25 billion dollar resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net jobs. -------------------------------------- 4. Around 54% of affected worker work full time, over 70% are in families with incomes of less than 60,000 dollars, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. ------------------------------------------------ 5. The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family's total income. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics\" claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe: Europe is also a good example of how the minimum wage actually benefits workers more than it harms workers. -Great Britain's minimum wage is $10.31 an hour. There GDP is 2.8 trillion dollars. There are 4.9 million small businesses that are fully capable of managing this wage without loosing jobs. -Germany's minimum wage is $11.50 an hour. Germany's GDP is 3.85 trillion dollars. -France's minimum wage is $10.70 an hour. France's GDP is 2.83 trillion dollars. -Australia's minimum wage is $10.50 an hour. Australia's GDO is 1.45 trillion dollars. - America's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. America's GDP is 17.48 trillion dollars. I offer my opponent these questions. -Why is it that America was the wealthiest country in that list, yet had the lowest federal minimum wage? -Why is America able to access an abundant amount of benefits from raising the minimum wage, and the government is still not pass it into law? -Why is it that that the US Federal Government will not raise the minimum wage when 76% of Americans believe that it is the right thing to do? I look forward to these answers. It is up to my opponent whether to address these questions in his case or rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.msnbc.com... . http://www.bing.com... . http://www.timeforaraise.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00004-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8224726915359497}, {"content": "Title: We should raise the minmum wage Content: Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, \"These are arguments for MW to stay\", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait\u2026 So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?", "qid": 39, "docid": "8c866652-2019-04-18T18:27:57Z-00003-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8221222162246704}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......", "qid": 39, "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.820866048336029}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.", "qid": 39, "docid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.8197576403617859}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the United States ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 Wage Hike is Either Unfair or IndeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post provides an article which reads, \"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren\u2019t well qualified to determine what\u2019s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.\u201d [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer because of what the American Enterprise Institute notes, \"disproportionate effects by location.\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \"one-size-fits-all\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes. Contention II: Effects on Small BusinessesIf it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won\u2019t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it\u2019s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4] These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts, small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7] With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [10] [11] [12] Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms small businesses, particularly. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nfib.com...[5] https://www.sba.gov...[6] http://www.alec.org...[7] http://www.cbo.gov...[8] https://www.epionline.org...[9] http://www.nber.org...[10] http://www.nber.org...[11] http://www.ncpa.org...[12] https://www.aei.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.819411039352417}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the US ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 wage hike is unfair and indeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post explains \"Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren\u2019t well qualified to determine what\u2019s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.\u201d [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer. American Enterprise Institute notes the reason: \"disproportionate effects by location.\" [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a \"one-size-fits-all\" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes.Contention II: Effects on businesses.If it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. \"Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won\u2019t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it\u2019s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation.\" [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4]These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Moreover, inflation becomes a concern for businesses as well. Economic theory indicates a wage hike will facilitate inflation. [14] A study by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald notes, \u201cHigher labor costs faced by employers are pushed onto customers in the form of higher prices.\u201d [15] The vast brunt of the cost will be passed to consumers, meaning higher prices. [20] If prices rise, this not only creates inflation, but also effectively negates a wage increase. [35] More money earned, but more money is required to be spent. The effects won\u2019t be short-term, either. A study by Burke, Miller, and Long affirms \u201c increase in labor costs can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral.\u201d [16] It will become a spiral of minimum wage degradation and inflation.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7]With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [11] [12] [13] Moreover, these effects aren\u2019t simply short-term. The detriments are definitely long-term. [21] As it intends to solve for poverty, we can\u2019t raise the wage. Sanderson claims \u201cThe biggest anti-poverty program we have in the U.S. is getting somebody a job.\u201d [23] With disemployment effects prevailing, getting a job is difficult, and the subsequent deterioration of poverty is nonexistent.In fact, the experts in the field (labor economists) overwhelmingly agree raising the minimum wage will facilitate job losses (73%) and that these losses will be disproportionately laid on the poor (68%). [10] Those disproportionate victims are often teens, as has happened previously. [18] This essentially makes teens unemployable, and entry-level jobs become less available for those just entering the workforce. [29] Furthermore, in a team of 100 economic researchers, two-thirds found disemployment effects of wage hikes. [30] The consistent trend of employment detriment studies from wage hikes extends all the way back to 1957. [33]Contention IV: Extended detriments.Obviously the effects already mentioned aren\u2019t positive. But those effects can have extended consequences. For example, raising the minimum wage will increase crime, because of unemployment. When teens (who are disproportionately affected [19]) are unemployed, criminal activity is often subsequent. [17]Furthermore, raising wages can encourage outsourcing [22], which sends jobs to areas where labor laws are less strict or negligible. [24] This wouldn\u2019t be good for the US economy as the labor for not only employment but profits to US businesses and the GDP would be gone. [31] Another asset is illegal aliens, who tend to be hired on because of wage law abuse. [34]Another extended impact would be technological replacement. When faced with the dilemma of either raising wages or using technology to replace human labor, the latter is desirable. [25] This has happened time and again, and lowers job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This trend has also resulted in wage inequality, another thing political rhetoric of wage increase claims. [26] It\u2019s illogical to assume more jobs would be created when humans are simultaneously being replaced.Another talking point for wage hike advocates is poverty. Yet, instead of reducing poverty as they advocate, poverty is actually worsened. [27] A primary reason for this is competition [28], but the result is obvious; raising wages only facilitates more poverty. Alongside the poverty, companies would likely cut benefits such as health care. [32]Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms business in a multi-faceted manner. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Fifth, there Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources in Comments", "qid": 39, "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.8192490339279175}, {"content": "Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.", "qid": 39, "docid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.8182716369628906}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: I wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it\u2019s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.8170835971832275}, {"content": "Title: BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States Content: The minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25. My opponent will be arguing that it should be raised. My opponent shall argue that it should be raised any increment higher then 1 dollar so any wage $8.25 or above. All definitions in this resolution are self explanatory.", "qid": 39, "docid": "84bee0b1-2019-04-18T13:28:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.8148846626281738}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00007-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.8129518032073975}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage should be increased in the US. Content: The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.", "qid": 39, "docid": "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.812865138053894}, {"content": "Title: Living Wage Content: I accept. Per our discussion in the comments, I will be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hr. We will both assume for purposes of this debate that $10/hr constitutes a \"living wage,\" regardless of whether in actual fact $10/hr is sufficient to provide for necessities throughout the United States.Good luck.", "qid": 39, "docid": "a071780f-2019-04-18T14:46:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.8113300800323486}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage should be increased in the US. Content: My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.", "qid": 39, "docid": "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.8111101984977722}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage Content: The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That\u2019s first order. 10$ isn\u2019t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It\u2019s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn\u2019t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this \u2013 just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn\u2019t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.", "qid": 39, "docid": "be617355-2019-04-18T14:49:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.8082754015922546}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage Content: I accept and will be arguing in favor of raising the minimum wage. CON has instigated this debate, but nevertheless I feel it is customary that we share the BOP. I would advise our audience to vote for the person who most successfully evidences their position. I will begin by rebutting CON's opening arguments, within which I will provide my own contentions, and then move on to cover why I believe we should raise the federal minimum wage. I. Inefficiency vs. EfficiencyCON asserts that raising the minimum wage will lead to companies laying workers off or cutting back on hours, which would lead to falling output. Of course, he provides no evidence for this claim whatsoever. I will demonstrate that it is false. First, it is simply wrong to say that raising the minimum wage, ipso facto, would shed jobs. Indeed there may be a point where this is so -- a \"Laffer Curve,\" if you will -- but this does not mean that any modest increase (say, to $10.10 an hour) would lead to job losses. The basic logic behind this, which I will prove later on when I begin my contentions, is that employers will look to ways to become more productive, will employ more efficient technologies, or will reduce their own profits, which isn't exactly difficult given the massive disparity in CEO: pay of the average worker, another point that I will touch on later. The point is, there are and have been aways to circumvent rising labor costs brought on by raising the minimum wage. In fact, CON disregards that people earning the minimum wage have a higher MPC than people who aren't, meaning that they will consume with most if not all of their income. Therefore, the additional labor costs would simply go right back into the circular flow of the macroeconomy, increasing economic activity and leading employers to increase hiring, for they cannot hire without customers. What CON refuses to realize is that employing workers below their marginal product of labor -- that is, paying poverty level wages -- this is in fact inefficient. They would be much more loyal and much more productive, and companies would more likely succeed, with higher wages.II. Law of Supply and DemandI believe that CON meant to say the \"law of demand,\" as he has not referenced the law of supply in this initial argument. I would like to note that this is a concession on CON's case that people actually WILL be making more money, so much so that it will result in a net increase in demand. If employers laid off workers and reduced their hours because they were unable to afford their labor, that would led to a net decline in aggregate demand and less consumption, which would drive prices down and lead to a death spiral of layoffs, as lack of demand begets lack of demand. If CON concedes that raising the minimum wage would lead to a net increase in demand, it is safe to say that this debate is largely over.The point is, CON cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He cannot say that the minimum wage will kill jobs and depress wages, which would lead to a deflationary spiral, and at the same time be inflationary because people are earning more and spending more. He needs to choose which argument he would like to stick to. III. Does the Minimum Wage Create Inflation?There are two kinds of inflation: demand-pull and cost-push. For the minimum wage to create inflation, there would either need to be a wage-price-spiral on a large scale or an intense shock to supply comparable to the oil crisis of the 70s. Is the minimum wage remotely comparable to that?No, not even close. Jeannette Wik-Lims explains (1): \"This fear of inflation from the minimum wage is not based on any reasonable description of how these minimum wage hikes will likely impact businesses, or the economy more generally. The potential impact of minimum wage hikes on the overall price level is simply too small to have any appreciable impact on inflation...Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue...If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.\"Sara Lemos addresses this same point, as well as some of CON's other concerns regading possible reductions in employment (2):\"The overall reading of the above evidence on price effects, together with the evidence in the literature on wages and employment effects is that the minimum wage increases the wages of the poor, does not destroy too many jobs, and does not raise prices by too much..This suggests that firms respond to minimum wage increases not by reducing production and employment, but by raising prices.\"Converse et al. came to a similar conclusion in 2008 (3):\"The most common types of responses to the increase in the minimum wage were price increases and wage ripples. No single type of disemployment response was reported with nearly the frequency of these.\"Of course, we have already covered that those prince increases will be minute, hardly worthy of being called \"inflation.\" IV. Con's HypotheticalObviously CON's numbers are not rooted in reality, but I assume that he knows this and is merely offering a hypothetical scenario. Of course, there are a number of problems with it right off the bat: he is admitting that raising the minimum wage will lead to a net increase in demand, rendering the \"job loss\" narrative in his first contention null. Next, he appeals to the \"inflation\" narrative which I have already debunked.Third, his view of the market's reaction to a minimum wage is highly flawed. If demand for a product were to rise, the employer would be able to provide more of that product and would want to provide more of that product to meet the rise in demand. Because there are more customers and thus higher profits, the business now has the ability to expand its investment in inventory, meaning that an increase in the quantity supplied of the product offsets the increase in the quantity demanded for the product. Again, changes in prices are negligible, and wages adjust even in the case of inflationary pressures, of which of course, this isn't one. I run low on characters, but I'm going to present some preliminary arguments in favor of a minimum wage increase and then pass this back to CON. V. Does the Minimum Wage Cause Job Losses?There's a wide body of empirical literature on this, and the answer on balance is \"no.\" I pointed to some studies earlier, and now I'll point to a few more. John Schmitt says the minimum wage has \"no discernible effect on employment\" (4):\"[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers.\"There were also a study conducted by UC Berkeley economists which revealed that increasing the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has no \"measurable effect on employment\" (5). Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times summarizes (5):\"Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found.\"Obviously I have more contentions that I would like to make, including the addition of a philosophical component to this discussion on the minimum wage, but I am short on characters. Sources:(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) Converse at al.: \"The Minimum Wage: An Employer Survey,\" Report of the Minimum Wage Study Commission, 6, 241-341.(4) http://tinyurl.com...(5) http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "8d4f3bb7-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.8081607818603516}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a \"job killer.\" I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the \"conduct\" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion", "qid": 39, "docid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00008-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.806334376335144}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: I wish him well and I know he will offer me a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy. It will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it used to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below); however, in excess of 85.5% of these workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase, 9 million of whom are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Cosco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it\u2019s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5], as have executives of GAP [12]. 85% of small businesses already pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservatives estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1]. [1] . http://cbo.gov...[2] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] . http://www.epi.org...; [4] . http://www.epi.org...;[5] . http://www.mybanktracker.com...;[6] . http://www.bls.gov...;[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://www.dol.gov...[9] . http://news.yahoo.com...[10] . http://www.bls.gov...[11] . http://www.foxnews.com...[12] . http://www.whitehouse.gov...", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00005-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.8053328990936279}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.\"", "qid": 39, "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00000-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.8052964806556702}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: \u201cIn a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills \u2013 including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants \u2013 are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.\u201d http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: \u201c\u2026The state\u2019s 2013 legislation raising California\u2019s minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state\u2019s economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs\u201363% of which would come from small businesses.\u201d http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: \u201c\u2022 In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle\u2019s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week\u2014San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management\u2019s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. \u2022 San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).\u201d https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer\u2019s need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can\u2019t pass today\u2019s resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.", "qid": 39, "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.8049567341804504}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.", "qid": 39, "docid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.8048343658447266}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Content: I will be arguing that the minimum wage in US should be lowered (perhaps as much as being totally removed), my opponent will be arguing that the minimum wage should be raised. Any questions can be answered in comments.", "qid": 39, "docid": "b2b9ae57-2019-04-18T12:45:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.8041301965713501}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Thanks for accepting. There are many reasons that the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. 1. Raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy. http://www.cnbc.com... By raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour the economy will raise with it. \"The U.S. economy is constituted by 70 percent consumer spending. Raising the national minimum wage would inject as much as $450 billion in the U.S. economy each year, money that entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to chase after. A $15 minimum wage would also save taxpayers an estimated $153 billion a year, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. This is because companies that pay low wages force workers to get food stamps and other benefits to help offset their low wages.\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... 2. Benefit Americans, Americans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage. \"No one deserves to live in poverty. The last 30 years have drastically skewed labor relations in favor of the employer, lowering workers wages, health care, pensions, and job protections in the process, creating massive poverty and economic uncertainty. This dynamic is now considered \"normal,\" where 30 years ago it was considered a radical anti-worker ideology. A $15 minimum wage is the quickest, most direct route to empower working people, and directly intervene into the labor market on the side of the workers.\" http://www.globalresearch.ca... An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130....... Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 -- about $20,400 for a year of full-time work -- within two years. In subsequent years, the required pay rate would be increased each year by the same percentage that the federal Consumer Price Index rises. http://www.salary.com... 3. Benefit the world. If the US economy stays on it's feet, it will benefit the world economy. Since we learned in point one that raising wages will help the economy, if the economy is benefited the dollar goes up helping much of the world. http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com... In closing. I wish to say more but my internet is going wacky on me. Again I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and I apologize for the time it took for me to get'er done. I personally believe I have stated how and why it is important to raise the minimum wage to $15. Happy AIDS day!", "qid": 39, "docid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.8038153648376465}, {"content": "Title: Raising the Minimum Wage Content: My side will be Pro, I will be arguing that the minimum wage should be risen. My opponent will be arguing that it shouldn't be risen. First round will be acceptence, a forfeit is an automatic loss. Good luck!", "qid": 39, "docid": "b51a8bb5-2019-04-18T15:23:29Z-00007-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.8037149906158447}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I am Gatermouth, and I believe the minimum wage should be raised. I hope my opponent accepts this challenge.", "qid": 39, "docid": "5339b784-2019-04-18T15:45:56Z-00006-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.803601861000061}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, \"No round as agree upon.\"If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and \u2018checks and balances\u2019 for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee\u2019s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)", "qid": 39, "docid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.8017793893814087}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]\u201cIn the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.\u201d [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald\u2019s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. \u201cIn 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.\u201d [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. \u201cThe minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.\u201d[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.8014665246009827}, {"content": "Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Content: ForfeitUnfortunately Pro has forfeited every round of this debate. This merits a loss of conduct points, but I will leave that at the discretion of the voters. At this point, I will offer my own case which will go unrefuted. Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be economically beneficial The definitions, to my knowledge, are self-explanatory, so I don't feel a need to clarify any at this point. I'll jump right into my argument. Note: I had several images, but kept receiving error messages when I tried to submit. So I'm going to instead link to the images.I. Adjusting for Sticky WagesAs we all know, economic gains are not broadly shared; over the past thirty years, the bulk of economic gains have gone to the very affluent. In spite of the fact that productivity has doubled, median wages have flatlined for many and fallen for some. Who has been the most hurt by this? Minimum wage workers; the minimum has not been and is not indexed to inflation, meaning that nominal wages do not rise with inflation. Even though the nominal minimum wage has increased over time, real wages nevertheless decline, meaning falling purchasing power. Let's examine this in several graphs. The first graph comes from a piece Robert Reich wrote in the NYT (1). http://www.debate.org...Initially, this looks like a rather confusing graphic, so allow me to briefly elucidate it for you. From 1947 to 1979, productivity increased by 119%. As a result, hourly compensation increased by 100% and hour wages increased by 72%. This looked, overall, pretty fair: generally speaking, pay rose proportionally with productivity. This hasn't been the case recently, however. From 1979 to 2009, productivity increased by 80%, whilst average hourly compensation only increased by 8% and average hourly wages only increased by 8%. How have wages practically been flat, though, if productivity has increased? As the opponents of a minimum wage increase often argue, people are \"paid what they are worth.\" That, of course, is an utter crock. I'm going to provide a few more graphics proving this point soon, but there's more to see. Observe next the change in income distrubtion to households by income groups. This comes from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (2). Note the same occurence: rising shares of income for those at the very top, and flat or falling shares of income for those struggling to make it. http://www.debate.org...We should view this in context, though. What has happened to incomes of the top 1 percent over this time period? Let's review this following graph (3). http://www.debate.org...To make a long story short, the top 1 percent has done exceedingly well, with income gains surpassing productivity gains. To provide more context, consider this: in 1980, CEO's earned 42 times what the average worker made, but in 2012, they earned 380 times (4). Opponents of a minimum wage increase will argue that workers are merely paid \"what they are worth,\" which is rooted in their productivity. However, if the minimum wage kept pace with productivity, it will be about $21.72 (5). If it even kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.52 (5). We can observe this disparity with an analysis put together by Pew of nominal versus real values of the minimum wage (6). Notice that the real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and hasn't been higher since. http://www.debate.org...II. ProductivitySo we now know, judging from empirical data, that the notion that people are paid in accordance with their equilibrium wage or their marginal product of labor if a canard: it simply hasn't happened, which is largely because the entire concept is entirely theoretical and arbitrary. That is, if I'm an employer, I can artificially increase your productivity by making sure that you have access to the best machinery. I could also artificially lower your productivity (this is obviously hypothetical) by breaking your leg. Does this mean I should alter your pay? Of course not, nor would I. This isn't to say that productivity and compensation are entirely incompatible, as there is some merit to the argument that pay, generally speaking, does or should increase with productivity. It simply hasn't happened as recent, and thus having a minimum wage acts a counterweight against lack of bargaining leverage in the workplace. The point of this contention, though, is that raising the minimum wage can actually increase worker's productivity. Wayne Cascio from the Harvard Business Review explains: \"In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry...Costco\u2019s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco\u2019s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom.\" (7) We also have a statement from over 1,000 business owners expressing their support for increasing the federal minimum wage: \"[H]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation\" (8). These statements are consistent with empirical work conducted by U.C. Berkeley economists which revealed that an increase in the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has \"no measurable effect on employment\" (9). It also demonstrated how businesses react to the increase in labor costs. Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times explains: \"Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found.\" (9) III. Outsourcing? Another canard we often hear about the minimum wage is that it will lead to \"outsourcing.\" Not only is this claim unsound logically, as it insinuates that labor costs are the be-all-end-all and the sole determinant of employment opportunities. If that were the case, why wouldn't businesses relocate to -- I know libertarians are going to cry \"strawman!\" but I promise you, if you look at the data, this is a relevant example -- Somalia? You could pay workers whatever you'd like if there aren't any regulations. Why don't businesses do this? There are a few reasons. First, minimum wage jobs are most often in the restaurant or service sector such as retail -- about 60%, in fact, as Paul Krugman notes (10). Obviously service sector jobs cannot be readily exported, so on this front, the claim falls flat. Literally relocating businesses to X country with lower labor costs would cost businesses even more money than increasing the minimum wage, and would exacerbate the next problem I'm about to point out. The second problem with the outsourcing canard is that one businesses's employees are another's businesses -- or, even that same business's -- customers. Low-wage workers have a higher marginal propensity to consumer than more affluent people, meaning they consume with about 100% of their income. Therefore, any increase in the minimum wage will merely result in those dollars going back into the economy. As people spend more money, the AD curve shifts to the left. Businesses would want to supply more, and now can because their profits have increased, meaning we would see a shift along the AS curve as well as an increase in the demand for labor. This is the reason that AD, not AS, is the key to the economy -- and I am not only saying that because John Maynard Keynes happens to be the economist after which I have modelled my username. Businesses are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash right now that they aren't investing. It's intellectually dishonst to insinuate that merely reducing their taxes, deregulating them further, abolishing the minimum wage, etc. would provide an economic boost. They aren't going to increase their supply, and thus hire more workers, if there isn't any demand for their products their selling. That, my conservative friends, is called a glut. Rising inventory costs are literally toxic to businesses, and should be avoided when they can. This acts as a check by ensuring that businesses have an active, vibrant customer base. IIII. Jobs I've already essentially proven this case, but with the few remaining characters I have, I'll address this as well. There have been several meta-studies conducted on this subject, and the conclusion far and wide has been that raising the minimum wage has \"no discernable effect\" on employment (11). Let's go to John Scmitt from the CEPR: \"[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers.\" (11)Even the CBO study that conservatives often cite -- falsely, might I add -- grants that a hike in the minimum wage provides an economic stimulus: \"The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO\u2019s estimate.\"ConclusionThere isn't much else to say. Vote Con. Sources(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com...(7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "e1beae30-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00000-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7988958358764648}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. Content: Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate \" Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.\" Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad. take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e65ba906-2019-04-18T14:02:20Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7967325448989868}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Why the Federal minimum wage shouldn't be raised to $15.Since this debate is specifically about the Federal minimum wage, my arguments will focus on that. Since I missed a round, I will also provide my rebutalls to my opponents arguments.Cost of LivingThe cost of living varies across many states, and establishing a $15 federal minimum wage would either hurt a state, or overpay it's workers. We can use this tool provided by CNN to analyse this. Say we were to establish a $15 dollar federal minimum wage in place such as Des Moines, then the cost will be different in a state such as New York. For this example I will be using the $10.10 minimum wage, but all you have to do is extrapolate the data to see what will happen if we implement a 15 dollar minimum wage. For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate.\" These changes can be seen if we continue to compare other states. A federal minimum wage is just ineffective, because it's hard to pinpoint the right wage on a federal standpoint. Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities. Many states already have minimum wage laws that are set higher than the federal standard, and it's best if we let them take control of this, because they are accomodate their needs better.Will lead to job lossThink about the following senario. An employer has a worker, who generates him 20 dollars renvenue every hour. The owner pays him 15 dollars/hour, and makes $5 profit every hour. Now, the owner hires another worker, but he only generates 12 dollars revenue every hour. The owner pays him 7 dollars/hour, and generates $5 profit. Now, suppose a 15 dollar minimum wage is implemented, this would effect the owner very much. The worker was only generating 12 dollars, will know be paid 15 dollars for his work. What does that mean? It means the owner is losing money. No owner will want to keep losing potential profit, so he will likely fire the new employee. This is basic supply and demand law. And this According to several studies done by economists, they have come to the conclusion that minimium wage hikes will lead to job loss. This would also be significant since 64% of job creations come from small buisnesses.Here is some more evidence that proves minimum wage constitutes job loss. According to Federal Reserve bank of Chicago, \u201c10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent.\u201d According to the American Economist, 61% of economists were against the idea of a minimum wage raise. All this evidence indicates that the minimum wage hike is a job killer, and that it shouldn't be increased to $15 especially. Alan Kruger, a economist who once did a study on minimum wage effects in New Jersey, opposed a $15 dollar minimum wage stating a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences.\" Here is a graph showing the rise of teen unemployment after the minimum wage increase. Nearly after every minimum wage increase, unemployment rates have increased. Does very little to help the poorEmperical dates indicates that a minimum wage hike doesn't really effect the poor, because 60% of those in poverty are not even in the workforce. So, this would make it harder for them to get a job, because employers will try to hire those who are most experienced and more equiped for the job, even though the minimum wage job was meant for youngsters to get job experience. \"Research from economists at American University and Cornell University in 2008 showed the many state minimum-wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did nothing to reduce poverty rates. And economists at Ohio University found the federal minimum wage didn\u2019t decrease poverty, and may actually have increased poverty for certain subgroups.\"EITCThe earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. This method is far more feasible as means of reducing poverty than increasing the minimum wage. EITC does not have such detrimental employment effects such as unemployment and outsourcement of job but works the other way around for it really is a subsidy to employers to employ low value labor. Here is a graph showing the wages of employees without their EITC, and with their EITC. As you can see, the EITC boosts wages, and this will help reduce the wage gap between the rich and poor. The best part is, the unemployment disadvantages that minimum wage creates are not present. Other studies also prove that EITC decreases unemployment. Hoynes and Patel also find that the EITC has significantly boosted employment. A $1,000 increase in the credit translates into a 7.3 percentage-point increase in the employment of single mothers. This means that as a result of the boost in 1993, hundreds of thousands of women have entered the workforce. Notable people such as Warren Baffett have said expanding EITC is the right thing to do.ConclusionA $15 dollar minimum wage is not the way to go, because it's ignores the cost of livings by state, increases unemployment, does very little to reduce poverty, and other solutions such as EITC are much more effective.RebutallsFrom reading Pro's arguments, I feel like he is focusing more on the idea of a minimum wage, rather than $15 dollar figure. I'd like to mention the debate wasn't really about that, and Pro is most certainly aware of that, especially since he accepted the debate saying he would argue for a $15 dollar minimum wage.C1: David Card's studyFor Pro's first argument, he says that the Conservative narrtative about minimum wage killing jobs is false, because a study done by David Card and Alan Krueger demostrate that this isn't the case. First we need to look at what their actual study was about. It was comparing the minimum wages of two cities which compared the fast food prices of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's important to note that this study was done by comparing two cities with similar costs of living. Also, the increase did not show any data that the minimum wage was a positive thing, rather there wasn't much of an impact with the unemployment. However, this debate is about a $15 federal minimum wage. So, this example is apples and oranges in many instances, because comparing minimum wage increases among cities is much different than minimum wage increase nationwide. Interesting enough, Alan Kruger himself said he was against the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $15.C2: Price Increases and everything elseI'll admit I'm a bit confused now, because Pro makes some arguments against the minimum wage, which are increased food costs. Not sure how I'll refute this.Pro's arguments about the bias in minimum wage articles, is rather defensive. Even if those arguments are biased, it doesn't give any reason why the $15 dollar minimum wage should be there. This is more of a rebutall than an argument.Regarding the link of the Department of Labor, many of those arguments are just cherrypicked examples of some studies which show a net positive in minimum wage. For example, the first rebutall by the DOL shows that hundreds of economists agreed with Obama, but these don't represent every ecnonmist. Most economists are against the idea of the minimum wage, so this is just a cherrypicked argument. Also, Obama's proposal is not a $15 increase, but a $10.10 increase. There is not gurantee all those economists would still support a $15 minimum wage.Finally, Pro's gives an argument states that gradually increasing it would give us good data to draw conclusions, but that isn't reallly an argument for an increase. That's like saying we should just ban all guns, so we can see how it effects the crime rate, but ignoring all the colleral damage caused by it! Minimum wage increases will increase unemployment as I have shown, and is ineffective in reducing poverty.My sourceshttp://www.degruyter.com...http://wheniwork.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://reason.com...http://www.republicanreader.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.degruyter.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.krusekronicle.com...;", "qid": 39, "docid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.796574056148529}, {"content": "Title: We should raise the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour Content: Because there are no rebuttals in round 2 I will just state my argumentsReason 1:Increasing the minimum wage would cause an extreme loss of jobs. Why is this? Many businesses cannot afford to pay workers above the regular 7 dollars an hour. An estimated 500,000 jobs will be lost if we increase the minimum wage just to 10.10 dollars. Imagine the job destruction that would occur if we raised it to 15 dollars an hour.While easing poverty and helping the poor is nice we shouldn't do it at the expense of destroying over a half a million jobs.http://www.npr.org... Prices would increase:While it may sound nice that workers get a boost in income there is a price. Prices for all products go up. Why is this? Businesses wont just give up a majority of their income just like that for workers. They will have to make up for the fact that since they are giving 8 more dollars to workers they need to increase prices to avoid failure.Prices for example restraunts go up .4-.7 percent. You may not think that .4 percent increase is a lot but it is when you calculate it into your living and compare it with your old life without the 15 dollar minimum wage.https://www.epionline.org...If the minimum wage is increase then only a few of the poor benefit:\"Research published in 2010 by economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded that if the federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour (remember that the president\u2019s proposal is to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour), only 11.3% of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households.Why?First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners \u2013 an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal.\"http://www.aei.org...The minimum wage is not intended for a full time job and should be treated as such. Making workers benefit more off minimum wage jobs than regular jobs that required higher education is not the direction we should be heading towards.Thank you Pro for the debateSources:http://www.npr.org...https://www.epionline.org...http://www.aei.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "1cab55-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7964504957199097}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr Content: My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.", "qid": 39, "docid": "db76a53d-2019-04-18T16:19:38Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7950451970100403}, {"content": "Title: The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour Content: This debate regards the following statement:\"The minimum wage in the United States should be raised to $15 an hour to support the economy.\"I am arguing against the statement and believe that the minimum wage should not be raised so high. My opponent must argue for a $15 minimum wage.", "qid": 39, "docid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7937182188034058}, {"content": "Title: Raise the minimum wage Content: I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time.", "qid": 39, "docid": "7245daba-2019-04-18T15:27:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7930405139923096}, {"content": "Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: \"Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district.\" This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: \"The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix \" at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California.\" (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.790941059589386}, {"content": "Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Content: Thank you to BobtheCanOpener for agreeing to this debate.Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Definitions and ParticularsFederal Minimum Wage -\"The minimum hourly rate of compensation for labor, as established by federal statute and required of employers engaged in businessesthat affect interstate commerce. Most states also have similar statutes governing minimum wages\" (1).Raising - We'll be using the most recent proposal being debated by Congress, which is increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Detriment - \"a cause of loss or damage\" (2). Net - \"remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross) (3). As is probably self-explanatory, we're dealing with whether the net effects of raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be positive or negative. PRO will argue that raising the minimum wage will be, on balance, harmful to the U.S. economy, whilst CON will argue that raising the minimum wage would be, on balance, beneficial to the U.S. economy. The burden of proof will be equally split for both debaters.StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is shared. Sources (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thank you again to BobtheCanOpener. I look forward to a productive discussion.", "qid": 39, "docid": "fe453fc6-2019-04-18T15:15:51Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7908303737640381}, {"content": "Title: Raising Minimum Wage Content: Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage. As an American who works on minimum wage, I can tell you, there is nothing sadder than working hard all week and only being given $58 a day. That's $406 a week, and this is not enough to live on. A minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. [1] It would help businesses and people alike, not hurt either. After New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Economists, Krueger and Card, observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found \"no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.\" [2] So saying that people would fire others because of a minimum wage increase is preposterous. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. [3] According to a 2013 poll by Oxfam America, 66% of US workers earning less than $10 an hour report that they \"just meet\" or \"don't even have enough to meet\" their basic living expenses, and 50% say that they are frequently worried about affording basic necessities such as food. In the next 7 years California's minimum wage will rise from $10.00 to $15.00. The state's minimum wage will increase from $9.00 per hour to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. This measure increases the minimum wage to $11.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2017, and by $1.00 each of the next four years, to $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2021. Thereafter, adjusts the minimum wage annually based on the rate of inflation for the previous year, using the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. [3] California had a pay increase of $3.50 over the past year, and they have not had any huge closure of business, nor did their employment rate drop. I doubt you are on minimum wage because if you were, you wouldn't be fighting against it, but for all of us who are, and for those of us who can't even support our families, it's people who are willfully ignorant and refuse to see the facts that are ruining us. (Please site your sources... I'd be nice to see work that is from actual sources and is reliable. I don't know if what you are saying is fact, or if you're pulling this information out of nowhere, so please cite sources. Thanks) 1. David Cooper, \"Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,\" Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013 2. David Card and Alan B. Krueger, \"Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,\" The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994 3. https://ballotpedia.org...(2016)", "qid": 39, "docid": "a3568bcf-2019-04-18T12:53:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7892941832542419}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ce0a06a9-2019-04-18T13:25:18Z-00001-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7887245416641235}, {"content": "Title: The Increase of Minimum Wage Content: I'll accept your challenge. Con's theory is perfectly sound on paper: an increase in the minimum wage should translate into higher prices, contributing to inflation and nullifying the increase. In the real world, however, economic forces are much more complicated. However much theory says it shouldn't, study after study shows that base wage increases have a minimal impact on prices and that base wage increases are strongly correlated to economic improvement. Economists differ strongly on the relative value and importance of the minimum wage, but history shows that economic strength typically improves after minimum wage hikes and that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages enjoy stronger economies than jurisdictions with lower or no minimum wage law. I will try to briefly demonstrate that minimum wage increases have historically resulted in little inflationary effect, but are strongly correlated to economic growth.", "qid": 39, "docid": "a41ee870-2019-04-18T17:16:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7880281805992126}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. Content: Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.", "qid": 39, "docid": "d13faac7-2019-04-18T14:24:38Z-00007-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7874247431755066}, {"content": "Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase \"overall costs\" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the \"overall costs,\" and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a \"negative ripple through the economy,\" I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in \"overall costs\" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)", "qid": 39, "docid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7872393727302551}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn\"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased", "qid": 39, "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7864789962768555}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: I would like a debate where I as the con suggest we do increase minimum wage and the pro that minimum wage is good at what the price is today. to make sure were on the same page Today: 7.25 a hour and 40 hours is full time on averaged 10,000 is what people make on minimum wage yearly If it was 10 dollars: full time would still be 40 hours a week and is on average 15,000 dollars a year", "qid": 39, "docid": "e3b9f8b-2019-04-18T16:33:58Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.786211371421814}, {"content": "Title: Bernie Sander's $15 a hour proposal would do more harm than good. Content: Though it is a good idea, I do not think this could work. My reasoning being: as soon as minimum wage increases, everything else will increase also. Ultimately the value of money would decrease, as all other prices increase. \"In 2014, fast-food workers in the United States were asking for a minimum wage of $15 an hour, or almost double what they were earning. Had their demand been granted, a typical burger flipper or order taker at McDonald\"s would have ended up earning more than $30,000 per annul. Suffice it to say, raising the minimum wage to an excessively high rate would exert inflationary pressure on the economy, but increasing it to keep pace with inflation would only have a minimal effect.\" Also commonly unconsidered, is the increase it will cause in unemployment: \"There\"s our cut off point. 45 to 50% of the average wage: go above that level and we\"re harming low paid workers (by making them no longer workers) not helping them. And the median hourly wage for the US is $16.71. The proposal for a $15 an hour minimum wage will make the minimum wage 90% of the median hourly wage: at which point we know very well that we\"ll be harming low income workers, not aiding them.\" This being because: \"In the brand new video below, he points out that minimum wage hikes may sound good in on their face, but in reality they result in job loss because they increase the cost of labor, making low-skilled employees more expensive for employers to hire.\" It is also unnecessary because: \"In the brand new video below, he points out that minimum wage hikes may sound good in on their face, but in reality they result in job loss because they increase the cost of labor, making low-skilled employees more expensive for employers to hire\" A few citizens who oppose the rise of minimum wage were asked to explain their beliefs. Shawn Patrick Sweep a 17-year- old who is unemployed to focus on academics says, \"If you want to make money so badly, go out and do something about it. There're people out there with college degrees who barely make $15 an hour, so why should a job that doesn't even require a diploma make that much? The reason capitalism works so well is because there actually is social and economical mobility [sic], which this minimum wage increase obliterates. Not everybody is equal on the economic spectrum, we all have equal opportunities, but not everyone is equal. And until that thought gets through everyone's mind we will constantly be fighting over who gets what.\" 34-year-old Marcel Porter offers a more practical reasoning. \"Don\"t get me wrong, if the cost of living rises, so should minimum wage. Most business raise their prices, but not the employees pay. Right now my wife earns minimum wage working as a hallway monitor for my son's elementary school. I love her to death, but even she knows $15 an hour for that job is just too much. I think minimum wage should be in the $10-11 range and it should depend on what industry you're in.\" These businesses also do not have as much as one would think. Here is the effect $15 an hour would have on Wal-Mart: \"$15 an hour would be an increase of $7 per hour. $7 multiplied by 30 hours per week, multiplied by 52 weeks a year, multiplied by 1 million workers is $10.92 billion, well over half Wal-Mart\"s profit.\" In conclusion raising the minimum wage would increase other prices, create more unemployment, harm small businesses, and some large ones as well. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to this debate.", "qid": 39, "docid": "171eb76-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7861176133155823}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: Yes, I am referring to the federal minimum wage in the United States and I apologize that I was unclear. I would like to open by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to have an intelligent discussion with you. I will start by reasoning on moral grounds. \"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.\" This quote is from Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations.\" Smith was a political economics pioneer and laid the foundations of what is known today as the classical free market system. I believe that a person who works a full time job should not live in poverty. At $7.25, a single mother trying to raise her child will face many unnecessary difficulties because the current minimum wage is a starving one. As the American dollar is inflated and prices increase the minimum wage remains stagnant, and has been stagnant since the last increase in 2009. (dol.gov) Also, American workers are more productive than ever before in American History(The New York Times). It only seems just, that they should share the benefits of this great feat. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expenses, which leads to employee turnover. Having recently worked in a restaurant that played minimum wage, a restaurant in which there was about a two month period when there were only eight employees, I can attest to this fact. Since the minimum wage is regarded as a social justice, what is the point of having a minimum wage that is socially unjust? A $12.50 Federal minimum wage would fix this problem.", "qid": 39, "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7858911156654358}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wages should be raised Content: How do you think a mother feels when her child goes up to her and tells her that she does not want a birthday present because that child knows that her mother can not afford to buy her a birthday present? What if I tell you that if the minimum wage was raised that this mother and many like her can afford to buy a birthday present for their daughter's birthday? Many believe that the minimum wage should not be raised because small businesses can not afford to pay employees more that the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or waiters/waitresses for example, who get tips earn $2.13 per hour. This translates into an average of $ 14,500 a year for a full time worker. Another reason that people say that the minimum wage can not be raised is that if the federal minimum wage is raised then the prices of goods and services also increase. Many also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. People argue that small businesses can not afford to pay employees more and as a result will end up firing many employees. This is just not true. In July of 2015 a survey found out that 60% of small business owners support a gradual increase to the minimum wage of $12.00. This survey also reports that small business owners preferred this because an increase of income would put money into the pockets of low- wage workers who will then spend the money on goods and services. This boost in demand will stimulate the economy and help create job opportunities. In fact, the White House published an article called Raise the Wage and it states that raising the minimum wage nationwide will benefit local economies and support millions of workers. Many people also say that the federal minimum wage should stay the same because if the minimum wage goes up then other prices will increase as well, and as a result everything becomes more expensive. Some states have placed rules in recent years causing increases in their minimum wages to help keep up with the already rising inflation. The federal minimum wage does not operate that way. According to the Department of Labor in their article Minimum Wage Mythbusters, in order for the federal minimum wage to increase it has to gain approval from Congress and the President. The plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage so it has time to adjust automatically with inflation. This will help low income families keep up with prices of the cost of living. People also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. What these people are thinking that the federal minimum wage is going to be raised immediately. In reality what President Obama wants to do is to raise the minimum wage in increments until it eventually reaches $15.00 per hour. He wants to do this because if he tells the whole country to pay their workers $15.00 per hour, employers will not have a chance to adjust to this sudden change. But if he asks to slowly raise the wage of employees, then employers will have the time to adjust. This way no jobs are lost. In fact 600 economists studied that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment of minimum-wage workers including at times of weakness in the labor market. Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) in an article called Why we Should Raise the Minimum Wage published on CNBC\"s website on April 27, 2015,he states that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.", "qid": 39, "docid": "fb307db5-2019-04-18T12:46:41Z-00002-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7856605052947998}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage should be abolished Content: If you accept this debate you are in favor of keeping and/or raising the current minimum wage. The following rounds will work as followed: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Argument Round 3. Rebuttal Round 4. Conclusion Good luck!", "qid": 39, "docid": "4ba0da92-2019-04-18T12:51:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.785232424736023}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: I believe raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit The American economy. Round 1 will be acceptance only. This is my first debate so I don't really know what to expect, but please just be cordial. Thank you.", "qid": 39, "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7841001749038696}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage Content: CON begins by conceding that his statements contradict each other; he states than an increase in the minimum wage will either reduce employment or lead to inflation. Note that he provides absolutley no empriical data to substantiate his claim, whereas I have provided several studies showing how employers tend to react to minimum wage increases, and that price increases are extremely negligible. My point, though, is that for prices to increase at all, we would either be dealing with demand-pull inflation -- meaning that there is more overall demand in the economy, meaning that more jobs wre created -- or cost-push inflation. The only way for CON to be consistent with his remarks is to argue that any increase in the minimum wage is a supply shock on par with staglation on par with the oil crisis of the 70s. As the evidence I have brought up thus far bears out, this is hardly the case. The second we begin to consider this issue in terms of demand rather than supply, the evidence is heavily favored toward increasing the minimum wage. No, I wasn't speaking of an increase in the minimum wage from $10 an hour because the federal minmum wage right now is $7.25 per hour. Why would I introduce an unrealistic hypothetical scenario that suggests that the minimum wage is higher than it is? The first study piece of evidence I provided from Jeannette Wik-Lims speaks of a ten percent increase in the minimum wage, and the negligible impact on prices. The further evidence I provided, consistent with this premise, comes from John Schmitt, Lynn Thompson, Sara Lemos a UC Berkeley study, and Converse et al. Note that CON does dispute the emirical data that I have provided, nor does he provide any of his own to balance against the weight of evidence I have provided. Note that I am not defining a \"modest' increase as 10 cents an hour, but in order to win this debate, I must only show that any increase in the minimum wage would not have the time of negative impacts that CON is suggesting. Therefore, CON's argument about a ten-cent rise in the minimum wage being virtually negligible is irrelevant to the resolution we are discussing. Granted, he admits that \"over a very large period of time an extra ten cents an hour does become a significant anount.\" Note that this is a concession on his part that there is a conceivable increase in the minimum wage which he accepts would in fact be economically beneficial. CON claims that he \"stands that it could result in the laying of some workers.\" Note that this is nothing more than a bare-assertion fallacy by CON. He has provided us with no evidence bearing out this claim, and in fact has made conflicting statements on the impact of the minimum wage, a contradiction to which he admits. This argument, as of now, can be discarded.CON suggests that I have failed to account for human nature; he claims that the majority of people would \"want to look out for themselves then [sic] than take a pay cut so they can afford to keep their employees.\" This remark is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, not only is his account of radical self-interest -- and, mind you, I accept that this is more likely than not at least among the central forces driving people, though there are indeed others (e.g., commitment to altruism) -- a bare-assertion fallacy as to how he believes people will act, which is nothing more than egocentric, but he again contends that it would actually be necessary for employers to lay people off in order to afford their employees. He has provided no evidence for this, so we have to at ths point discard this claim. If the minimum wage has \"no discernible effect on employment,\" which is the case I have made and that my evidence has borne out, then we know a few things: first, there is no need for radical action by employers, and it simply doesn't occur, as we already know how they respond to increases in the minimum wage, as the UC Berkeley study discusses, and much more than simply reducing profits acts as a check against negligibly rising labor costs. At the same time, CON refuses to account for the fact that increases in the minimum wage increase worker productivity and decrease turnover. At the same time, if employers were to lay off workers, they would actually be producing less and therefore profiting less; this is contrary to radical self-interest that CON contends is at the heart of human nature. His remark on more efficient technologies discounts the fact that (1) I have already demonstrated how employers react to the minimukm wage (2) this is a bare-assertion fallacy and (3) he misunderstands the point entirely. More \"efficient\" means doing more with less, meaning that we're dealing with a decline in costs in this area, not a rise. CON once again fails to account for a net loss of employees, but merely keeps asserting it again and again .CON admits that, in the long run, wages will rise, which again is a concession that wages will rise. Of course, he provides absolutely no evidence that this effect will only take place in the long run. If the minimum wage were increased tomorrow and people had more money in their pockets, they would begin to increase their spending immediately. When people feel wealthier, they spend more, which is why people spent more during the housing bubble even though their real incomes were declining (their home values continued to increase). CON's contention that employers refuse to look to the long run is not only a bare-assertion, but irrelevant unless he can actually contend that the minimum wage kills job and shrinks wages in the short run, a point which he still has not proven. What's interesting is that he contradicted himself. Earlier he noted, \"it will not help our economy or even the workers getting higher pay in the long run.\" Now he concedes that pay in the long run will rise.\" The only way this narrative could work is if wage rise proportionally to wage cuts, producing an impact of net zero. But this is flat-out wrong, and we know from empriical data that minimum wage increases impact far more people than only minimum wage workers. An increase in the minimum wage applies upward pressure on wages generally speaking. Look at this piece from the CBO, for instance: \"The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO\u2019s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.\" (1)CON completely misunderstands the point of the minimum wage. In arguing that it is difficult to gauge a worker's MPL, not only does he concede that MPL is not the central determinant of wages, but that the notion of workers \"earning what they're worth\" is merely a crock. For instance, productivity since 1968 has doubled, yet median wages have flat-lined and prosperity hasn't been shared. In fact, the minimum wage in 1968 has more purchasing power than the minimum wage today (2). He contends that we would need a different minimum wage per industry, but refuses to acknowledge that, whilst overall productivity has increased, the vast increase in prosperity has gone to the affluent. The minimum wage merely amelioerates this gap. For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be $10.52 an hour. If it kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would be $21.72 an hour. Yet that is not my recommendation. ConclusionI am out of characters, so I will have to pass back to CON, though I have more contentions to offer. My central point, however, is that CON is dealing with hypotheticals, not reality, and has provided no empirical data to prove his case.(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "8d4f3bb7-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7840309143066406}, {"content": "Title: A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. Content: I under stand that there are different numerical values for a minimum wage, but I have chosen the most mentioned minimum wages as a middle point to argue here. Contention 1: Jobs I agree with my opponent that these minimum wage jobs can provide a great opportunity to get experience, but the fact is that these jobs cannot afford such a minimum wage boost. You see that as I have brought up last round that minimum wage jobs are typically teenager jobs working through high school or college. I showed that in Wisconsin, in 2009, when the minimum wage was last raised that the teenagers lost out on these opportunities, because the minimum wage increase harms fast food industries due to the fact that they only make X a week and have to pay their employees Y, but with the minimum wage increase it is now Y+Z meaning that the company is going to have less money to buy goods for their service, so they will have to resort to cutting back on their employees, especially teens, in order to save money. My opponent brings up a invalid argument as she states that minimum wage increases jobs. The debate is about increasing to a living minimum wage not about having the minimum wage. \"The Congressional Budget Office is projecting job losses as a result of a proposed federal minimum wage increase. The raise to the hourly wage has been a cornerstone of President Obama's recent policy speeches. According to predictions by the non-partisan CBO, approximately 500,000 jobs would be lost by late 2016 due to such a law's implementation.\" (http://www.npr.org...) From the above quote, one can see that we will be losing jobs in result of a minimum wage increase. That is only for what Obama's doing, but let's apply this resolution to it and we'll find that it will be a whole lot worse. Even in Kansas, which isn't a very populated state, they predict that the cost for a nuclear family (2 adults and 2 children) will be $18 per hour! That's only for Topeka, could you imagine the numbers for that in Boston or New York City? I'll post the link to the Living Wage Calculator so you can even see for yourself. (http://livingwage.mit.edu...) Contention 2: Character Growth? I'm not completely sure on the relevance of this point, but let's get to it. Most of the minimum wage jobs will actually be obsolete and nonexistent in 20 years due to technological advancements. Waiters, Cashiers, and even assembly line workers are all expected to be gone and be replaced by machines in 20 years and if you do not have technical skills then you will find yourself unemployed. (http://www.ilookforwardto.com...) Contention 3: Rich Poor Divide Though most people associate the Democrat Party with caring for the poor and trying to protect them it has actually been seen that their welfare and minimum wage increases/programs have actually increase the Rich-Poor Divide than the Republicans! (http://poliwogg.wordpress.com...) s://poliwogg.files.wordpress.com...; alt=\"\" /> Contention 4: Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism The equality that she is talking about is impossible to achieve, because though this might seem very blunt, but Not all Men are created equal. Whites will never be socially equal with blacks and homosexuals will never truly be equal with heterosexuals, now before you write me off as a racist let's look at history. In the 1870's, Congress passed a Civil Rights act that ensured things for blacks like the right to vote, abolishing anything to discriminate against those with the ability to vote, it also did all the things that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did, and it banned the KKK. (http://www.arch.ksu.edu...) The thing is that they gave up on their rights , because they believe equality could never be achieved. There was also an amendment in the 1970's, (though I can't remember the name of it) the amendment would legalize gay marriage in all US states and it would legalize women in combat. This amendment failed. Allan Bakke lead a Supreme Court Case about the University of California denying him the right to go their just because he was white. Luckily the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke. (http://www.pbs.org...) Many people today already recognize the discrimination against whites. (http://godfatherpolitics.com...) For the second part here, I will apply the economic system of Capitalism. Here in the United States, the harder you work the better off you will get paid. This is to show that you as an individual must work hard or if you do not then you only have yourself to blame, but in a society that my opponent is purposing is that you can show up for woke, half do it, and get paid a bucket load of cash just for slacking off. You see under Capitalism people get paid on how well they do their job. Contention 5: Equal Rights I truly agree that we should have equal opportunity to jobs, but as I brought up with the Affirmative Action turning against the whites and being reverse racism it is actually counter-productive. I agree that you should get paid based on what you do, but there is no way that putting a patty on a bun down at McDonald's is worth the $18 that I had shown for the living wage in Kansas.", "qid": 39, "docid": "a451fc52-2019-04-18T15:49:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7819022536277771}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage is a negative action for the citizens of The United States of America Content: SunGod, before I begin my argument let me say thank for accepting my debate, I hope that by the end of this debate you will see the consequences and problems that come along with a higher minimum wage. In a perfect society on a perfect planet raising the minimum wage to decrease poverty levels is a stellar idea, however since sadly since we live nor work in a perfect society raising the minimum wage has consequences that defeat the purpose of the initial raising of the minimum wage. One of these unfortunate consequences is called inflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Today many lower and middle class Americans live under the hope that their minimum wages will continue to rise, they believe that a bigger salary will lead to more purchasing power, which allow them to continue a safe, average life and maybe once in a while that they will be able to treat themselves. Wether this treat be a new car, a Caribbean cruise, or a more affordable education for their children. However sadly, since macroeconomics is not taught in public schools, most of these people do not understand the effects of inflation on the economy. Due to inflation raising the minimum wage is a useless weapon in combating poverty because the economy will simply boost their prices in response to a raise of the federal minimum wage. Below is a link to a list which contains a few items whose prices have been inflated over time in The United States. (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com...) In conclusion, raising the minimum wage does practical nothing as inflation is always on guard, waiting to pounce as soon as the government officials put pen to paper.", "qid": 39, "docid": "da0b362d-2019-04-18T16:13:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7818958163261414}, {"content": "Title: February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage Content: I will assume that we are arguing whether America should raise the minimum wage or not, to make our debate more specific to a situation. The main argument in favor of raising the minimum wage is adding more money to the pockets of those with low wages. However, I will be offering evidence that those people will ultimately be worse off, and it will also harm others as well. Contention #1: Raising the minimum wage will lead to higher prices. Raising the minimum wage will increase the amount companies have to pay to employees. To deal with the increase in expenses, these companies will have to raise the price of their products to deal with this problem, so the change does not cut into products. This study shows a correlation between prices and the minimum wage[1]. This makes sense, since companies have to make a profit. An increase in expenses leads to an need to increase revenue. Therefore, while minimum wage benefits a few people, but it will harm the rest of us. For the greatest benefit to the biggest amount of people, raising the minimum wage is a bad idea. Think about this for a second. Would you enjoy paying higher prices, for no benefit to you? I will be arguing that this change does not help anybody in any economic class, while actually harming many. Contention #2: It increases unemployment [2] Let's say that this person, named Bob, is a employee working at minimum wage. His employer, a company, gets slightly more than minimum wage from his work. What happens when the minimum wage is increased? Bob will get fired. This is because the company will no longer be gaining money from the arrangement. There would be no point in keeping him around anymore. This is a big failure, since it is people like Bob minimum wage is supposed to help. Clearly, using minimum to help people at this income level is counter productive. Some people may get lucky and recieve a wage boost, but some will get laid off. This is extremely harmful, making those that are poor even poorer. In addition, those without specialized skills will find it even harder than it is now to find a job. With no skills, it is difficult to make a profit off of a worker. The problem gets much worse with this change in place, due to the higher wage that no-skill workers must be paid. Unless the revenue gained from an employee is greater than their wage, then they will not be hired. Earning any money at all is much better than earning no money, so these people will be greatly harmed by the minimum wage. For this reason, raising the minimum wage is an ineffective method of helping out low-income families. Many of those that need the money do not even work anyway, and so it only succeeds in forcing companies to raise the price of their products to cover the added cost of paying workers with no skills. Contention #3: Companies will have a greater inclination to outsource. Who wants our jobs and can work for cheap? Foreign workers. One of the only things keeping American companies from hiring foreign workers is that workers here are more convienient. However, if the minimum wage here gets difficult to deal with, then they have much more incentive to hire the cheaper workers in other places. Why is this not a good thing? Unemployment! Any job sent to India is a job that an American does not have. This goes against the American Dream[3]. When people cannot get jobs, they are unable to have the opportunity for prosperity and success. This alone is a reason for opposing the increase of the minimum wage. Contention #4: It does not reduce poverty. There are several types people that are seen as being in \"poverty. \" One type is those that are unable to get a job. Raising the minimum wage will only make it harder for them to get a job, as I showed before. Another type is those working at low wages. These people are likely to be laid off, with the increase in minimum wage, and even those that aren't will hardly be benefited. \"Our results provide plausible evidence that state minimum wage increases can have substantial adverse labor demand effects for low-skilled individuals that are outside the consensus elasticity range of -0.1 to -0.3. \" [4] This study plainly shows the problems with thinking that the minimum wage has more than slight benefits for those with this income level. There are mixed effects, some people having increases in wage, some being laid off. Overall, the negatives of this far outweigh the positives. These points show that the minimum wage should not be increased. I look forward to seeing my opponent's arguments. Sources: 1. . https://www.purdue.edu... 2. . http://object.cato.org... 3. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...", "qid": 39, "docid": "7e7132f5-2019-04-18T13:44:45Z-00004-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7814630270004272}, {"content": "Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Content: Resolved: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Shared burden of proof.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e1beae30-2019-04-18T15:58:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7805993556976318}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I stand in firm negation of the resolution that states,\"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people.\"I do not believe that we will have any arguments over the terms used in the resolution since all of them are well known enough for debaters to have a sufficient knowledge regarding their definitions.Contention 1: Raising the minimum wage will result in major job losses. This obviously clashes with my opponent's first contention in which he makes the exact opposite argument. Let me explain how this will happen rather than just stating a fact that shows that the unemployment rates will increase. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of the people that made minimum wage were age 25 or younger. This means that the people who are paid these low wages do not need to live off of these funds. This means that if MW was required to increase that employers would look for better and more skilled people to occupy jobs so that they are not wasting valuable money on kids. Not only will the younger people of the US lose valuable experience in a workplace environment, but they will also be affected negatively down the road due to their lack of experience. Obviously, we would be harming the future of many adolescents which is not in the favor of the general welfare of our American people.The Pro stated in his case that the 1996 change in legislation that increased minimum wage benefited the country and did not harm job growth. However, this is not really applicable to twenty years in the future as economic times have changed drastically since then. If the country had not had its historically bad recession in 2008, the situation might be different, but that is not the case and therefore the country has less money to spend for things such as higher wages.So, we must look at the statistics in the past few years, in order to make a slightly accurate prediction. Let's compare the statistics of states that had minimum wages higher than $7.25 (the current federal minimum wage) and states where it was $7.25. The unemployment rate and average job growth of the states in the first category was 7.4% and .5%, respectively, while the states with a $7.25 MW had a 6.4% unemployment rate and .8% average job growth rate. The difference of these systems shows that the states with $7.25 MW had a 1 percent lower unemployment rate and a .3% higher average job growth rate. This shows the result of states raising the minimum wage slightly. Imagine if we were to more than double the current minimum wage to allow people to \"live\" off of these funds. Let's just say we as a country would be \"something that starts with an 'F', ends in a 'D', and rhymes with firetrucked\". Also according to bls.gov, with every 1 dollar increase in the federal minimum wage, the unemployment rate increases by an astounding 1.48%. If we were to increase the minimum wage by $7.75 to $15, it would be predicted that we would be increasing the unemployment rates by 11.47%. This means that we would be projected have 36 million people unemployed in the US.Contention 2: By increasing the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, the incentive to get a better education will be removed. The reason that many people are likely to get an education in today's society is so that they will be able to get a good job that pays far above minimum wage. If we increase minimum wage, it may become easier to get a well paying job without getting an education. This is hurting the future of the United States as the youth of our nation will begin to feel less and less a need to get a good education after high school. If we set the precedence that our country will always increase the FMW so that our people can live off of jobs that require no skill, we are showing future generations that this is okay and this will lead to the harm and destruction of our economy and our society itself.Contention 3: Increasing the minimum wage will harm small businesses, the foundation for a stable economy. If we increase the FMW, small businesses that are already struggling to pay their employees will be burdened with the unsolvable problem that is the lack of money. More money required to pay for jobs = less jobs for people in small businesses = an economy that is ruined. Small businesses are vital to the growth and thriving of the U.S. economy because of the fact that they create jobs, therefore becoming the building blocks in which the big money making corporations can thrive and feed our economy. Many small businesses that become larger businesses, will likely stay in the communities that they were created in leading to local economic growth. So, we can deduce that more small businesses that we have spread out through America will lead to national economic success. However, if we were to take the foundation of small businesses out from under these large corporations, the economic building that we Americans pride ourselves in will come crumbling down, a large reason for the recession in 2008 according to many economists.Now onto further refutations to the Pro's case.I have already refuted my opponents first contention above so I shall proceed to my elaboration on my refutation to his second contention.If we look at the statistics it is found that hardly any people in the US are actually working for minimum wage. In the United States, only 3 percent of the population of hourly paid people (25+ in age) work for minimum wage. In other words about 2.25 million people are required to \"live\" off of these incomes. This shows that my opponents second contention regarding people not being able to live off of MW is a very tiny problem if we look at the situation from a cost-benefit analysis.To refute contention 3, I would just like to point out that this argument can't really be used to reason why we should increase minimum wage. First of all only 3.7 million people work in the fast food industry, a mere 1 percent of America's population. Secondly, the reason that the people working in these occupations need to have financial help is because the jobs in this industry are ALL bad paying jobs. Jobs in the fast food industry don't call for 15 dollar an hour wages because they require no skill and a meant to be a part time job where employees are expected to make a low salary. Flipping is hamburgers is not a career and we can agree that a person working in their career occupation deserve more than a teen that flips hamburgers and messes up your orders way to often. The thought process that these people deserve to be able to live off of their fast food employing jobs is simply irrational. No one is going to be able to make a living sweeping floors and heating up frozen foods, and this has, and always will be, the case in any economy.In order to earn more money, people who are currently occupied by these jobs need to focus on using this money to pay for an education that will give them a chance at making more money at higher skilled occupations. These fast food organizations need to make a profit in order to stay in business, it is quite a simple fact of the matter. If the profit made by one hamburger goes to paying the worker twice as much as the profit, the restaurant will have to increase the cost of the burger leading to less people buying the burger and the restaurant going out of business. These businesses cannot hand out money willy nilly and expect no long term negative consequences to follow. So, they must pay these workers less so that they, the restaurant, can stay in business. If people wish to have higher pay, they must put in the work that is required to secure a better paying job, they can't just expect to earn more money for such simpleton's job.For these reasons, I stand in firm negation of the resolution.", "qid": 39, "docid": "5339b784-2019-04-18T15:45:56Z-00003-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7804778218269348}, {"content": "Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: The government shouldnt raise minimum wage because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such. The minimum wage was never designed to be a \"living wage\" it was for all intent and purpose to be a safeguard against legalized slavery. If a company wants decent workers they will pay a decent wage. If the jobs are too low paying no one will want them and it will force the rates to be increased. Also if the rates are too low it will also discourage illegal immigration which we all know is a problem. A minimum wage job is a starting point not a career. And continuously increasing that wage only raises the costs of all goods and those earning that minimum wage will have their income gone sooner. Also raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind it taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage would be a heavier burden on employers especially small business owners. And those employers in turn would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to exist \"Young workers willing to accept five dollars per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so Jacoby argued especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says in a policy brief\". Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkins bill has been referred to committee which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season action on such a controversial issue is unlikely. raising the minimum wage will hurt the smaller businesses that cannot afford to pay their employees more than what the minimum is now. Raising minimum wage is a vicious circle the government raises it because it hasnt been raised in years and as soon as its raised everything else goes up immediately to compensate. If it were easy for businesses to pay higher wages than they would! Now think about this. If a business has three people working for it and it is a very small business but the people want to be payed more. So they start getting people to protest and then the minimum wage gets raised. The business can no longer pay all three so they fire one. Now that person that wanted more has nothing at all. This is precisely what happened in Detroit. Detroit was known for having amazing cars. But after a while the people in Detroit wanted the wage to be higher so they made the car companies pay them more. In the end the companies could not afford to pay them so after laying thousands of people off they eventually all moved to a place where the minimum wage was lower to prevent shutting down. This completely crashed the economy. Many people dedicate mass amounts of their precious time fighting to raise minimum wage. Their perception of minimum wage on the other hand only goes skin deep their belief is that it should be a living wage so that a low income laborer could provide for his or her family. The problem with that concept as previously mentioned is that they only scratch the surface when they decide what minimum wage should be set at.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00003-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7786060571670532}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Laws Harm the Poor Content: It seems to me that my opponent is still confusing the issue. The question of whether an increase in the minimum wage would help the poor is very different from the question of whether or not the poor would be better off if there were no minimum wage in the first place. My opponent appears to be arguing an issue that is not the topic of this debate. Aside from this false premise though, my opponent\"s numbers are seriously flawed. First, his math is wrong, because he calculates the increase in income before accounting for a decrease in employment. Even using my opponent\"s numbers, the total gain should come out to $25 million per hour, not $26 million. (Because 500,000 should be subtracted from 15.5 million before it is multiplied by two. 15.5-.5= 15 15*2=30 30-5=25) Also, the $30 million number does not account for inflation. According to studies I have cited previously, every 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to an approximately 4% increase in price level. Increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour is a $2.85 or 39.3% increase which will lead to a roughly 15.7% increase in price level. This means that the real benefit to poor workers, even using my opponent\"s numbers is only $21.075 million per hour. But the real problem with my opponent\"s argument is not mathematical errors, but that his numbers are wrong. My opponent says \"Let's assume that the people with the 10% lowest wages will have their wages increased by $2/hr on average.\" The problem is that there is no reason to make this assumption. Barely more than 1% of workers earn the federal minimum wage. There is no evidence to suggest that the number of workers earning close to the minimum wage would bring the total number anywhere near 10%. The CBO report is NOT reliable, it is just the best source we have. While the CBO report does estimate that approximately 10.7% of workers work for less than $10.10 per hour, it fails to account for raises that would have occurred if the minimum wage had not been raised. (The CBO report actually acknowledges this flaw in a note on page 24) This is a very significant flaw to the CBO\"s estimates, as TWO THIRDS OF MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS RECEIVE A WAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR. [1] (This is because most minimum wage jobs are learning wage positions) The subject of poverty rates, that my opponent references are misleading. This is because \"poverty\" in the United States is defined by an arbitrarily chosen \"poverty line\", which includes many people who are not very poor. 80% of people below this poverty line have air conditioning. The average \"poor\" person in the United States has more living space than the average European. Not the average poor European, the AVERAGE European. The point is that there is a large range in wealth among the people described as \"poor\". [2] Minimum wage laws have the effect of aiding the wealthier (higher skilled) poor, but hurting the truly poor, who have very few marketable skills. Rebuttals Breaking the limbs of poor people should not be construed as charitable, even if they happen to receive insurance money as a result of it. Similarly, raising the minimum wage should not be construed as a boon to the poor, even if it results in more welfare benefits for some people. If the goal is to increase welfare payments, welfare should be increased, not the minimum wage. Conclusion My opponent greatly exaggerates the benefits, but essentially, he is correct that an increase in the minimum could help the poor. However, this is irrelevant to the question of whether having a minimum wage law in the first place is beneficial to the poor. Due to increases in unemployment and price level, minimum wage laws harm the poor. Small increases are different because when minimum wage laws are in place, they create a malformed labor system. Thank you, please vote pro. [1]http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://townhall.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "4e66753b-2019-04-18T16:33:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7779760956764221}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.", "qid": 39, "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00006-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7779368162155151}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: My argumentsMinimum wage should be left up to more local governmentsNot only would I argue that the federal minimum wage should not be raised, but it should not exist at all. Minimum wage should be up to more local governments, such as states. 1) Every state has a different situation, where each one has a different cost of living. 12.50 might be a good fit for some states, but it's not enough for states like California or Hawaii, and it 's way too much for states like Mississippi and Indiana. For a source on the cost of living in each state, here is one[1]2) In addition to every state having a different situation, whenever the federal government passes a law, it affects more people than if the state government did. This means there are more people who would be opposed to the law than if a state government did it. For the purpose of making more people happy, and doing what is popular, it would be better to leave the minimum wage up to states or even more local governments. The more local the government that is making the law, the fewer people you have overall who will be dissatisfied with that law. I am concerned for the opinions of other people, even if they may have an opinion different from mine. I don't like the idea of forcing my views on other people, and the fewer people that I enforce my views on, the better. Why should South Carolinians, who, for the most part, are opposed to the minimum wage, be forced to have the minimum wage by the federal government? Minimum wage increases limit the freedom of workers to choose their wageNow, believe it or not, some workers may want to choose to be paid less than the minimum wage. I can think of at least one reason why: to be competitive. If you feel you can't get a well-paying job, you may make yourself more competitive to businesses by saying you'll work for less than someone else. Why should someone be denied the ability to ask to be paid less than a certain amount? I could name several times where I would have chosen to have a job that pays less than minimum wage. Not only would I get at least a little bit of money, but I would get work experience that I otherwise couldn't have. That would have lead me to get other jobs in the future that do pay well. Instead, what happened in reality because I couldn't find a way to be competitive for jobs, I didn't get a real somewhat permanent job until 4 years into job searching. Imagine how much sooner I could have gotten a somewhat permanent job if I was able to tell employers that I would work for 2 dollars an hour. I could have stayed at that job for a year, then maybe move onto a better job that paid 4 dollars an hour. Then one that pays 6 after a year, then one that pays 8 after another year. This is possible because I would have had work experience behind me from each previous job, and that would have added competitiveness to me. Over all, if I was able to start a job at $2 an hour, I would be earning more money now, in theory. Because I couldn't offer to work for a small amount, it likely hindered my ability to get a job until 4 years into job searching. I bet many other people have this problem: they can't find a job, and would love to work for less just to get work experience so that they can be competitive in the job market. Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsI will put any quotes I use from my opponent in italics, but otherwise I will put in bold the subject.Re: A person working full time should not live in povertyIt should first be noted that the poverty threshold in the United States is $12,082 for a single person[2]. If someone is earning 7.25 an hour and working full time, their yearly salary would be $15,080(I got this number by multiplying 7.25 by 40, the number of hours a week worked, and then multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year). A person living on their own is already above the poverty threshold if they work full time on the current federal minimum wage. Now, where they come into poverty is when they are trying to provide for 2 or more people. If we are to have a minimum wage, I think it should just be high enough to keep a single person out of poverty. Minimum wage, low-skill jobs aren't meant for providing for a family. You shouldn't be in a minimum wage job your entire life. If someone is in a minimum wage job for longer than a couple of years, they are probably doing something wrong, and this would be their own fault. Now, I do admit that it's not always the person's own fault for not having a higher-than-minimum wage job, perhaps the job market is very bad. In that case, the solution is for the governemnt to put policies in effect that will help the job market, not necessarily to increase the minimum wage. It should be noted, also, that there are a lot of high-paying careers which have shortages. Why aren't people going into those? Some of them include STEM fields, and the medical field. Granted, they do require education, and I do like the idea of public education to be tuition-free in some way. So, a solution to the problem would be to get education to be tuition-free in some way so that everyone has an equal chance at education. Going back to the issue of a single mother trying to provide for her and children, I would argue the mother was stupid for having children before she could provide for them. Sorry for being so blunt and politically incorrect, but people need to be smart about things. You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them! What kind of monster brings a life into this world that they can't provide for? Why aren't they thinking about how the child's quality of life will be before having it? If they can't make the child's quality of life to be good, then they shouldn't have children. Why should other people be punished for the mistake of a mother who decided to have children they can't afford? Other people, such as me, are punished with a minimum wage. As I said before, I probably could have gotten a job a lot sooner if there was no minimum wage. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way. Now, I won't be completely unsympathetic about the mother, but I think the solution to the problem where a mother is in a situation where they can't afford to provide for herself and her children would be charities. People should voluntarily help her out. Other people shouldn't be punished for the decisions of that mother, which I have the view that other people are punished for it by having a minimum wage. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expensesActually, I don't believe underemployment means that. I always thought it meant you have a job that you're too qualified for, and would be better fit for a job that is better than that one. This is basically what wikipedia says underemployment is[3]Also, all of the problems my opponent talks about can be solved on the local level, keep this in mind. I would like to ask my opponent: why does the federal government need to do minimum wage? Why can't the states handle it? Whether the states have a minimum wage or the federal government does doesn't seem to make a difference in terms of the problems you're talking about. Sources:[1] https://www.missourieconomy.org...[2] http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7773141264915466}, {"content": "Title: Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10/hour is a bad idea Content: My position will be that raising the U. S. minimum wage to $10.00 an hour is a bad idea whose negatives outweigh the positives. Opponent's position will be that raising the U. S. minimum wage to $10.00 an hour is a good idea whose positives outweigh the negatives.", "qid": 39, "docid": "3b77fe90-2019-04-18T15:26:20Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7766978144645691}, {"content": "Title: We should raise the minimum wage Content: I will first begin by very easily negating what has been presented thus far by my opponent. They brought up the lack of employment from younger individuals in New York when the minimum wage was increased. This point, however, is null and void. As of December 31st of 2016, New York's minimum wage has already been raised to fifteen dollars, supporting my argument. According to the New York government, the raise in minimum wage was actually due to input from both employers and employees. This means that the people 'wanting to work for less', as my opponent tried to argue for, do not exist, or are a very subjective minority of workers. Source(s): (https://www.ny.gov...) EPI states that raising the minimum wage to just ten dollars would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. This means my opponent supports a smaller economy and less jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's economists predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. In 1994, an economic study done by the economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD studied employment rates between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the latter having a higher minimum wage. They found no difference in employment rates, meaning that my opponent's argument about lower employment is null and void and flows over to my side. Furthermore, economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, released in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found \"little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment.\" Source(s): (David Cooper, \"Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,\" Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013) (Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, \"How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?,\" Chicago Fed Letter, Aug. 2013) (David Card and Alan B. Krueger, \"Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,\" The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994) (Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, \"Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis,\" British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009) For these reasons, supporting my side of the argument and nullifying everything presented by my opponent, I heavily urge a strong Pro/Aff voter turnout.", "qid": 39, "docid": "6c6b40ff-2019-04-18T12:26:42Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7752842903137207}, {"content": "Title: increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good Content: I believe that incremental increases to the minimum wage does more good and less damage to the middle and lower classes. I support a minimum wage of $10.10. Since, this debate is purely based on whether it does more good or more harm (costs vs benefits), I will let the voters weigh in. The costs- An estimated 500,000 workers could lose employment. The benefits- An estimated 900,000 workers would be moved out of poverty. You decide. http://touch.latimes.com...", "qid": 39, "docid": "e3274ae4-2019-04-18T16:38:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7748728394508362}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: My opponent claims that if we raise the minimum wage, that it would make such a difference that it would make employers not want to hire any laborers. But my opponent didn\"t state how much the wage would be increased by. Therefore I can argue that we should increase the wage by one cent. And a one cent difference to someone\"s wage, will not deter an employer from hiring someone. My opponent states that someone who works minimum wage has enough to be in a livable state. But the poverty iine for one person is 11,880, but A full-time minimum wage employee earns $15,080 annually. Yes it\"s livable wage, but barely, there people also want things like education, clothes, and better food and be able to enjoy themselves. Plus the poverty line for a family of 2 is about 16,00, therefore if a mother is raising a children working as a fast food worker, this wage is unlivable. Also the wage is livable, means someone can get only the necessities they need to live. Shelter is not a necessity to live since people can live without a house, but people can\"t live without food and water. Being able to live is not the only thing someone should strive for. \"Seattle estimates that, before its historic decision, almost a fourth of its workers earned below $15 an hour. That translates into about $31,000 a year for a full-time worker. In a high-cost city like Seattle, that's barely enough to support a family. Most minimum-wage workers aren't teenagers these days. They're major breadwinners who need a higher minimum wage in order to keep their families out of poverty.\" Source- http://obamacarefacts.com... http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... http://www.cnbc.com... If this affects only 4% of people, then that mitigates the problems with raising the minimum wage. And people ages 19-25 are people I would say is not dependent on families. Under that probably, but not always. These people are still people that need to make money to do the things I have listed above. More jobs and faster growth. \"The gains from a higher minimum wage extend beyond those who receive it. More money in the pockets of low-wage workers means more sales, especially in the locales they live in \" which, in turn, creates faster growth and more jobs. A major reason the current economic recovery is anemic is that so many Americans lack the purchasing power to get the economy moving again.\" This is a good reason for raising the minimum wage, since it\"s better to have more jobs and economic growth.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ce0a06c8-2019-04-18T13:05:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.7741448879241943}, {"content": "Title: The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. Content: 3rd round rebuttals 4th round closing arguments and rebuttals LMF will argue that the minimum wage should be raised to fifteen dollars per hour. I will argue we shouldn't.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e9139e64-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7737723588943481}, {"content": "Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: We are now at the point where there is no doubt that I have won this debate and CON has lost. CON concedes that he has no evidence to support his argument in the last round. Therefore, everything he's said so far is out in terms of determining who won this debate. But, worse, CON is wrong that I don't have evidence to support my rebuttals of his claims. Without re-posting a list of links and wasting character space, the judges are encouraged to review the foregoing rounds and see all the evidence I posted. As a point of consideration here: CON should lose the conduct point and the sources point. He should lose the conduct point for lying about the fact that I posted evidence, and he should lose the sources point because he has no sources. He has no links at all, just citations to articles that may or may not exist. Now, regarding the stuff he posted in the last round.... CON asked whether the \"U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15?\" The question here is whether, as I said above, the US should raise the minimum wage at all. The question here IS NOT HOW MUCH should it be raised. So, in talking about raising the minimum wage by a specific amount, CON is making an irrelevant argument. But there's another problem... and it's much murkier... CON literally stole his argument, verbatim, from this website: http://mitsloan.mit.edu... He did not link his argument to this website. He did not cite to this website. He literally plagiarized, and now must lose this debate for cheating. Like, read the article. It is word for word the same thing. In review, I have proven my side. CON has failed to prove his. I rebutted everything CON said that wasn't plagiarized. CON made no rebuttals at all, and tried to pass off this article (http://mitsloan.mit.edu...) from MIT school of management as his own... as if I wouldn't find it. So, even if you weren't convinced above that I should be winning the conduct point, now you have to be convinced because CON is a cheater.", "qid": 39, "docid": "ddb9f050-2019-04-18T11:59:07Z-00000-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.7734159827232361}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Content: Lets hear why not. By having a minimum wage, The government is quite literally forcing companies at gunpoint to pay their employees a certain amount. This makes it harder for more businesses to grow, Since they have to pay employees a large amount of money. This doesn't help the economy at all. My second point is by abolishing the minimum wage, It will create more jobs. If you don't force companies to pay their employees a certain amount of money, The companies will have enough money to hire more people, Which will help them grow, In return boosting the economy. My final point is that by raising the minimum wage, Everything else will raise with it. Taxes, Rent, And everyday products and services. This will drive people out of the area, Causing the economy to fall. If minimum wage works, Why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Wouldn't that make everyone rich? . . . . (hint: absolutely not)", "qid": 39, "docid": "b2b9af30-2019-04-18T11:15:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7728561758995056}, {"content": "Title: Do anything Content: Firstly to address wage increases, the upper-class is irrelevant because THEY are not the ones who need wage raises. The poor are the ones in need--the ones that have the minimum wage increased to $10.10 would be benefited so much that they move out of the poverty zone. The Congress has already signed a Fair Minimum Wage Act (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...), and it shows the benefits of the raising of the minimum wage. Again, I stress this, the more money people get, the more they can spend. I already said this in the previous rounds, and I'll say this again--this would only HELP my opponent's huge federal debt, NOT raise it. raising the minimum wage to $10.10 keeps the employees ahead of the game, and can out-weigh the inflation. As the previously cited website notes itself, \"Raising the minimum wage boosts consumer demand, as low-income workers spend their higher wages at local businesses.\" And \"Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would generate more than $22 billion in new economic activity, translating to 85,000 new full-time jobs as higher sales lead businesses to hire more employees, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute.\" So we see here EVEN IF a ton of people do lose their jobs (for reasons my opponent has not even asserted), more people are helped, and THE GOVERNMENT is helped economically-wise as well. This singular contention can defeat both my opponent's first contention AND his second contention AND his third contention. All of them are null against the positive benefits of having the minimum wage at $10.10. In conclusion, my plan helps people get better life-styles, and boosts the government economy. Raising the minimum wage would HELP most people as my opponent proves himself with his own graph, which I picture again below: The poor people NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATING ECONOMY. The minimum wage is ancient compared to modern prices. We should take action and put the Fair Minimum Wage Act to play so as to boost America's economy! Go, minimum-wage $10.10!Good debate. You almost won me over with the repetition of inflation, inflation, and pretty much nothing but inflation (because job losses were moot against job gains/raise of wage/improvement of life-style/draggin out of poor zone), but repetition does not make a point stronger. As much as you repeat, I know for sure that with the increasing amount of money, people will work harder to gain wages; people will spend more to consumer products and benefit the economy enough to defeat the so-called inflation. Vote me.", "qid": 39, "docid": "1d5f1558-2019-04-18T15:25:13Z-00001-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7727426290512085}, {"content": "Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: The current minimum wage is 8$ an hour. I'm arguing that we should raise it to 15$ an hour, you're arguing that we should keep it at 8$ and that the Fight for 15 is nonsense.", "qid": 39, "docid": "93fbabb6-2019-04-18T12:38:32Z-00004-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7726300954818726}, {"content": "Title: welfare should be abolished Content: Why don't they just increase the minimum wage then rather than taking money from us?", "qid": 39, "docid": "7c34a00c-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7712878584861755}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e3b9f8b-2019-04-18T16:33:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7711315751075745}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should be Abolished Content: I thank Valladarex for the opportunity to debate a highly contentious topic. While it unusual to go first in a debate where I technically don\u2019t have the burden of proof, I will have a chance to refute Pro\u2019s argument in the next round. I will provide some arguments as to why Minimum wage should be implemented, which is slightly different from the resolution as I have the burden of proof in this instance. This is to outline my side of the argument, rather than set the tone of the argument. Anyway, I\u2019ll stop prattling on\u2026 Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society Young, a working parent often not only have the demands of taking care of themself or his or her partner, but also a child/children. Evidently, it is not hard to imagine that some of the poorest people in America are young, working parents because they essentially support three people in a developed nation (higher standard of living costs than an undeveloped nation). \u201cAnalysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey reveals that the workers potentially affected by a minimum wage increase are mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families. If the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise. The vast majority (80%) of workers affected are adults age 20 and above. Twenty-six percent of these workers are parents, and as a result over 7.3 million children of low-wage workers would see their parents\u2019 income increase if the federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008.1 From a historical perspective, this demographic portrait is consistent with the make-up of workers benefiting from the last federal minimum wage increase\u201d (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998). Clearly, the minimum wage would vastly improve the situation for these parents, in turn dealing with the poverty to some extent. This is the fundamental reason to employ a minimum wage: to prevent people from living below the poverty line because businesses will pay people virtually nothing if they are allowed to. If people refuse to work for such a low pay, the business will simply not employ them or look for someone whom will (overseas if need be). It isn\u2019t like there are only a handful of people whom a business can employ to do minimum wage work for them. Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect In theory, businesses would pay what they thought an employee was worth, so the incentive would be to work harder to get payed more. Keep in mind that this argument is about minimum wage, not high-end wage negotiation where there are few other potential employees due to the qualifications required. This theory is skewered in practice due to an effort called \u2018the Anchoring effect\u2019. The Anchoring effect occurs when someone bases the validity or worth of something by comparing other things of a similar nature within the vicinity (and is a fallacy because it works off relativity rather than objectivity). To put this into context, there is no way to objectively gauge what a person\u2019s working time is worth (i.e. what is a person\u2019s time worth if he or she is stacking boxes?). Arbitrary standards will be set, and will be (unfairly) set by the business (as there are no restrictions on them AND there is a conflict of interest for the business, the conflict of interest inciting exploitation because the bottom line of running a business is to make money). But here is where the fallacy comes in. Say I\u2019m packing boxes full of clothing and getting payed $0.5 an hour. I\u2019m doing a better job than the guy next to me, who is getting payed $0.3 an hour. So, logically, it would seem that I\u2019m getting payed extra for my extra effort, right? This is below the amount necessary to sustain my life, but I\u2019m told to \u2018work harder\u2019 if I want to get anymore pay. In reality, the business has set a very low standard, exploiting people by use of the anchoring effect and paying them less than what a person who sees the situation objectively would demand. This is another reason businesses must have minimum wages set by a separate entity (one which can see the situation objectively and can set objective standards, otherwise the business will set low wage rates which are unsustainable in a developed world (and make people believe that the rates are fair). To demonstrate exploitation in action (not necessarily the Anchoring effect in all instances), in 2006, \u201cthe earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker (working 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600. Although the federal poverty line is an inadequate measure of the income needed to support a family, this comparison highlights the severe insufficiency of the current minimum wage\u201d (Fisher 1999). I\u2019ve outlined the crux of my argument and an important correlation. I don\u2019t think I should go much further because in this argument, seeing that I\u2019m Con, I\u2019m supposed to counter-argue the arguments of my opponent. I will await your response, Valladarex. References Bernstein, Jared and John Schmitt. 1998. \u201cMaking Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-1997 Minimum Wage Increase.\u201d Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Fisher, Gordon. 1999. \u201cIncome (In-) Adequacy? The Official Poverty Line, Possible Changes and Some Historical Lessons.\u201d Community Action Digest. Vol. 1, No. 1.", "qid": 39, "docid": "84b4dab3-2019-04-18T17:37:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.7708595991134644}, {"content": "Title: Labor Regulations Content: Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See http://www.debate.org...). Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.", "qid": 39, "docid": "40f0bed0-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7705122232437134}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, \"one would expect America\"to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.\" 2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.) 3States With Minimum Wages Higher Than the FederalTwenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation\"s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project. 4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are \"near-minimum-wage\" workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS\"s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of \"near-minimum\" U.S. workers \" those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education. 5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysis also found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as \"tip credits\" bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)", "qid": 39, "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7703729271888733}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\" Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\" Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour \u00ef\u00bf\u00bd before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a \u00ef\u00bf\u00bdlast-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired\u00ef\u00bf\u00bd scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.", "qid": 39, "docid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7701525688171387}, {"content": "Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: I was removing taxes and hypothetically getting sick. That's how i got the math i did. You do have a good point that people would settle for less is minimum wage was increased. But, it would lessen the amount of people on food stamps and may other government assistant programs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 1.57 million people in the United States make the minimum wage, and another 1.98 million make even less. These 3.6 million workers make up 4.7 percent of all hourly-wage workers. People who are supposedly paid tips and people under 20 can be paid less than this minimum. Some states allow businesses that are not engaged in interstate commerce (and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the federal government) to pay less. Some territories \" notably American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands \" also are allowed to pay less. Of those who make minimum wage or less 44% are in food preparation and serving related occupations, 15% are in sales and related occupations, 9.7% in personal care and service occupations, 6.5% in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, 6.8% in transportation and material moving occupations and 6.4% in office and administrative support occupations. (Note that the largest sector that is below minimum wage is in food preparation and serving related occupations, with 16.5% of all workers who make minimum or less.) The average age of fast-food workers is 29 and more than a fourth are raising children. 64% of those making the minimum wage are women. Raising Minimum Wage Boosts Economy The minimum wage was first enacted because economists understood that a wage floor is a floor for the economy. (This is why trade agreements that undermined wages and broke unions have undermined the middle class and led to the slow economy we have today.) Raising the minimum wage boosts the economy and does not \"cost jobs.\" A 2011 Chicago Federal Reserve Bank study looked at 23 years of household spending data and found that increasing the minimum wage raises other incomes, and that every dollar of hourly wage increase for a minimum wage worker results in $2,800 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year. President Obama has endorsed raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and indexing it to inflation. Monday Economist Paul Krugman wrote about the effect this would have, in Better Pay Now, Early this year the Economic Policy Institute estimated that an increase in the national minimum wage to $10.10 from its current $7.25 would benefit 30 million workers. Most would benefit directly, because they are currently earning less than $10.10 an hour, but others would benefit indirectly, because their pay is in effect pegged to the minimum \" for example, fast-food store managers who are paid slightly (but only slightly) more than the workers they manage. Raising Minimum Wage Cuts Safety Net Spending On November 1 the country went over the \"Hunger Cliff\" as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) \" commonly known as \"Food Stamps\" \" was severely cut, leaving millions of Americans in desperate straits and local food pantries overwhelmed. House Republicans currently are trying to cut the program by another $39 billion. (Senate Democrats voted to cut it by \"only\" another $4 billion.) Raising the minimum wage is a better way to cut spending on assistance programs because higher wages cut the need for assistance such as Food Stamps. Raising the minimum wage increases other wages as well, for example low-paid supervisors of minimum-wage employees would receive a boost as well. So it is not just the minimum-wage employees who benefit and who need less assistance. Currently 52% of fast-food workers get aid from public programs like food stamps. Raising the minimum wage cuts this need. And cutting the need cuts the cost of these programs. According to the National Employment Law Project, \"Low wages and lack of benefits at the 10 largest fast-food companies in the United States cost taxpayers an estimated $3.8 billion per year. McDonald\"s alone costs taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion each year.\" A Berkeley Labor Center study, Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public cost of low-wage Jobs in the fast-food industry says \"the cost of public assistance to families of workers in the fast-food industry is nearly $7 billion per year.\" and \"Due to low earnings, fast-food workers\" families \" receive an annual average of $1.04 billion in food stamp benefits.\" That $7 billion \" $1 billion of that for Food Stamps \" is spent helping just the workers in the fast-food industry. Fast-food workers are just some of the \"food preparation and serving related\" occupation that is 44% of workers making the minimum wage or less. Again, we spend $7 billion on government assistance helping people just in the fast-food industry because they are paid so little. They are just some of the workers making minimum wage, which means $7 billion is just some of the spending we could cut if we just paid them more. If minimum wage workers receives a raise, and that increase ripples up through the ever-growing low-wage end of our economy, the need for government assistance will decrease and therefore so will the spending on the programs. The right way to cut spending on assistance for Americans is to decrease the need for that assistance, not decrease assistance for those in need. Don\"t cut programs for the people who need them, cut those people\"s need for the programs. It\"s the right thing to do and it also makes money sense.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e3b9f8b-2019-04-18T16:33:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.770028829574585}, {"content": "Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.", "qid": 39, "docid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7690461277961731}, {"content": "Title: Labor Regulations Content: While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a \"living wage,\" increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.", "qid": 39, "docid": "40f0bed0-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.768929123878479}, {"content": "Title: DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage Content: Jumping right in: \"Naturally, if the cost of living is higher in a certain area, businesses will have to offer higher wages if they want to hire anyone\" A lot of minimum wage workers simply receive extra money off of welfare form the government because they can't afford to live by just a minimum wage alone: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Your idea may sound good in theory, but in reality, minimum wage workers sometimes just have no choice and are forced to live in poverty with very little to no room for anything other than bare essentials. \"If there were no minimum wage, employment rates would rise, and the employed would send their money right back to businesses, stimulating the economy even more\" No evidence is given to demonstrate that it'd be more money, and I already demonstrated how businesses would not be inclined to fire people in my opening round. My opponent just makes bare assertions again. \"In this case, increased consumer spending is a bad thing, because it occurs due to higher prices, which are harmful to lower income people such as those on minimum wage\" There's a distinction between federal and state minimum wages... In addition many businesses would not raise prices in order to stay competitive. My opponent also neglects the fact that workers can afford to buy more which in time offsets these costs. \"Workers who really need a living wage would most likely not have a minimum wage job. Besides, welfare should be abolished, so the government doesn't need to spend that money to begin with\" This is refuted both by http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... And the fact that it's a bare assertion on both points raised. \"\"Many companies simply pocket the money and increase the salary of CEO's rather than employing more workers.\" Evidence?\" The fact that some CEO's make tens of millions of dollars any ally shows they could have put a bit more effort into increasing their workers wages... \"People on minimum wage jobs rarely have to support a family. The vast majority of them are just trying to make a little extra money\" Actually 73% of US welfare expenditures go to workers with insufficient wages: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... A minimum wage increase would decrease the amount of money we would spend on welfare as a result. \"As for your statistics, only 28% of those people have children. Most of those are probably people with spouses who support their family with a different job. You need more statistics than that if you're going to try to refute the fact that minimum wage workers don't need a living wage\" Again, I already demonstrated that people are suffering from underpayment. The vast majority of those people are adults. My opponent's myths about \"extra spending money\" are completely refuted by these facts that he's neglected to refute this entire debate. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Thanks. In conclusion my points were not met with much evidence and my opponent made multiple logical fallacies over the course of this debate. Thank you.", "qid": 39, "docid": "bd8467d7-2019-04-18T12:53:07Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7681049108505249}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: The value of the minimum wage has dipped drastically, for it hasn't been revised for over six years. However, since then, the prices of many staple goods have skyrocketed; the price of apples went up 16%, bacon 67%, cheddar cheese 21%, coffee 27%, ground beef 39%, and milk 21%. Minimum wage is just an ideal number, it is not a job. It regulates the lowest employers can pay their workers, and many businesses, such as Walmart, has begun paying their employees $10 an hour. Walmart recognizes what a minuscule increase that would be, and went forward to step up their minimum wages. People do not plainly decide if they want the six-figure job, or the minimum wage position. It is years and years of cultivation from parents, peers, and generally everyone around where they were brought up. If a child matured in years of poverty, chances are he/she has never seen a position higher than a fast-food restaurant. The Constitution guarantees \"Life, Liberty, and Happiness\", and two of those unalienable rights has to do with starting a family. Also it is completely untrue that only teens and young adults depend on minimum wages. Raising the minimum wage to $10 would impact over 15 million workers. 4.7 million working moms \"would get a raise if we raise it to $10.10.\" As would 2.6 million working dads for a total of 7 million parents. The minimum wage has been elevated a copious amount of times in the past, and in \"more than half of those instances the unemployment rate actually fell. Over 600 economists signed a letter agreeing that a minimum wage increase doesn\"t hurt job creation.\" Minimum wage has already been raised 23 times. Every time it was raised it was opposed by some few who said \"it is going to lose jobs and wreck the economy\" which is factually untrue as study after study has proven. The argument for whether raising minimum wage will decimate small businesses is entirely false. 60% of small businesses argued that their businesses would benefit if we raised the minimum wage. The other 40% can be categorized by this statement Franklin D. Roosevelt said, \"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.\" Which brings me to my next point, which is the fact of how minimum wage is below poverty line in this country. If America simply raises its minimum wage to $10.10, it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. For full time workers earning the federal minimum wage, this bump would give them a raise of over $4,000 dollars \" enough to take a family of three out of poverty. You claim that, \"These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit.\" Unproven, for the cost of a $16 CD at Walmart would increase by simply one penny, if minimum wage was raised to $10.10. Almost 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940), the Supreme Court found that, although the Constitution does not expressly give Congress authority to mandate a federal minimum wage, the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of \"authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.\" The Court found that based on Congress\"s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional. You say that Americans who live in poverty do not work, not entirely true. However, what is true is the fact that the food stamps program would immensely benefit with a minimum wage raise. By raising the minimum wage to $10.10, it would help 3.5 million Americans get off food stamps. Furthermore, teenagers are not the large factor in minimum wage work. A study finds that half of Americans earning under $10.10 an hour are forced to support themselves on that as their primary source of income. Earning $10.10 an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, produces a yearly gross income of $21,008. You said, \"The most you can make (household) to get accepted is 60,000\". Assume there are two parents working, that is still below the criteria for many of the government assistances provided. And if a family is earning around $40,000 a year, there is no reason they should be on welfare. Also, one last note, the average CEO makes 933 times as much as his employees. If the CEO doesn't buy his fifth vacation home in the Bahamas, perhaps his workers can afford bread for his children. Plus, those employees will in turn spend their money on company goods, and both the CEO and employee will benefit. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.alternet.org...", "qid": 39, "docid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7679653763771057}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: In ROUND 2 my opponent states that projections by the congressional budget office (CBO) for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 indicate that 500,000 jobs will be lost by 2016, when the final increase of the federal minimum wage is to be implemented under one of the President's plans. This is in fact what the CBO is projecting, though the CBO is also projecting an immediate increase of $2 billion to the nation's GDP (with an increase of $19 billion in pre-tax income among low wage earners); the CBO is also projecting that 900,000 people will be lifted above the poverty threshold (out of poverty) [1].These would be the immediate effects as of 2016, if the President's plan were to be approved by congress and turned into law. The CBO projects an additional $2 billion will be added to the nation's economy, because of such a plan, and that 900,000 will be lifted out of poverty; it also projects that roughly 500,000 jobs will immediately be lost [1]. However, the picture for long-term employment because of this proposed minimum wage hike looks far more positive, as do the financial gains to the economy once the minimum wage hike has been enacted. A study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that raising the federal minimum to $10.10 (in the precise steps offered by the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013) would generate $30 billion in new economic activity and lead to the creation of 140,000 new full-time jobs [2]; this is identical to the position of numerous economic research organizations and the White House [9]. Furthermore, to discount my opponent's contention that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and the economy, numerous studies, including several by the U.S. government's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the Universities of California-Berkeley, Massachussetts-Amherst, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and a survey by the University of Chicago show that raises in the federal minimum wage have in fact positively impacted the economy and have no measurable negative effect on employment [3][4][5][6]; the opposite effect on employment has frequently been true [7][8].An often-cited 2006 study found that states with a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage had faster retail and small business job growth [8]!My opponent also claims that a proposed raise in the federal minimum wage will hurt working teenagers, but a two-decade wide study of previous federal minimum wage increases by U.C.-Berkeley have found that this fear is completely unfounded [11].Now, there is a plethora of data by government agencies, universities, and economic research organizations that show increases to the federal minimum wage have mostly expanded the U.S. economy and GDP, while either not negatively impacting the employment numbers or driving them up because of increased sales and business growth. I will cover the numbers and go over various studies in ROUND 4. This is also well understood in the business community. A 2012 study by MIT professor Zeynop Ton documents how major businesses like Trader Joe's and Costco benefit from higher sales revenue and profits than their low-wage competitors by investing in their employees, which reduces turnover and boost productivity [11]. For example, the starting wage at Trader Joe\u2019s ranges between $40,000 and $60,000 per year, more than twice what many of its competitors offer, and yet the sales revenue per square foot at Trader Joe\u2019s are three times higher than the average U.S. supermarket [11].As Costco CEO Craig Jelinek has stated: \"We pay a starting hourly wage of $11.50 in all states where we do business, and we are still able to keep our overhead costs low. An important reason for the success of [our business model is that] we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity....We support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage\" [12].85% of small businesses are on the same page with Craig Jelinek as they already pay wages higher than the minimum [13].So why do some business executives, managers and political partisans push to keep the federal minimum wage low? Because some individuals don't care about providing for workers and effectively, honestly managing a business--they care exclusively about personal income, no matter who gets hurts and stuck with the bill they should be paying. And America does pay for this kind of negligence...as we shall see.Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the \"poverty threshold\" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [14][15]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the \"povery guidelines\" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as \"living in poverty\". The \"poverty guidelines\" are in actuality simplified versions of the \"poverty thresholds\" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [15]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as \"living in poverty\", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [18].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [14]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [14]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [14].The congressional budget office (CBO)--a source my opponent happily cites--projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [1]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn\u2019t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [18].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [9]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [9].[1] Source 1, Round 2[2] http://www.epi.org...;[3] http://www.dol.gov...;[4] http://www.cepr.net...;[5] https://escholarship.org...[6] http://www.igmchicago.org...;[7] http://blogs.wsj.com...;[8] http://fiscalpolicy.org...;[9] Source 5, Round 2[10] http://escholarship.org...;[11] http://hbr.org...;[12] http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org...[13] http://www.epi.org...;(Source 4, Round 2)[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...[15] http://aspe.hhs.gov...;[16] http://www.worldhunger.org...;[17] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...;[18] http://www.epi.org...http://www.epi.org...;(Source 3, Round 2)http://www.bls.gov...;(Source 6, Round 2)", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7677954435348511}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Raise Content: I am against a raise in the minimum wage for a few reasons. 1. A minimum wage would force many jobs to be lost. Say for example, if there was a $15 minimum wage, then I will use Dunder Mifflin Paper as an example. They have 15 employees in one branch and they all get paid, say $9/hr. Dunder Mifflin is breaking even and doing ok. But, now that the federal government has stepped in and raised the minimum wage to $15/hr, Dunder Mifflin has had to fire people due to the higher wages. Now Dunder Mifflin can only have 6 people at a branch in order to keep themselves open. Many people lose jobs. 2. If the company is already going to go bankrupt, they will inevitably lose the business, and everybody will lose their job at that business. 3. Net Profit will eventually get lower and lower, for the highly successful businesses. Now let's pretend Dunder Mifflin is a huge national corporation. They now have branches in every state in the US. Now that Bernie's policies have taken place, they have to close down many of their branches, and fire many people. Profit would have drown due to having to pay every employee $6 more an hour. Let's see how much more a year. If Dunder Mifflin had 250 branches, each with 17 employees on average, $15 an hour, with an 8-5 job, with 345 days a year. That would be $135 a day for one employee, $675 a week per employee, and $46980 a year. Let's multiply that times 17, for the employees at the branch. $798,660 a year for one branches employees. Let's see the stats for the former $9/hour. $81 a day, $405 a week, $28107 a year. Now that sounds like a much better wage for a customer service agent or a salesman. It's $477,819 a year per branch. Let's multiply that by 250 branches. $119,450,750 for all of the employees salaries. On a $15/hr salary? $199,665,000. That's an $80 million difference. I don't think any company would want to lose $80 million. These are my main reasons why an increase in the minimum wage would highly affect our economy.", "qid": 39, "docid": "24156517-2019-04-18T13:22:21Z-00008-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7673957347869873}, {"content": "Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: Hello kkkkatie126, thank you for starting this debate. I look forward to an interesting and educational discussion (I accept this debate). I assume we will use the conventional definitions of terms such as minimum wage. I will not argue that raising the minimum wage is compete nonsense. What I am going to prove is that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour will bring more harm than good. Throughout this debate, I will show significant disadvantages to a national minimum wage hike. These numerous disadvantages will outweigh any potential benefits. I await your arguments in the next round.", "qid": 39, "docid": "93fbabb6-2019-04-18T12:38:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7670588493347168}, {"content": "Title: The minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hr for fast food workers Content: MY TURN! C1: The Resolution is a Minor Concession by my Opponent Roy is advocating to that it ought to not increase. This must mean that my opponent concedes that there are benefits of the MW in the first place. If my opponent thought that the MW was more harmful than beneficial, he would have advocated for it's complete abolishment. Otherwise, there is at least some reason to keep minimum wage (MW). C2: The Role of the Government is Not a Factor Here I would like to point out that this debate revolves around the evaluation of a policy. The question is not what the government's role ought to be. The topic of this debate must assume that the government is already involved, and the question of this debate is whether it has been economically beneficial or not. Therefore, my opponents entire 4th point concerning welfare is completely irrelevant. Besides, MW and welfare are different. To justify keeping MW the same, he must in fact show the effects of this on the whole economy. When my opponent reverts to microeconomics to try and justify his position, this is null-and-void. Turn: Without raising MW, the costs to the state is substantial: we lose tax revenue, more people go on welfare programs, some look to the \u201cshadow economy\u201d and begin to commit crimes, etc... So by taking the position my opponent has maintained, he is actually making those dependant on the state worse off by opposing MW, instead of saving money by increasing wages. Besides, my opponent completely forgets that if MW increases, people will be encouraged to find a job through legal means. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] C3: MW Hasn't Been Abolished Due to it's Effectiveness Thought experiment: MW enters the US in about the 1930's under FDR's New Deal. Since then, the MW legislation has been increased in the US alone 22 times. Unless it was beneficial to the people, politicians, and businesses, then why has it not been abolished? In fact, why has it been furthered even surpassing federal levels in some states? Heck, why is it that in some parts of South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a MW is simply customary? The answer is simple: MW legislation simply works. Well over 90% of the world has some form of a MW legislation, so there\u2019s lots of data for us to analyze. [http://tinyurl.com...] C4: MW Improves the Gini Coefficient Pretty self-explanatory: when MW hikes happen, every single index from the Gini Coefficient to Atkinson indexes, or even standard deviation of logarithms, show great improvement for the US. Meaning when MW hikes happen, income mobility is dramatically improved, and ones ability to improve their financial situation from their parents is increased. (\u201cthe American Dream\u201d folks?!)[http://tinyurl.com...] C5: Monopsonistic Competition Unfairly Favour Businesses Imperfect competition has resulted in a buyer being able to unfairly dictate it's terms to the seller (worker) because of the volume of sellers. When competition between sellers ensues, the marginal product of labour (MLP) drops. The seller is producing the same amount of goods, but at a reduced price. As a result when MW increases, employment and wages go up as well. When we ask how much MW should increase, we look to MLP for equilibrium. MW is a legislation that regulates a market failure, not some silly \u201cfree-lunch\u201d handout my opponent dresses it up as. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re1: Labour Costs Are About 25-35% of Fast Food Costs If we were to have a controlled experiment between someone who does pay MW (Walmart) vs paying more (Costco) we find that Costco actually saves money due to less turnover rates in the long run. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re2: Increase Costs Actually Can Come From Revenue, in Fact My Opponent Himself Stated This in His First Paragraph (Price Increases) Senator Elizabeth Warren notes on raising MW, McDonalds would be able to raise their prices about 8 more cents per burger to off-set the increase in labour costs (assuming MW is up to $14.75/hour). Meaning that increase costs can be compensated with additional revenue, my opponent noted this himself. It doesn't make sense to claim that prices will increase, but somehow revenue is lost when prices compensate for those factors. Furthermore, this is NOT counting the fact that most people who make a yearly income of $5,000 or less (students) spend about 6.2% of their income at fast-food chains. This is also not including the fact that increasing MW, as economist Robert Reich notes, only effects industries such as fast food, hospitality chains, and retail. Far more people will actually have more money to spend, furthering productivity, and the amount of money McDonalds gets in return as a result is higher than what my opponent claims. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re3: My Opponent Assumes the Neoclassical Model of Supply and Demand When Claiming Half The Jobs Would Be Lost My opponent is assuming a basic supply and demand model in microeconomics. As OMGJustinBeiber points out: \u201cTo get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision \u2013 [\"Raising minimum wage would costs half the jobs, jobs will be lost to technology\"] -- to make his case. Short of believing this standard we must vote con.\u201d For instance, my opponent notes a completely automated McDonalds in Tokyo, but as much as it makes complete rational sense for every single McDonalds to go this way (saves on labour costs substantially to the investor) they simply have not done it yet even after a MW hike in 2007! Rationally, this is the most illogical thinking I have ever seen if my opponents claim is correct! Meaning that some things demanded, or even supplied have absolutely no rational basis for them, and this assumption of actors always working for their own rational self-interests is nonsense. In fact, in his claim that jobs would be lost, he cites he following study: .Burkhauser, Couch et Wittenburg, \u201cWho Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS\u201d, Southern Economic Journal, 2000. Upon examining the study, it only used 3 points of data constituting a hasty conclusion. Turn: My opponent claims that if MW increases, McDonalds would have incentive to replace workers with technology, costing jobs. However, he actually made a de facto case for minimum wage, as technology is a benefit to the economy not a detriment! Furthermore, this article was made in 2003 as his citation notes. Lets not forget MW at the federal level was increased in 2007, yet this fear of a complete automated McDonalds has yet to appear in the US (to the best of my knowledge). This is an irrational position for my opponent to claim; if my opponent's claim was correct, McDonalds would have already automated everything in every store. [http://tinyurl.com...] studies show that jobs are increased or are unaffected when MW is increased. The studies done by Card and Kruger show this when comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This was after New Jersey hiked their MW in 1992 by 18%. This was repeated using the data from a federal MW hike, and California hike and the findings stayed the same. When we drop the supply and demand model, and actually precisely look at the employment impacts of a MW hike, they either remain unchanging or increase. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re4: Role of the Government (See C2) Conclusion: My opponent displays kettle logic and agreed with me on some points: MW increases technological innovation, businesses would not lose money due to price increases. The monsopolistic society we live in would heavily benefit from a MW increase when we drop the \u201cs/d\u201d generalities, and observe precise impacts via Card and Kruger studies.I did not ask for special treatment! Thank You", "qid": 39, "docid": "9d5a13c2-2019-04-18T17:09:54Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7658453583717346}, {"content": "Title: Raise Minimum Wage Content: First of all, I will change my argument to raise it to $10.10 instead of $16.97, suddenly changing it to $16.97 is too drastic -baby steps are necessary. 1.Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage would exceed value of work \u201cThese workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system.\u201d Did you make that up? According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research(CEPR), the productivity of those earning minimum wage(economic value of their work) has actually exceeded the amount being paid. You can view the statistics here: http://www.cepr.net... \u201c . . . consider this: If the minimum wage had simply tracked US productivity gains since 1986, it would be $21.72 an hour --three times what it is now.\u201d - billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer. 2. Rebuttal Against:> Get Education, do not beg government \u201cConsider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.\u201d Unless there is adequate public generosity and or government assistance, he would not be able to afford to attend the education to get a degree without an increase of the minimum wage. Remember, as I had said earlier(derived from the Huffington Post), $7.25 an hour is barely enough to afford life\u2019s necessities, even when being dependent on government assistance while living in the cheapest county in the US. 3. Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage Increase Does Not Reduce Poverty \u201cPro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening.\u201d It will(as a theory that 600 professional economists, seven of them Nobel prize winners, agreed on when signing a petition), however there is no historical evidence that make it a clear fact that the minimum wage is to blame for economic downs or solely responsible for instances of poverty reduction -I admit. \u201cEconomists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1] [1]http://www.heritage.org......\u201d That economist\u2019s* claim is only supported by one reason: job loss. See why it is one not three: \u201cFirst, the only workers who benefit from a higher minimum wage are those who actually earn that higher wage. Raising the minimum wage reduces many workers' job opportunities and working hours. Second, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households. Third, the majority of poor Americans do not work at all, for any wage, so raising the minimum wage does not help them. The Minimum Wage Does Not Reduce poverty\u201d Those second and third claims do not support the core claim that \u201cit would not reduce poverty\u201d, but of possibly \u201chaving little impact\u201d. By the way, little positive impact is better than none. See the full argument that will handle multiple rebuttals below(busting the job loss myth): Rebuttal Against:> Job Loss///(Will serve as support for the argument above and the argument below) \u201cClearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment.\u201d It is not that simple. Your methodology is true, but is not true for the long term. In the long run, jobs would come back and the economy would flourish. The key reason why job loss will not be lingering for the long run nor continue to plague the economy, is that raising the minimum wage would then stimulate spending, hence, stimulating the economy, thus creating even more jobs, which pushes wages even higher. According to the Department of Labor, it would expand the economy by $220 billion. This is not a theory; it is an economic law, that when more money is added to peoples\u2019 pockets, they spend more, which in return, propels; markets, business expansion, and wages. According to the Congressional Budget Office, half a million-1 million jobs will be lost if the minimum wage were raised. However, the earnings would lift many people above the federal poverty line. This research is highly reliable, but shallow due to its projections not covering a large span of time in which the act of raising the minimum wage would replenish those jobs due to an influx of spending and create even more. \u201cA review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.\u201d -Department of Labor Nick Hanauer strongly advocates the same concept: \u201cRaising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production, and hiring. Studies by the Economic Policy Institute show that a $15 minimum wage would directly affect 51 million workers and indirectly benefit an additional 30 million. That\u2019s 81 million people, or about 64% of the workforce, and their families who would be more able to buy cars, clothing and food from our nation\u2019s businesses. This virtuous cycle effect is described in the research of economists David Card and Alan Krueger(the current chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) showing that, contrary to conventional economic orthodoxy, increases in the minimum wage increase employment. In 60% of the states that raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment, job growth was faster than the national average. Some business people oppose an increase in the minimum wage as needless government interference in the workings of the market. In fact, a big increase would substantially reduce government intervention and dependency on public assistance programs.\u201d Also, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, states who raised the minimum wage faced significant job growth based on 2014 analysis. http://www.cepr.net... This source is far more reliable than your source of contradictory information since the American Action Forum(a source used by that Daily Caller article) is moderately right winged(and free market advocates) and 3 out of 8 of their economics experts have a PhD in economics while CEPR is nonpartisan and all 5 of its economics experts have a PhD in economics. Additional Notes: Focusing more of the wealth towards people who would spend it faster makes the economy grow faster, instead of focusing it on those who already possess large amounts of it. The presidents of the US who have used this concept in their economic strategies have performed very well. The Democrat presidents adopted this strategy the most while most of the Republicans placed businesses first, which explains why the top three presidents who scored best at maintaining good financial health of the overall economy were Democrats and the worst three were all Republicans. s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt=\"CH2_FHP\" width=\"624px;\" height=\"277px;\" /> This graph was made by the economist writers and analysts Bob Deitrick(financial planner, entrepreneur, and professor) and Lew Goldfarb(CPA, business lawyer, law professor, and entrepreneur). Their book, Bulls, Bears, and the Ballot Box, informs us that that economic strategy has been solely responsible for economic prosperity. Hence, the myth that Republicans are best at promoting business growth, is false -a common lie spread by today\u2019s media, which are owned by the plutocrat Rupert Murdoch. Additional Notes: \u201cThis is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more.\u201d I never said that -you put words in my mouth- I said that minimum wage workers would still be inclined to move up the financial ladder even if you raised their wages to $16.97 -dissatisfaction with their lifestyle would still exist because they cannot afford middle class entertainment. See: \u201cA budget of $15k a year($7.25 an hr) is extremely tight, while requiring government assistance and public generosity(services such as soup kitchens and church feasts, where meals are free) in order to afford cheap costs of living. Raising it to $21k per year($10.10 an hour), would still not allow the minimum wage earner to afford any cheap forms of luxury -the incentive to get a better job in order to afford more things would still exist and would not decay,\u201d -me. \u201cWe must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not.\u201d It is irrational to judge impact based on the appearance of a number that seems meager. Raising the minimum wage will positively impact the economy(which includes businesses) in the long run even if less than 5% of workers earn minimum wage.", "qid": 39, "docid": "e92323d6-2019-04-18T15:10:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7658432722091675}, {"content": "Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Notice the terminology the CBO is using... $30.bn in new economic activity. They aren't claiming it will create enhanced quality of life- or that it will result in new spending in the economy just that it will create \" New economic activity.\" Let me show you why this is smoke and mirrors. http://finance.yahoo.com... Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to stop this behavior in corporate America...and it is the behavioral science that undoes your argument on the spot. Now, in round 2 I endeavored to explain to you that the government is in fact-in bed with big financial. Its not a conspiracy as we use the term in modern days, its corruption. That corruption is extremely relevant to this argument- this move to raise the minimum wage is a mechanism of alleviating inflationary pressures... you seem to have taken that point out of its actual context in this debate. I will apologize to pro formally, private matters have restricted my time and the amount of energy to allocate into debates how ever I believe I have sufficiently made the case for this debate that 10.10 minimum wage will NOT benefit the average person and the ones who come out on top will in the end be the big-financial sector- very much in collusion with the Federal government especially our current administration. The current admisnitration is no more-or-less corrupt than the former. Pro, feel free to send me a direct challenge any time you like. Thank you for the debate.", "qid": 39, "docid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7657937407493591}, {"content": "Title: Minimum Wage Content: As my opponent has failed to realize that if you raise the minimum wage everything else will go up in price. As I have said earlier in my second round. So you might as well keep the wage at a minimum. My opponent mentioned is his argument that not all wages should be raised. Well with the wages everything is supposed to be raised evenly. (Well, the manager or the owner gets to decide how much he can afford to pay his workers) You got to take in consideration that it also takes money to train you. This is not on who is better and who is not. For instance, a McDonald\"s worker gets the same wage an hour as someone who is working at Kroger. It\"s two different environment working facilities, but still get paid the same an hour. As me being a Conservative, I would like to point out that I do not want higher taxes and having to pay $5.00 for a burger at McDonalds. Also there would not be a value meal either for people who can\"t afford $5.00 burgers. Some wages are different in pay. For instance, you come from college with a degree, you will get a higher pay. Also minimum wage job is a job just to get you started, not to be your livelihood. Thank you dear friend for debating me in this debate. I will say this right now, everybody who votes please vote fair and honestly. Thank you once again. Check this website please voters. It's long I know but it shows the different wages in the US. http://www.dol.gov...", "qid": 39, "docid": "b2b9a713-2019-04-18T17:12:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.765701949596405}, {"content": "Title: Raise Minimum Wage Content: Thanks, Pro.R1) Life NecessitiesOn the surface, this argument may seem like a good one. However, there are many problems that are tied to it and really no evidence that raising the minimum wage will actually help this cause, only theoretical assumptions. The reason some workers receive the minimum wage as pay is because their contribution to the labor market is the smallest possible to be recognized as something worth paying for. The money paid to a McDonald's worker represents precisely the value that they are adding to the economy. Suddenly doubling their wages for doing the exact same amount of work before and after creates an imbalance in society. These workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system. Consider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.Pro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening. As the challenger of the status quo, Pro must demonstrate that raising the minimum wage will benefit society, not just in theory, or else there is no reason to change the status quo. Economists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1]. This makes sense, because few minimum wage earners are actually poor. In fact, the average minimum wage earner has a family income of $50,000 per year, with less than one-fifth at or below the poverty line[1].To add, the cost of living varies from state to state, so if the federal minimum wage were to be increased, it would create an unfair situation for many states as they would be forced to comply to the increase regardless of whether their cost of living is cheap or expensive.R2) IncentiveThis is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more. By raising the wage, a worker would think \"since I'm earning enough now then I don't see a point in working to earn more\". This is a burden for not only businesses but the economy as well because less good jobs are being taken, and less money is being pumped into the system. This issue is also important because the majority of minimum wage earners are between the ages 16 and 24[2], so they are at a critical point of choosing their jobs and decided whether they want to receive more education or not.R3) EmploymentMy opponent's proposal to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $16.97 would be detrimental for many companies because it would force them to pay their employees over double the amount they were originally being paid. Clearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment. We must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not. That makes the opinions of many businesses irrelevant to this issue.Pro concedes that unemployment would increase due to a higher wage. Since it would mainly affect the 4.7% of minimum wage workers, the unemployment rates would not seem big in comparison to the rest of workers. However, the unemployment rates would have a much more drastic effect if we focused on those workers, the workers that matter, alone. Job rates would significantly decrease for them. As I showed in Round 1, there is higher unemployment in states with higher minimum wages.Additional NotesPro makes a few other assertions that are not backed up by evidence, such as \"increasing the wage provides benefits\" and \"not increasing it creates a burden on the taxpayer\". How exactly? These assumptions can be logically dismissed since they were randomly inserted into the argument without actual evidence.My final point: If the minimum wage were to be increased from $7.25 to $16.97, that would negatively affect workers who were earning above the original wage, like those earning $12 an hour. Does this mean that they will now be paid the exact same as original $7.25 workers who are doing less work than the higher $12 earners? This will create an unfair situation for workers earning between the original federal wage and Pro's proposed increase.Sources[1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.heritage.org...[3] http://www.bls.gov...", "qid": 39, "docid": "e92323d6-2019-04-18T15:10:51Z-00002-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7655040621757507}, {"content": "Title: SHOULD THE BE A MINIMUM WAGE Content: I look forward to a good debate. I will respect your request to limit our discussion to the United States, although my arguments will apply in any case given; however, one good turn deserves another, so I ask that my opponent, liberty, limit his arguments to reality. Affirmed: There should be a minimum wage. \"[F]irst of all minimum wage cost[s] many jobs to the economy and workers of it especially the lower qualified ones. \" -Minimum wage exists in its common form as a way of protection for workers - especially the least qualified. It is in place as a shield from exploitation by employers. \"Also, most people who work for minimum wage are student and workers in training e. t. c and do it just to tell potential interviewers that they indeed have work experience, so evidently most of them intend to achieve more. .. \" -Certainly, many minimum-wagers are students or other young people, but certainly many are not. Without a given amount of innate intelligence, education, opportunity, and subsequently specialized skills - the state that many are in - minimum wage, with possible raises through the years, is the only kind of payment from legal work that they can expect throughout their lives. You also miss one of the primary, if not THE PRIME, reasons for any wage-labour in the first place: making money in order to survive, and beyond survival it is merely as matter of buying crap that you really don't need, which is of course produced by the employer of the wage-earner. From personal experience, I can say that I did not work as a host at Red Lobster when I was 16 (this was when they had those horrible fish shirts) to put it on my future resume - I did it for money. I personally intended to achieve more, as you say, but this isn't the case for myriad persons. \". .. the more the minimum wage rises the fewer of these people can be afforded to be hired by employers. \" -False. Inflation outpaces the rise in minimum wage by football fields at a time. By the time minimum wage catches up, Employer X has made more than enough profit to offset this. I am not familiar with any cases of a minimum-wage labourer being either fired or not hired because the current rate of minimum wage was raised. Until recently, the minimum wage was set at $5.25 an hour. At 40 hours a week, this comes to $840.00 a month before taxes. So if a person were single, they are still below the poverty line even though they work full-time. I infer that most employers, according to you, would start labourers below this mark, as it is the cost that is the issue of primacy here. Certainly, they could hire more workers. .. that work for less than it takes to live, the purpose of working. Unemployment would be at an all-time low, but poverty would be at an all-time high. Interesting. .. \"Additionally getting rid of minimum wage will eventually lower prices of every day products because of the lower cost for in training workers, so both the managers, the lower qualified worker (who otherwise would be unemployed) and the [consumer] gain. \" -I doubt it. In any case, unfortunately, by the time that lower prices \"eventually\" came into sight, the gap between rich and poor would be a true chasm, and half of the new workers that were hired would be either homeless because they can't afford even the cheapest of rent or dead from starvation because they can't afford food. Civil strife would erupt, etc. 1. Why there should be a minimum wage: We tyrants, tycoons, captains of industry, CEO's, presidents, moguls, barons, dukes, princes, and other excellent and successful people should give the little people SOMETHING - at least enough so that we won't go to the guillotine. Understand that we do not OWE them anything, but it is in our own self-interest to give them enough bread and pocket change to distract them from their unimportant and, for the most part, useless (their only true use is to generate profit for us) lives. 2. Why there MUST be a minimum wage: Even if the minimum wage were set at $0.005 (two zeros on purpose), it MUST exist. Otherwise, employers could pay workers absolutely nothing, and they would be slaves or serfs. Back to you, liberty Britt", "qid": 39, "docid": "4ee8b8f7-2019-04-18T19:40:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7646667957305908}]}
{"query": "Should the death penalty be allowed?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: death penalty Content: should the death penalty be allowed?", "qid": 40, "docid": "75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9999998807907104}, {"content": "Title: Debater's Choice Content: Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,", "qid": 40, "docid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00006-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8343895673751831}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be allowed for drugs Content: unless someone has done something terrible like mass killing then the death penalty should be allowed. not for doing drugs or selling them.", "qid": 40, "docid": "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8273377418518066}, {"content": "Title: should death penitently stay Content: The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.", "qid": 40, "docid": "bf8e76ff-2019-04-18T11:53:03Z-00003-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8257477283477783}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4d5a3-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8253700733184814}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be allowed Content: I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8226305842399597}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I will show try to show why the Death Penalty should not be allowed in the United States. My opponent will try to show why the Death Penalty should be allowed in the United States.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed87542a-2019-04-18T16:41:26Z-00004-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8207671642303467}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Resolution: The death penalty should never be allowed as a form of punishment. capital punishment \u2013noun punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490cfc2-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8200156688690186}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Do you think that the Death penalty should be legal everywhere?", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490c4dc-2019-04-18T19:19:49Z-00004-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8193010091781616}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be band Content: If I understand correctly, I am arguing that the death penalty should be banned. If this is incorrect, just argue your position and I'll argue the opposition.", "qid": 40, "docid": "76c34200-2019-04-18T17:28:51Z-00001-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8184214234352112}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I accept your challenge. I would love to take the other side of the argument as I do consider the death penalty should be given for the guilty. Nonetheless, I love debating, so I shall be defending that the death penalty is not justifiable. Looking forward going against you.", "qid": 40, "docid": "8e5e720-2019-04-18T15:43:37Z-00005-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.8145816326141357}, {"content": "Title: Capital punishment as a form of justice Content: I am putting forward an open debate relating to capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be considered as a form of justice and therefore, should be allowed.", "qid": 40, "docid": "5a704dc-2019-04-18T18:08:35Z-00008-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.8123427629470825}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be allowed Content: The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.", "qid": 40, "docid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00005-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.8083312511444092}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: Do you think the death penalty should be legal even now", "qid": 40, "docid": "41271d1b-2019-04-18T19:19:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.8043688535690308}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should be Illegal Content: I think the death penalty should be illegal. I am very interested in hearing my opponent's argument.", "qid": 40, "docid": "faee85ab-2019-04-18T15:24:43Z-00005-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.8037278652191162}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty legalized in all states Content: The death penalty should be legal in all states across the United States considering some people commit crimes knowing they will get away with it. If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act.", "qid": 40, "docid": "b8b216c7-2019-04-18T18:13:16Z-00006-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.8007903099060059}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Do you think the death penalty should be used in a court of law?", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490cc7d-2019-04-18T18:50:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7967881560325623}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be supported. Content: Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00002-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7943357229232788}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty Content: This is a debate on the Death Penalty. No slurs or bad language, I will let my opponent go first since I am against. Enjoy!", "qid": 40, "docid": "5db6f1c3-2019-04-18T18:06:49Z-00005-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7935546636581421}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: My position as Con will be to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed while Pro will have to argue that it is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is. Pro has to post his opening argument in round 1 and skip his last round.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed87cfae-2019-04-18T11:20:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7930192947387695}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: ~ Intro & Definitions ~ This debate will be focused on whether or not the Death Penalty should be legal. Death Penalty - A sentence of punishment by execution. http://www.answers.com... My arguments will be given in Round 2. My opponent can feel free to argue in Round 1, if (s)he chooses to. I look forward to a good debate.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490c87e-2019-04-18T19:03:46Z-00007-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7930159568786621}, {"content": "Title: should the death penalty be harsher Content: should the death penalty be harsher", "qid": 40, "docid": "b26badf8-2019-04-18T14:17:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7917820811271667}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept and will be arguing the death penalty should not be in place. I have actually never debated this.Good luck to pro :)", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed875f4e-2019-04-18T15:57:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7914162874221802}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: The death penalty should be enforced. I say this because of the harsh manner of crimes committed in some cases. I believe crimes such as Paedophilia and the like should be punishable by death. They are heinous, disgusting and ridiculous.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490d725-2019-04-18T18:29:58Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7906734943389893}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be illegal Content: I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.", "qid": 40, "docid": "7857750e-2019-04-18T18:38:21Z-00004-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7887700796127319}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be banned Content: Hello there Billy! My name is Rahmet, and I am arguing that the death penalty should NOT be banned. Furthermore, I will argue that the death penalty should be limited, and overseen a little more carefully, but not banned. Thank You for letting me accept this debate; I appreciate it. First off, we must note that with the death penalty there is the death row. Death row is the place, often a section of a prison, that houses prisoners awaiting execution. After persons are found guilty of an offense and sentenced to death, they remain on death row during appeal and habeas corpus procedures, and if those are unsuccessful, until execution. In order to be convicted of the death penalty, there are certain boundaries and crimes that must be committed before the idea of jail time or a fine is removed. Since I do not want to list all thirty to fifty crimes that are to be warranted by the death penalty, here is the site where I got my information: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . If you didn't know, the Supreme Court in 1976, heard the Gregg vs Georgia case, where they overruled their previous decision to ban the death penalty. Today, the death penalty is legal in 32 states, including major states like : Virginia, California, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. My opponent states that: \"The occasional mistake is more risky than it's worth.\" Although it is not impossible, the facts behind a person who should have been executed, or was on death row, when said person was innocent is 150. Since 1973, there have been approximately 150 people who have been exonerated from the death penalty because of new evidence, or whatever the case may be. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . In his second argument, my opponent states that \" racial and economic discrimination take part of execution.\" Although, the statistics of many source and his own source would force me to agree with it. I would like to say that the racial and economic conditions of the defendant does not matter. It matters on the bias of the judge(if any), the jury(which will allows by there based on past experiences, culture, etc), and the media(because they stick their nose in everything and many times manipulate the facts). However, I have a statistic from 2000-2010, that states that a racially biased number of executions has not occurred; 317 (57.5%) people were white, 180 people (32.6%) were black, 45 (8.2%) people were Latino, 6 people (1.1%) were Native American, 1 person (.2%) was Asian, and two people were listed as \"other.\" - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com.... However, one must also look at the number of death sentences through the year of 1976 to present year. To this day, with the exception of 2007, the number of death sentences has decreased substantially; but also the number of actual executions has also dropped, in the recent years. Furthermore, I would like to state even with the amount of different barriers, the US Justice System has to defend those accused with the death penalty; there should be other barriers to prevent what my opponent states as innocent deaths by the state. Thank You Billy for your time! I am looking froward to continuing this! :)", "qid": 40, "docid": "7220f276-2019-04-18T15:13:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7878851294517517}, {"content": "Title: Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes. Content: In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.", "qid": 40, "docid": "780a0341-2019-04-18T16:17:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7874968647956848}, {"content": "Title: Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia Content: The Death Penalty should be allowed anywhere, where justice is due to those who have committed heinous crimes, mainly Murder in the First Degree, IE with a pre-meditated intention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... But I don't see why you think Australia should not get the Death penalty, compared to any other country in the world. The BOP is on my opponent, so I will assume the debate will begin in R2. Good luck.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7866158485412598}, {"content": "Title: should there be death penalties and if so how should you kill that person Content: should there be death penalties? yes I do partially believe there should be death penalties but only for horrible crimes. I believe that if there is a death penalty, the person should be killed by an injection, this is because of many reasons. 1) if we use a shocking chair, it uses up a lot of power. 2) it is less expensive. 3) it is a natural ay of dying instead of being shocked, starved, or what ever else they do to people, but back to the death penalties. if people do something horrible like kill multiple people then they should get one if there was no reason. But, if there was a good excuse i.e. if one feared his own life or the stand your ground law, then no death penalty should be sentenced, but if lied about or not good enough, one should be stated", "qid": 40, "docid": "67db7502-2019-04-18T16:37:19Z-00004-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.786363422870636}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be banned in the U.S Content: I will be arguing for the ban of the death penalty. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) That you must clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time,- Faust", "qid": 40, "docid": "40a94900-2019-04-18T12:33:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7858670949935913}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment Content: I would like to see my opponent try to prove points/facts on why the death penalty is NOT acceptable in America. Good luck!", "qid": 40, "docid": "23408ce3-2019-04-18T19:20:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.785415530204773}, {"content": "Title: You slice the Cake, I pick the first piece. Content: The resolution of this debate shall be, \"The death penalty is morally acceptable. \" If my opponent does not wish to debate this subject, I shall advise him to simply make a new resolution for the debate and just start it off from there.", "qid": 40, "docid": "4a5fb04d-2019-04-18T19:23:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7850995063781738}, {"content": "Title: Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used Content: I gladly accept this debate and will be representing that the Death penalty should be used. Thank you Torquedork for starting this debate, may the winner of this debate go on to win the Novice Tournament.http://www.debate.org...;", "qid": 40, "docid": "4351e29e-2019-04-18T16:48:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7850565910339355}, {"content": "Title: death penalty Content: Hi. I'm assuming this is just an acceptance round. I support the death penalty's existence for extreme crimes. Good luck con.", "qid": 40, "docid": "75f8bc67-2019-04-18T11:32:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7849013805389404}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should not be outlawed Content: The opponent must simply argue that the death penalty should be outlawed. I will defend that it should not be outlawed.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ecf66d5c-2019-04-18T12:46:06Z-00002-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7846041917800903}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed87c126-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00005-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7844029664993286}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: I think death penalty should be approved in every single prision that exists in the world. Criminals need to pay for what they did, and also they need to be punished, because the crime they are acused of is something that is very serious.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e3bbfc0b-2019-04-18T16:55:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7842983603477478}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: I believe that the death penalty should be legal in every state. First, people that are crazy enough to commit murder shouldn't be in jail or on the streets. The criminal serving in jail will be their for life. Do you really want taxpayer's money going towards keeping some scum bag alive. I am completely for the death penalty. Good luck to you.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e3bc12cf-2019-04-18T15:17:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7836654782295227}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I think the Death Penalty should not be used** I accept. Good Luck!", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed875b8d-2019-04-18T16:09:51Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7833548188209534}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Resolution: The Death Penalty should remain a sentencing option in the United States. First Round will be for Acceptance. If there are any questions, please ask them before joining.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed875b8d-2019-04-18T16:09:51Z-00007-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7826934456825256}, {"content": "Title: Death Penatly Content: Death Penalty . should legal in all 50 States i will let my opponent have the opening argument.", "qid": 40, "docid": "4c537a7c-2019-04-18T19:22:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7825376987457275}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be band Content: The death penalty should be banned.", "qid": 40, "docid": "76c34200-2019-04-18T17:28:51Z-00000-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7799393534660339}, {"content": "Title: The United States should abolish the Death Penalty. Content: Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.", "qid": 40, "docid": "aafab678-2019-04-18T13:08:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7792651653289795}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I'll accept the challenge on the death penalty. I will now state why I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be brought back. The death penalty could be used to kill people who haven't committed the crime. There has been some cases where they kill the man, then later come to find that he never committed the crime. In my opinion this solution is just far too permanent for something that may not be 100% sure.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490c7c4-2019-04-18T19:19:54Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.778998613357544}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: I saw some people discussing this earlier and thought someone would at least consider trying to change my mind. I think the death penalty, or capital punishment, should not exist. Pro will obviously be arguing to keep the death penalty where it is already in place, or implement it in more regions. Please no semantics. Good luck!", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4e0a8-2019-04-18T15:51:10Z-00005-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7784823179244995}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490c460-2019-04-18T19:21:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7777953147888184}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I accept your challenge and obviously I will be arguing against the death penalty. You can start the arguments...", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490d7df-2019-04-18T18:23:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7772318124771118}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Okay, so for this please site any sources that you may use and Spend the first round to just state your opinion, the second to rebuttal and the third to conclude. Please do not quit on me. The death penalty is just plain wrong. Why should the loss of a life result in the death of another? Or in the case of many lives, why should death = death? What is the point of killing someone when they can just spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the cost of putting someone there but if the state can't afford jails then why put laws in place in the first place? Additionally, who is it up to to decide what is punishable by death. In some countries it's mass murder, others speaking out against the government, others being gay, and even in some watching Desperate Housewives will get you filed for treason and executed. Who decides what is suitable and why do they have that right? Let's say the judge decides, in what country is the judicial system without error? As long as the capital punishment persist innocent people will die at the hand of the state. Every court system makes mistakes and after you've killed someone you can't just say, \"Opps, jk my bad.\" It's done. There's no going back. Now, let's look at what happens when we give the state the right tot kill. The holocaust happened. The state had the right to kill these people and it escalated and no one questioned them because they were allowed to do that. For the record, as soon as the war was won Germany officially banned the death penalty and even refused to try the Nazi war criminals. Now look at Germany, it's a European Power House. The death penalty is inhumane. In saudi Arabi a person can be publicly stoned to death and it isn't the only country in the world to do that amongst other horrors such as: hanging, electric chair, injections, fire line, etc.. the Universal Declaration of human rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, tortures or inhumane treatment or punishment. I would say that all of these methods meet the criteria. Some may argue that injections are painless, I say how do you know the physical, let alone the emotional, pain and stress of dying? Did you ask someone? No, because they're dead and can't tell you. In conclusion the death sentence is morally and politically wrong and should be banished world wide. source: the universal declaration of human rights (please see article 5) http://www.un.org...", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4dddf-2019-04-18T16:27:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7772318124771118}, {"content": "Title: There should be death penalty for murderers. Content: I agree with the Death Penalty. Murderers should face Death if they take someone's life. Take a life,lose your life.", "qid": 40, "docid": "f5157375-2019-04-18T14:53:16Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7770435810089111}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty is morally impermissible Content: I'm looking to debate about the resolution. I am defending that the death penalty is morally permissible.", "qid": 40, "docid": "33caf0a6-2019-04-18T18:21:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7766263484954834}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes Content: The United States should have death penalty for capital offenses, which include first-degree murder and treason. Don't hesitate to state your opinions but be respectful.", "qid": 40, "docid": "d3365f6b-2019-04-18T13:41:47Z-00007-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7764734625816345}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I am pro for the death penalty. I believe that the people who have done heinous crimes deserve to be put down. They do not belong in the world. Challenge me! you won't be able to defeat me.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed87bd84-2019-04-18T14:05:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7763822078704834}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be bought back Content: The death penalty. It's a controversial topic. Should we bring it back?", "qid": 40, "docid": "6649eabc-2019-04-18T12:15:41Z-00001-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7762329578399658}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: Wonderful! I appreciate how sporting you are. I look forward to the debate. I will begin by presenting my points in favour of the death penalty. If of course, you are not comfortable taking this side of the debate, I welcome you to start another debate and take the side I have adopted. I will be more than willing to oblige. Argument 1 - It keeps society safe The death penalty is reserved, almost exclusively for crimes which the state and its laws deem to pose a major threat to a country and/or its people. These include crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide), espionage, mass murder, and drug trafficking, to name a few. All these crimes place society in danger, and the power to deal with them with the capital punishment allows the state to keep them at bay. With most of such cases, a judge evaluates the case qualitatively and considers the remorse of the criminal and/or his/her potential of reform. A criminal who shows remorse or potential for reform is often given a reduced sentence of life imprisonment. Argument 2 - It comes at a lower cost To imprison someone for life incurs an immense cost to the average taxpayer in a country. Why should the average citizen pay for the sustenance of non-reformable criminals who pose a threat to his/her fundamental rights? Why should this money not go instead to furthering the prospects of people who have the capability of contributing more to society? This money could go towards education, research and development, aid for people in poverty-stricken countries, rather than spent on maintaining criminals. Argument 3 - It acts as a deterrent You will undoubtedly find countless sources that say that it does not actually deter criminals who are already prepared to commit such crimes. The capital punishment, however, acts not primarily as a deterrent to existing criminals, but to potential criminals. A criminal contemplating capital crimes would have a much higher opportunity cost, and would think many times before placing his life in such grave danger. Death penalties, which are swift and sure, such as the mandatory death penalty, are much more likely to have a strong impact. Argument 4 - Anything less is unjust Murder refers to when someone deprives another of their fundamental right to life. A punishment less than the same would simply be inadequate in terms of justice. Argument 5 - It makes absolutely sure that the crime cannot be committed again History is replete with examples of criminal network leaders maintaining their networks from prison, mass murderers killing other prisoners while in prison, or the criminally insane, who end up killing their caregivers in a mental asylum. Only the death penalty can make absolutely certain that these criminals do not repeat their crimes. Argument 6 - It works Countries such as Singapore which have used the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and the death penalty for several other offences, can be observed to have some of the lowest rates of crime, especially serious crime, in the world. Drug trafficking, to draw a clearer link, is almost nonexistent in the country. The steep penalty plays a part. Abuses of the death penalty are not covered by my arguments. These abuses include the death penalty for adultery or apostasy, unless sanctioned under legitimate state laws. My arguments refer only to the death penalty as sanctioned by a state. For these reasons, I maintain that the death penalty should absolutely be kept in force. Please note that you would have to provide arguments along with counters to my points. I look forward to your responses.", "qid": 40, "docid": "8e5e720-2019-04-18T15:43:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7757571935653687}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I've set this debate up with LegalizedProstitute because it's been a while since I've had a serious debate, and I saw that his opponent in his last death penalty debate was new to the site and probably wasn't giving him a satisfying debate. So, should LegalizedProstitute choose to accept, here are the terms. I, Con, shall be arguing that death should not be a punishment for any crime. Pro will argue to the opposite.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed8753ec-2019-04-18T16:44:17Z-00006-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7756285071372986}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be allowed Content: I believe the death penalty is not the best way to solve all crimes but in some cases like mass murdering or kidnapping or something else. I do think that killing someone is not the first solution but if they get to live they should at least have some harsher punishments besides just jail because its not that bad. But the main reason i think the death penalty should be allowed is because if someone decided to do something as evil as a mass murdering they shouldn't just go to jail for a life time and get it over with it because its just not fair the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right you need to learn from your mistakes and it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty or harsher and stricter jails. People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done. It also gives closure to the victims families who have suffered so deeply because of your cruel actions, and also i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims. Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us. Overall i do agree with the death penalty but if there we some law that were to be passed that made the jails a bit more stricter and made them suffer more them i would also agree with that as well . Some people may call that mean or getting eye to eye which is also not the best way to solve things and i agree and here your point but its also not fair haven't you ever lost a loved one and if so just imagine the reason they died is because guy was just feeling angry and decided to kill someone that night and its also not only that is just that someone who had the mentality to do something like that clearly needs to get their facts straight and on the right track.", "qid": 40, "docid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7755359411239624}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Should the death penalty be aloud in the United States? the answer is yes", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4e504-2019-04-18T12:20:32Z-00001-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7739652395248413}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances Content: This debate is on whether or not society should have the death penalty. Now I believe the death penalty is accepted under curtain circumstances like serial rapist, serial killers, mass murders and if the suspect is not insane and/or is atleast 19+ years old. The first round is a introduction round. The debate should start in round 2. There are 4 rounds in total, voting period is 1 week, time to argue is 48 hours and argument max is 6,000 characters. Also another thing before we get started is if you say \"life sentencing\" it would be assumed that you mean imprisonment until death by old age. The reason why I state this is because in Canada life imprisonment = 25 years maximum.Definitionsserial rapist: sexually assault 2 or more peopleserial killer: Murder 3 or more people with a time interval between one of the murders. For example Ted Bundy, John Gacy, ect...mass murderer: Murder 3 or more people with no time interval between any of the murders. For example James Holmes.Rules No TrollingNo ProfanityCiting your sources is optional unless the your opponent ask for it.My opponent is able to add any definitions or rules however can't change any of the definitions/rules already listed.", "qid": 40, "docid": "fcb9cb57-2019-04-18T18:08:33Z-00006-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7733514308929443}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty IS wrong Content: Thank you, now my inital argument is that the government should and does not have the right to decide that taking a life is the ABSOLUTE right way to punish a person for any act in question. Its the moral equal to the mob killing a snitch. in thett3's debate with larstheloser, he used the philosophy that by killing someone, the person in question, he or she has violated the rules of society and in turn deserves to die. now I am personally a democrat, and a liberal, so pathologically geared towards looser sentences, (being that I think a lifetime sentences are a safe enough measure) I think that death sentences are, in turn, murder. wich, from my opponents philosophy, is a violation of society.", "qid": 40, "docid": "fdb4e5db-2019-04-18T18:44:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7730196118354797}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: The death penalty should be illegal because someone could be seriously hurt or sometimes, someone could die ):", "qid": 40, "docid": "e3bc0eb1-2019-04-18T15:36:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7728346586227417}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: Yes, the death penalty is accepted as treatment or actions of taking care of people who commit crimes for good. However, I feel killing them for their crimes is getting them out of their punishment, as the real punishment is to be locked away. Meaning being killed would give them the easy way out of their life punishment.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed87bcab-2019-04-18T14:23:38Z-00004-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7727521657943726}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Looking for a serious intellectual debate on this topic here. I had a long and very interesting conversation with a friend about this and would like to see how my arguments stand up here. R1) Introduction of argument R2) Main body of argument R3) Cross examination of opponent's argument R4) Defence of own argument R5) Conclusion of argument I will first define the debate as a whole. I, as the Proposition, take it upon myself to prove that the Death Penalty (that is to say the state-sponsored execution of a convicted criminal) is a morally acceptable punishment to the very worst crimes where the perpetrator is likely to reoffend. I am going to argue this on 3 main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment I will lay these out in this first round and from there expand on and defend my position in future rounds. I'd like to thank any challenger in advance for accepting. My burden of proof is only to show that certain crimes should warrant the death penalty, and I will be examining why in later rounds. I'll look at concepts like the human rights of the convict and why human rights aren't inalienable. I want this to be a competently argued debate that focusses on the philosophical side of the issue. Thanks in advance.", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4d584-2019-04-18T18:55:53Z-00007-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7726950645446777}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty should be instated Content: In this debate we shall discuss weather the Death Penalty should be reinstated or not. You may take the following definitions: Death Penalty: A legal process wherein a person is put to death as a punishment for a crime. I will be taking the position of Pro/For, and will debate why I think the Death Penalty SHOULD be instated, my opponent will discuss why it should not. Thank you, Dag", "qid": 40, "docid": "f6f47599-2019-04-18T15:28:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7714653611183167}, {"content": "Title: death penalty Content: To my worthy competitor, I must say that I actually do agree with you, but as the debate is I am the con. I hope to have a fun and lighthearted debate. As to keep in the spirit of this debate I hereby declare... ... ... The Death Penalty Should Not Be Legal Penalty!!!!!!!", "qid": 40, "docid": "75f84bc9-2019-04-18T16:05:28Z-00006-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7713649272918701}, {"content": "Title: Man injects a woman with HIV: should he gotten death row Content: I will take a general approach in this instance, and argue for why the death penalty should never be used, and this would include this specific case my opponent has introduced to us. I'd like to point out that it's not possible to have the debate outlined in the fashion pro stated. There are only 3 rounds, but they say we should have up to round 4.", "qid": 40, "docid": "2c8601f7-2019-04-18T12:42:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7711636424064636}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I noticed jp was in a debate with someone over this topic, but his opponent didn't respond. It's been a while since I've done this topic, and now I'd like to revisit it. Thank you in advance for accepting, assuming you do. Anyways, one clarification. I am for the death penalty in extremely specific, and likely hypothetical circumstances. If someone keeps breaking out of prison and killing people, he should be put to death (imagine the Joker as an example). Otherwise I am opposed. Additionally, we must keep our arguments centered around the current form of execution in the US. This debate is not about reform. First Round is for Acceptance. Any questions, ask me in the comments before you accept.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed875b30-2019-04-18T16:14:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.770618200302124}, {"content": "Title: Debater's Choice Content: The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00007-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7704368233680725}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty Content: i disagree death penalty. Death penalty is immoral and it can kill innocent people too.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e3bc0ab2-2019-04-18T16:07:14Z-00005-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7704336643218994}, {"content": "Title: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Content: I agree; Canada should allow the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes.", "qid": 40, "docid": "333616f5-2019-04-18T12:12:06Z-00000-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7700529098510742}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Should be Banned Content: I accept.Good luck to my opponent. I request my opponent to clarify what he means by death penalty.The one given by judiciary or the one given by others like goons,moneylenders etc.", "qid": 40, "docid": "3dfbb4f2-2019-04-18T15:52:34Z-00006-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.769580602645874}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment Content: In this debate pro will have to prove that the death penalty can be justified. Round 1: Accepting Round 2: Opening Argument Round 3: Open Debate Round 4: Open Debate Round 5: Closing Arguments", "qid": 40, "docid": "44d10887-2019-04-18T15:22:55Z-00006-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7692446708679199}, {"content": "Title: Should the Death Penalty be Reinstated in the United States Content: Although the death penalty has been banned in most states, I believe that there are boundaries to a crime, and if crossed, there should be a more severe punishment then life in prison. Act all sweet and nice and they'll have time off for good behavior. If you live long enough, you'll walk among us again. I don't want that. Do you?", "qid": 40, "docid": "c60d5889-2019-04-18T17:40:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7691705226898193}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I, Con, will be arguing that the death penalty should not be legal. My opponent will attempt to disprove my standpoint on this subject.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed8754a6-2019-04-18T16:40:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7690752744674683}, {"content": "Title: Novice's Debate Competition R1: The Death Penalty Shouldn't Be Used Content: Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3- Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4- Rebuttals/Closing (no new arguments) Death Penalty- the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. This debate addresses death penalty in the US. Pro, me, takes the side that death penalty shouldn't be used. Con, JoshB, takes the side it should.", "qid": 40, "docid": "4351e29e-2019-04-18T16:48:22Z-00005-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7689347863197327}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment should not be legal. Content: Capital Punishment should not be legal. The effectiveness of the death penalty is equal to the effectiveness of life in prison without parol.", "qid": 40, "docid": "61c0373c-2019-04-18T13:32:15Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.768778920173645}, {"content": "Title: there should not be a death penelty Content: I do agree with my opponent about Theodore Frank's case. In some cases a death penalty should be considered. i agree with myself and my opponent. though i meant killing as in murder. maybe some murderers thought \"if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers.\"", "qid": 40, "docid": "efbca5fb-2019-04-18T17:54:58Z-00002-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.7686705589294434}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty is a reasonable punishment Content: I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes", "qid": 40, "docid": "faa55372-2019-04-18T18:39:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.768424928188324}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty (Capitol Punishment) in US Content: I am not going to be arguing the death penalty should not have server restrictions placed on it or that the use of the death penalty should not be reduced. Simply it should be retained for the use of the most heinous of crimes.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e871b82-2019-04-18T17:39:52Z-00005-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.7683234214782715}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I am challenging you to a debate about the death penalty. I am pro. Let's have a respectful debate", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490cc5e-2019-04-18T18:53:16Z-00007-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.7680131196975708}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I propose a debate on the death penalty, I will be Pro and you will be Con. The first round is just for accpetance. Good luck.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a490d345-2019-04-18T18:41:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.7677611112594604}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Should be Abolished Content: I believe the death penalty shouldn't go anywhere. If a person has committed a capital crime such as murder, Treason, Or crimes against humanity, They don't deserve to live. It costs the government less money to give someone the capital punishment than to give them life in prison. It arguably deters crime, Since most criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if it meant death.", "qid": 40, "docid": "e03e810a-2019-04-18T11:15:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.7677091360092163}, {"content": "Title: there should not be a death penelty Content: It's very clear, given what my opponent said above, that she has conceded her case that there should not be a death penalty. If it wasn't the intention of my opponent to concede when she said what she said above, then it must be noted that, as it now stands, my opponent has lost this debate anyways. Why? Because my opponent has not refuted my argument which contends that the death penalty is sometimes necessary in order to bring forth justice, and that some crimes are so evil that only execution is the appropriate punishment.I would also like to respond to something which my opponent said. My opponent said, and I quote, \"maybe some murderers thought \"if the government ( or whoever controls penalties) kills murderers then basically i could murder murderers.\" I can't really see how some murderers would think that they could murder murderers because the government kills murderers. It would be nice if you could elaborate on this and give us some reasons as to why you think this is the case. Moreover, I also can't see how this has anything to do with the topic of this debate, let alone how it shows that there should not be a death penalty.My opponent has not been able to defend her claim that there should not be a death penalty. In fact, my opponent herself agreed that the death penalty should in some cases be considered. The resolution remains negated.", "qid": 40, "docid": "efbca5fb-2019-04-18T17:54:58Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.7673879265785217}, {"content": "Title: Capital punishment to criminals should be banned. Content: I accept the challenge issued by my opponent.To clarify, I will advocate that capital punishment SHOULD be banned, or abolishd. Essentially, I am AGAINST captial punishment or the death penalty.", "qid": 40, "docid": "6fcd3bf6-2019-04-18T14:12:07Z-00006-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.766655445098877}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty in America Content: I will argue against the application of the death penalty in the United States , my opponent must argue the merits of the death penalty. Whoever is more convincing should win.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a0b4281b-2019-04-18T19:28:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.7666118144989014}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Here are my rebuttals. Actually, the U.S federal government lists 41 crimes that are punishable by death. These crimes are murder related to the smuggling of aliens,destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death, murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting, murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation, retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials, civil rights offenses resulting in death, etc. [1] There are even more arguments you could've made to support the claim that capital punishment should be allowed. Just because it's for only 19 crimes doesn't make it a sufficient punishment. Your argument is not only a bare assertion, it's downright false. I look forward to your defense. Citation [1]http://deathpenalty.procon.org... capital offenses", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4e488-2019-04-18T13:26:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.7664616107940674}, {"content": "Title: Death penalty should be supported. Content: Disappointingly, nargiz_gab has once again forfeited his opportunity to advance his arguments. I, however, will reiterate why the death penalty ought not be supported.Humans are not omniscient, thus uncertainty as to someone's guilt will exist. If the death penalty was instituted, miscarriages of justice will occur, miscarriages which, by their very nature, are irreversible and irreparable. Therefore, to maintain the legitimacy of the justice system, the death penalty ought not be supported, however expedient it may be.Thank you, once again, to nargiz_gab for initiating this debate.", "qid": 40, "docid": "a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.7663798928260803}, {"content": "Title: Capital Punishment should not be legal. Content: I believe that before a death penalty is given, the crime should be carefully looked over. They should make laws about when to give the death penalty. For example, if a person was to kidnap a child and the child didn't try to fight back and got killed, that person should receive the death penalty. If a person was defending themselves and killed the other person to save their life, they should not be given the death penalty.", "qid": 40, "docid": "61c0373c-2019-04-18T13:32:15Z-00002-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.7659186124801636}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty Content: Hold up. you don't want the death penalty. someone who kill some one should die. you got me ok then", "qid": 40, "docid": "abe4ddc0-2019-04-18T16:27:49Z-00008-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.7648124098777771}, {"content": "Title: the death penalty should be legalized everywhere Content: Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I will argue that the Death penalty should not be legal 'everywhere'. I assume that we will do arguments in round 2, then rebuttals and closing statements in round 3. Thanks!", "qid": 40, "docid": "7754db25-2019-04-18T15:40:15Z-00003-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.7646524906158447}, {"content": "Title: Death Content: Do you support the death penalty yes or no. I personally think that there should be a death penalty in the united states but, then again I don't think there should be one. I mean when you put someone to death it is murder. So I figured your just as good as the guy who is being put to death the only think with that is that, your murder is \"legal\". So comment on here and let me know what you think of the death penalty.", "qid": 40, "docid": "fefb65c7-2019-04-18T18:18:22Z-00004-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.7645667791366577}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe that it is a proper form of law, effective punishment, and an appropriate way to serve justice. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I believe that it should also only be brought down on the convicted person under certain circumstances; severe ones, at that. Such as murder. The death penalty brings up an interesting axiom in life: An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. In this particular case, I'll take an eye...and maybe a tooth as well. I await your first rebuttal.", "qid": 40, "docid": "3f1d7284-2019-04-18T19:49:20Z-00003-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.7645375728607178}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be legal in Texas. Content: I'll just state a quick argument. The death penalty should not be legal anywhere. There is no reason for it it doesn't solve anything. Our jails should focus on trying to get people back into the real world, we should stress things such as therapy, community service, and getting these people back on their feet instead of killing someone for a huge mistake. I understand that some people are sick and twisted but we should not end their life for something they were born with. Prisons should be focused more on helping people rather than hurting people.", "qid": 40, "docid": "f23a0adc-2019-04-18T17:34:39Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.7643746137619019}, {"content": "Title: The death penalty should be abolished Content: I extend my arguments intact to the final round. I conclude that the death penalty should not be abolished.", "qid": 40, "docid": "8e5e720-2019-04-18T15:43:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.7643430233001709}, {"content": "Title: United States should ban the death penalty Content: For who ever takes this challenge up I'm 12 so yeah..no name calling or cussing. (Ps don't be easy cuz I'm gonna debate my history teacher from last year and for UIL this year) :) I think the United States should ban the death penalty because there are thousands of people wrongly sentenced. I think it's too easy because you just end their lives right there when the victims (of the crime) family is thinking day and night about it. When people are wrongly sentenced die, days maybe years later if they find out that they didn't do it they have to tell the family they made a mistake. It costs thousands of dollars to just kill them with appeals when that money could go to something else. So first time doing this if anyone takes this up after they could give me some pointers :) thank you By the way my wifi is down so I can't look up facts but I'm going to be writing a paper on this for fun so if you have facts please give them :D", "qid": 40, "docid": "1483f5a1-2019-04-18T18:02:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.7643056511878967}, {"content": "Title: is the death penalty good Content: I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should not be legal i will allow my opponent to make the first argument", "qid": 40, "docid": "8f8d3f43-2019-04-18T19:20:33Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.7640348672866821}, {"content": "Title: We should ban death penalties around the world. Content: I believe that we should ban death penalties around the world. My 1st point is that if a man or woman is sentenced a death penalty because she/he killed someone then it would not be fair because another man/woman is killing them due to the death penalty. My 2nd point is that if someone did a bad crime that's so horrible then they should just get life in prison.The man that raped 3 young girls in america did a horrible thing and now has life in prison which is good,because instead of dying a quick and easy death they get to have a punishment of life in prison.Ending up mental and full of regret.Knowing that what they did was wrong for the rest of their life in prison. So in conclusion I say that we SHOULD ban death penalties around the world. Thank you.", "qid": 40, "docid": "c6c19d9c-2019-04-18T17:17:05Z-00003-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.7640228271484375}, {"content": "Title: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes Content: Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes", "qid": 40, "docid": "333616f5-2019-04-18T12:12:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.7639210224151611}, {"content": "Title: The Death Penalty should be kept and enforced. Content: I see your argument completely. I understand the point you are trying to get across. That criminals should be sentence to the death penalty, if they in fact commit murder. That is, in my opinion, barbaric. I do not believe one death should result in another, one sadness in another, one eye for another. That is a way of the past that we should abolish. The death penalty doesn't always JUST kill criminals. Innocent people are tried for crimes and may be convicted even if they didn't commit said crime. Then they are put to death. Now, not all people who are sentenced the death penalty are innocent, many are guilty of said crimes, but what crimes here are appropriate? You want statistics, here are mine: 7 countries have the death penalty for being gay (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc...) Countries have the death penalty for rape, robbery, drug possession or trafficking, adultery, treason, etc... How about some of the inhumane ways it is carried out: Hanging Firing Squad Beheading Public Stoning to death This is the barbaric truth about what the death punishment is. And the fact is it shouldn't be allowed. No human should be subject to this. Life is valuable and should not be left to the hands of the judicial system to decide. My final argument is that mistakes are made. Innocent people are killed, and was it really worth it? All of those lives ended because you couldn't just settle for locking them up for life? http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org... http://www.youtube.com...", "qid": 40, "docid": "11800e-2019-04-18T16:27:30Z-00000-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.7638339400291443}, {"content": "Title: Bring back the Death Penalty Content: I accept the Instigator\u2019s challenge, and I thank him for posting this issue. While I am not from the UK, I do believe there is an underlying principle that transcends country to be debated here, and thus my arguments against the death penalty should remain fairly constant from sovereignty to sovereignty. Since no formal structure has been proposed, I assert that the format will be as follows: Round 1: Introduction of positions. Round 2: Arguments Pro/Con (no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals I Round 4: Rebuttals II Round 5: Closing statements My position is that there should be no death penalty, imposed by the state, for convicted murderers and pedophiles.", "qid": 40, "docid": "17f8ba35-2019-04-18T17:08:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.7636003494262695}, {"content": "Title: Death Penalty Content: My opponent is arguing solely using his opinion. However, I sufficiently argued this in a previous debate: http://www.debate.org...Many people sentenced to death are actually innocent individuals. If you had done nothing wrong and had no connection to a crime, yet were sentenced to death, what would you think and say? Would you say, \"This is so unfair!\" or would you say, \"Okay, sure, go ahead,\"? This is a valid question. My opponent must answer it. In my previous debate about this topic, I wrote, \"It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly \"kill and be killed.\" Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice.\"My challenge is for my opponent to deny that.", "qid": 40, "docid": "ed875bcb-2019-04-18T16:09:15Z-00006-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.7627301812171936}]}
{"query": "Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.", "qid": 41, "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.7603013515472412}, {"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.", "qid": 41, "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00001-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.7510453462600708}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.7408693432807922}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.7403975129127502}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.", "qid": 41, "docid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00003-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.7141110301017761}, {"content": "Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.", "qid": 41, "docid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00000-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.7104463577270508}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) \"Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful.\"OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. \"First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things.\"I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a \"pre-paid\" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. \"It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring.\" If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. \"Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit.\"Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?\"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you.\"LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment.\"If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank.\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\"Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects.\"I didn't cheat anybody. I \"borrowed\" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00001-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.7102852463722229}, {"content": "Title: A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Content: Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest \"student loans\" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.", "qid": 41, "docid": "27aba745-2019-04-18T20:02:46Z-00005-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.7056862711906433}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I\"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great\"for a while\"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt\"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00002-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.6945427656173706}, {"content": "Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes \"the corporations\" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is \"forced\" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such\u2026 If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners\u2026 Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: \"If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record.\" 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: \"because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people\". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. \"The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a \"guilty until proven innocent\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap\" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen\u2026) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: \"Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse\" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the \"innocent until proven guilty\" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be \"unfair\" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other \"scores\" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of", "qid": 41, "docid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.6935274600982666}, {"content": "Title: Bailout of US automakers Content: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos", "qid": 41, "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00042-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.6816938519477844}, {"content": "Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points. Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income -- and medical debt. Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties. A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people. Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory. If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores. Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you.", "qid": 41, "docid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00001-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.6804142594337463}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: \"A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.\" Chapter 13: \"U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years.\" Chapter 11: \"a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts.\" http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: \"It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\" It is not \"free money\". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn\"t \"created\" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn\"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you\"re right. It\"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I\"d appreciate it if you didn\"t insult my intelligence. \"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\" No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called \"Exempt Property\". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value\"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I\"ve seen it before. It\"s not worth it.", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00000-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.6803022027015686}, {"content": "Title: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Content: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.", "qid": 41, "docid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00017-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.6798077821731567}, {"content": "Title: Student Loan Debt Content: I thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's \"contention\"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's \"arguments\"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave \"Jimmy\" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying \"cool knick knacks.\" Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan \u2013 they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, \"the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession.\" [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00001-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.676987886428833}, {"content": "Title: Student Loan Debt Content: Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.", "qid": 41, "docid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00000-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.6702755689620972}, {"content": "Title: There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Content: As I thought, you are fearful of your bankruptcy in the context of dialogue as opposed to monologue. Sorry, but if you cannot offer the same courtesy you expect me to furnish you, this is a lost cause. I will post an argument if you do the same, but I will not post argument in return for your criticism. I figured you had no ground to stand on if equally challenged. The choice is yours how we shall proceed.", "qid": 41, "docid": "94934ec0-2019-04-18T16:49:09Z-00004-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.6678845882415771}, {"content": "Title: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Content: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00007-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.6649876832962036}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: \"I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!\" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was \"worth it\" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!", "qid": 41, "docid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.6642128825187683}, {"content": "Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called \"Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt\" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like \"tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances\". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.", "qid": 41, "docid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.6615239381790161}, {"content": "Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a \"general fact.\" I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don\"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. \"In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!\" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where \"Up to Our Eyeballs\" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as \"(47-68) years old?\" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say \"underemployed\" as opposed to \"unemployed\" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my \"funny question\" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they \"most likely\" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take \"a life time [sic] to clear if lucky.\" College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "d8daa153-2019-04-18T15:42:57Z-00000-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.6582939624786377}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00012-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.6574281454086304}, {"content": "Title: No debt Content: Student Finance loans that are used to fund students during their university education should not be viewed as 'debt' in the conventional sense. Since 2010 in the United Kingdom tuition fees rose to \u00a39,000 per academic year, equalling a grand total for your typical undergraduate degree \u00a327,000 for tuition alone. This is not counting accommodation and living expenses which should increase your overall borrowing up to \u00a340,000 or more. Those are some rough figures, which if you are applying for university make for some very difficult reading, however, there is a misunderstanding amongst the public and that in 30 years time, all the money you borrowed will be wiped clean. If you borrowed \u00a340,000 from your nearest bank, then they would certainly slap interest on it and it would not certainly be cleared after an extended period of time. You also only start paying the loan back in small instalments if you start earning \u00a321,000 per year, with monthly payments of about \u00a320. If you are lucky enough to be earning \u00a321,000 a year, even \u00a320 a week wouldn't be much loss considering you probably used your degree to get the high paying job in the first place. If you are not so fortunate and you are in a low paying job paying you under \u00a321,000 a year then you pay back nothing. That is right folks, you pay back nothing. Zero. The notion that you will be forever paying off your 'debt' is a weak argument once faced with the actual facts. This enables students to find say part time work during their three years of study to save up for a gap year of travelling, fun and adventures. You wont be followed by 'men in black' driving white vans with a Student Finance recovery logo on the side...", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00024-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.6559814214706421}, {"content": "Title: College Textbooks Content: Those elements do not make student's life easier. They will make their life harder because when they graduate they are accountable for all of the loans that will have to be paid back, including textbooks that have been paid or rented by credit card. Colleges should be around to give an education that adults can create a life and career out of. Textbook prices are one less thing to worry about for the struggling student that may not have a job when he/she graduates but plenty of loans.", "qid": 41, "docid": "18d23014-2019-04-18T16:43:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.6553342342376709}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin... Content: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many businesses as other processes would be. Bankruptcy effectively reflects a failure on the part of the business and therefore often on the part of the management. They are therefore less willing to spend time in advance planning for it and making the most suitable arrangements for it. This is just as many people who die unexpectedly young in accidents have not ordered their estates in effective ways. It is therefore appropriate that the law takes a more proactive approach to bankruptcy and acts to counterbalance the lack of thought which many companies have put into how they would deal with it.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00015-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.6527999639511108}, {"content": "Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's \"forgiveness\" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.", "qid": 41, "docid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.6524924039840698}, {"content": "Title: financial stress is part of university life Content: The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00037-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.6519250273704529}, {"content": "Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I will start this round by pointing out some misunderstandings. Con misunderstands when he says that PRO takes the \"when\" as \"irrelevant\" . The debate is \"if the growth continues\" not \"when does bankruptcy happen\" PRO is saying that if present trends continue, the USA will again go into bankruptcy, but PRO is not giving a year or saying what generation it will impact. Con believes that the debt could be paid down. History says no. The national debt has not been reduced since 1957 . http://www.batr.org... Con again misunderstands when he says \"It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. \" PRO never claimed this . Con then concedes by saying \"It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens.\" Con cites data that supports PRO regarding the inability of SS to loan money after 2033. http://money.cnn.com... Con again misunderstands about \"New revenue sources will be unavailable\" He cites percentages of EXISTING sources. These are not new sources. Now on to items 4 to 6 #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. In 2016 the effective interest rate on the debt was 2%. The government paid $242,000,000,000 in debt service. What is little known is that the actual interest charge was $432, 000.000.000. In other words the feds kicked about one half of the debt service into the next year. Here is a table on the growing interest cost of the debt.https://www.treasurydirect.gov... 2017 $458,542,287,311.80 2016 $432,649,652,901.12 2015 $402,435,356,075.49 2014 $430,812,121,372.05 2013 $415,688,781,248.40 2012 $359,796,008,919.49 2011 $454,393,280,417.03 2010 $413,954,825,362.17 2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Thus it is apparent that the debt has grown over time. At the same time, the debt service has grown and grown. #5 Default Default is a state where the government fails to meet its financial obligations in the short term. Primarily this happens when the USA fails to pay debt service obligations. \"In October 2013\"..investors seriously wondered whether the U.S. would actually default on its debt.\" https://www.thebalance.com... \"There are... scenarios under which the United States would default on its debt. \"...Interest rates would rise...The dollar would drop, as foreign investors fled the \"safe-haven status\" of Treasuries. \". The dollar would lose its status as a global world currency\".The U.S. government would not be able to pay [obligations]. U.S. Government simply decided that its debt was too high, and simply stopped paying interest \" https://www.thebalance.com... #6 Bankruptcy A nation becomes bankrupt when its \"lifestyle\" exceeds its ability to support that lifestyle. Greece is a good example of this situation, as is Argentina, and to a lesser extent, so is Iceland. http://flatheadbeacon.com... Additionally there are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy http://www.totalbankruptcy.com..., and the USA is on that list. http://247wallst.com... \"Although not commonly known, the U.S. has declared bankruptcy five times, since its foundation. Once it could not pay its foreign debts, and four times could it not pay its internal debts. These bankruptcies had resulted from financial crises in the banking sector, the first of which was in 1790, and the last of which was in 1933.\"https://www.dailysabah.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "4baacc25-2019-04-18T11:57:13Z-00003-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.6513092517852783}, {"content": "Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as \u201cmoral hazard\u201d; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.", "qid": 41, "docid": "184b3d4f-2019-04-19T12:46:55Z-00009-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.6505999565124512}, {"content": "Title: Tuition-Free College Content: If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.", "qid": 41, "docid": "bc93daf7-2019-04-18T11:22:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.6498316526412964}, {"content": "Title: Making money is better than paying tuition. Content: Generally, making money instead of losing money is a very good thing. And, being loan free is superior to being over your head in debt.", "qid": 41, "docid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00103-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.6497215032577515}, {"content": "Title: Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Content: This is my first debate on this site so I apologize in advance for not being accustomed to how these are usually done. I would like to add that this debate will most likely be a short one from me (in other rounds) because of how busy I will be in the next week or two. (Also a lot of school work due soon myself) I will now start my side of the debate. 1. Student financial aid is most definitely necessary and a very helpful tool for people less privileged or unable to pay college financial fees and should most definitely be available for anyone from any college, including for-profit colleges. Student financial aid is, in whole, for the students themselves. Student financial aid does help for-profit colleges but overall is necessary for the students as they are always priority in any educational facility. Although for-profit colleges are definitely known to be expensive, (I won\"t deny it) it is one-hundred percent the students choice (if not subject to religious/family rules etc.) of where they get their degree. Once decided that they want to receive a degree at a for-profit college it is up to them to pay the fees that apply for that degree. Student financial aid helps the students themselves to overcome their own, personal financial difficulties. Here is a statement from a viable source. \"If you decide to take out a loan, you must already understand who is making the loan and the terms and conditions of the loan.\" [1] Students that do choose to go a for-profit college are always aware of the risks of accepting to go to a \"higher education educational facility\" [2] including the costs and possible need of student financial aid in that process. 2. That for-profit colleges are more suitable for students. \"For-profit schools are often attractive to non-traditional students. With their myriad of online, night and weekend offerings, for-profits provide a lot of flexibility. Many for-profit colleges are also interested in serving minority, low-income and first-generation college students. Students are typically there to acquire a specific set of skills, not engage in less tangible activities such as personal growth and academic exploration.\" [3] As my source stated \"for-profits provide a lot of flexibility\" [4] which is known as something all students want in their busy school life. \"Flexibility (in for profit colleges): Features like online classes and multiple campuses make for-profit schools more attractive to students with families and busy schedules.\" \"Convenience (in for profit colleges): For-profit colleges make it as easy as possible to enrol for classes and qualify for loans\" [4] There\"s countless amounts of good reasons to go to a for-profit college, and although the cost is undoubtedly higher than a non-for-profit college, which is a viable reason to get student financial aid, the overall body and structure of for-profit schools includes flexible ways to study and a ton more convenience in that. Conclusion: Although there certainly is a price to pay, for-profit colleges offer flexible, convenient ways to study that can bend to a student\"s wishes. Students that can\"t afford to go to a for-profit college should most definitely be worthy of financial aid as there are only positives of them receiving financial aid. With the attractive flexibility and convenience of a for-profit college, where can a student go wrong as students are already made aware of the risks and it is ultimately up to them to decide how they path their own lives. I look forward to round 3. :D [1] https://studentaid.ed.gov... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.mycollegeoptions.org... [4] https://consumerist.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "1f55a567-2019-04-18T13:39:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.6496391296386719}, {"content": "Title: Better to wait to see if MBA is necessary. Content: While many people advocate for getting higher education sooner rather than later, this is not necessary. It is better to wait to see if the degree proves necessary. If it does, go get it. If not, then you are better off not having the debt.", "qid": 41, "docid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00133-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.6477323174476624}, {"content": "Title: college tuition too expensive Content: Tamar Lewin published an article \"Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows\" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.", "qid": 41, "docid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.6470929384231567}, {"content": "Title: Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and t... Content: Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and the courts will not look favourably on bad management. An \u201call or nothing\u201d approach encourages corporate management to act recklessly and reinforce their previous mistakes. If they are headed towards insolvency, they have little or no disincentive from taking extreme risks even where the chance of these turning the company\u2019s finances around is very small. However, the option of reorganisation can discipline the management into being more honest and deliberative, calling in help sooner rather than when it is already too late, and forming an approach which is based on maximising the business potential rather than simply juggling immediate debt payments. This should mean that the business is in a better position to succeed over the medium to long term.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00009-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.6469622850418091}, {"content": "Title: Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Content: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.646799623966217}, {"content": "Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!", "qid": 41, "docid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00005-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.6459457874298096}, {"content": "Title: The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams Content: I still do not understand what you mean by the term \"equal footing\", you have also stated the fact what would require an individual to be indebted to someone else. If you take how you defined the difference between a balance and debt, Williams would certainly fall under debt as shortly after the second exchange she entered in she defaulted and stopped making payments. As for the term \"Debtors\" as you state \"once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default\" is absurd, the term \"debtor\" is used in finance contracts such as loans and finances such as scenarios like this to distinguish the receiving party from the lending party. This term is in no way a condescending term used in a contract to presume default or inability to pay back. When I used to the term \"can be subject to arrest\" I used it in the context that the law has to be written that way because depending on the circumstance there can be a scenario where the officer would warrant an arrest and there would be a scenario where the officer would not want to arrest the person. That phrase allows for the discretion to be possible, for instance, in this case \"could be repossessed\" if a client could not afford the monthly payments assigned to their exchange, instead of stopping payments in full, reasoned with Thomas-Walker and asked either for the monthly payments to be lowered or given a minor grace period because of good faith, they have the discretion to use whether to exercise or not exercise repossession under the contract. When an individual enters into a contract asking to be given financial opportunity such as financing, we as a society grant, even understand that the counter parties of these contracts are able to give the financial opportunity because of the leverage of option in this case, \"could repossess\". If all business contracts such as the one given to Williams by Thomas-Walker were not ambiguous at all and in fact put in complete specific layman terms, there would be situations where an individual can default and get away with it. When I say get away with it I mean stop paying and still possess the items simultaneously that, in my opinion will be opening up scenarios of \"unfairness\". As for your example about entering a two year contract with a phone company, yes most people are aware of what it means to enter a two year agreement. However there are underlying principles in those contracts that are not full elaborated to an individual instead they may be given to you in a familiar form such as a large document in fine print over the computer with a small box to check at the end acknowledging that you agree to the terms. These fine print underlying principles have many different conditions to the contract that individuals such as myself were never briefed on by my cell phone service provider.", "qid": 41, "docid": "8e244df0-2019-04-18T16:15:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.6459276676177979}, {"content": "Title: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Content: Reorganisation serves to prop up bad businesses. When a company is approaching insolvency, it reflects the fact that it is basically a bad business or has been badly run. Reorganising it so that it can continue will in many cases simply delay the inevitable by helping the company to struggle on for a bit longer. However, this comes at the expense of creditors. It also serves unfairly to penalise well-run companies against which the firm competes, since these well-run companies need to meet their debts as they continue in solvent trading.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00006-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.6458935737609863}, {"content": "Title: One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School Content: There are many problems in modern America, but I feel a substantial one is the lack of personal fiscal responsibility. To put it simply, many people leave high school and enter the \"real world\" with no idea how to manage, save, and spend money. To support this claim, I point to the recent downturn in the American economy. A substantial portion of the problem has been attributed to home foreclosures. And why are homes being foreclosed upon? For one of four reasons. 1) The bank loaned money to a person or persons it shouldn't have, someone with bad credit or an unsound financial base. 2) Similar to, but not the same as, the first: people took out loans that they could not afford, or agreed to loan or mortgage terms that can charitably be called risky. 3) Those paying a loan or mortgage practiced irresponsible fiscal management and became unable to make their payments. 4) Those paying a loan or mortgage encountered unforeseen financial difficulties. While almost nothing can be done about the fourth cause, the first three could be substantially reduced if only the participants in the venture had a more solid understanding of just how far one can stretch the boundaries of fiscal responsibility. A personal finance class is thus the beginning of a credible solution. People would learn how to budget, to make payments, and avoid risky investments. Furthermore, 70% of the United States' economy is generated and driven by retail sales (statistic from NPR, National Morning News, 3/14/08). When consumers have more buying power (i.e. more money to spend), it provides a solid foundation for the majority of the economy. Therefore, a personal finance class absolutely should be required in high school. Not only would it improve the quality of life for the people who would have to take it (less Ramen, maybe?), but I have also shown that it would help boost the lagging American economy. This would be incalculably beneficial to the American people as a whole.", "qid": 41, "docid": "98f89922-2019-04-18T19:47:39Z-00004-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.6457576751708984}, {"content": "Title: Trump made his money through bankruptcy Content: Ok, for starters. Weren't you supposed to be the one against the debate instead of for it? You've clearly stated \"He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws.\" I'm the one who's for this debate.", "qid": 41, "docid": "1c33544e-2019-04-18T13:45:05Z-00002-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.6457438468933105}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns \u00a310,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business \u00a3100,000.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00013-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.6448938846588135}, {"content": "Title: debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Content: Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts", "qid": 41, "docid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00005-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.6436935067176819}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: Pro: \"The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed.\" Exactly. So any \"trickle down\" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, \"There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.\u201d -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. \"This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University.\" \"A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money,\" she said. \"There\u2019s a lot of business activity that isn\u2019t taking place ... It\u2019s a drag on everything.\" \"Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy.\" www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can\u2019t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They\u2019re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. \"Trickle down\" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, \"1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion.\" As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics", "qid": 41, "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00002-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.6434754133224487}, {"content": "Title: Young should go to abroad for higher studies Content: Loaning money? Ok, I concede. But what if, no money to loan for? If you don't have any chance to go to abroad? Will you just be \"mad\" for not going to Oxford? Of course not. If I will put my situation like that, I would probably do research, ask help from classmates.", "qid": 41, "docid": "c1fbdad7-2019-04-18T18:01:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.6429914236068726}, {"content": "Title: The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams Content: Pro Round 4 I am not disputing two contracts. They are one in the same. As to your terminology of debt and balance let us be care how we use this two words, while they may appear interchangeable they are not. A balance is an amount that is remained over of equal footing. Therefore Williams was in good standing to Walker-Thomas. To be in debt which we have commonly use the term, is to fail to maintain the necessary payment of something. Key word here being \"failed\" Therefore, Williams did not have a \"debt\", she had a balance, in which she was indebted (financial obligation) to. The ambiguity in the contract is stated on ( 511.2.). It was though Walker-Thomas, classified all purchasers as \"debtor(s)\", (once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default), instead of indebtors, having a financial obligation . Focusing on the language \"could repossess\" gives you an option or better yet the possibility to do something, thus making it subjective, this brings to light the \"unconscionable\" contract. You provided me with an example of a cop making an arrest, as stated by you \"\"can be subject to arrest\". The operative word here is \"can\" which is objective term. Proceeding with your example of \"can be subject to arrest\", perhaps this is why NYS stop and frisk policy is so controversial; every Latino and Black American male fits this objective term. As business invitee, Walker-Thomas had the duty of explaining the terms of the contract to Williams. If would be like purchasing a phone unaware of the terms of a two year contract. You cannot walk into a store and just sign a contract without being aware of the plan you are obliging to.", "qid": 41, "docid": "8e244df0-2019-04-18T16:15:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.6427578926086426}, {"content": "Title: The U.S. economy is a fraud based on the Federal Reserve System of fiat money and legal-tender laws. Content: I look very forward to this debate and I appreciate you posting it. Unfortunately I don't have time this evening to rebut and disprove every point you've made so far so I'm just going to start with a few of your main points and continue in my second round. Economics are a fickle thing. The theory behind economics is often changing and being added on to. It's extremely difficult to understand these theories without a formal education on the matter and even then not every aspect is understood. As an economic and business double major I am fortunate enough to have some knowledge of these theories and their practices today. That being said, a lot of your logic in this debate is flawed. 1. While you understanding the basic principles of lending in today's financial system you lack a greater understanding of the concepts. All loans are backed directly by deposits. You are very right that when you deposit $100 into a bank $90 can be lent out. The remaining $10 or 10% represents the required reserves that a bank must have in their possession at all times. Furthermore, even if that $90 was taken to another bank and deposited, the full amount still exists in the financial system. It may seem like the bank is \"creating money\" when they lend out the cash but, what they are really doing is speculating on the ability of the borrower to pay that money back. If the borrower fails to pay back the money owed then banks will fail because their balance sheets will be offset. That is why borrowers are thoroughly screened before a loan is made. The required funds exist in the financial system, they just need to be redirected by the borrower towards the bank. Furthermore, the basic use of accounting T chart will prove that every balances out in the long run. 2. \"If everyone were to pay back every loan that's outstanding today, there would be no more money. That's because every dollar in circulation represents a debt to somebody. Your FRNs may outweigh your debts, but someone else's debts outweigh their FRNs.\" You disproved your first sentence by your second and third sentence in this argument. If everyone were to pay back every loan that's outstanding today, we would have all of the FRN's (or currency) in circulation. This goes back again to basic accounting principles and T charts. Everything balances out. 3. FRN's (or currency in your case aren't backed in Gold or Silver because those are unreasonable needs for a developed country. The only reason gold and silver were used to back currencies in the past were because governments were constantly rising and falling and there was no single dominating currency. Modern economics have allowed us to use fiat money (currency not attached to a physical commodity) in every country in the world. At the present time, no countries currency is backed by a physical commodity. 4. The federal reserve was created in 1913 not by the government to create a \"legalized cartel of banks\", but rather, to promote a stable financial system in the United States. The federal reserve gives banks the ability to lend and borrow money in order to keep required cash reserves. Before the federal reserve was created this was done by debt and security clearinghouses. Nowadays, the federal reserve is even a banks second line of defense, its' first being borrowing and lending money to other banks. Bonds give banks and the federal reserve the ability to earn maximum income on all money within their institutions. A bank buys up government bonds if they have excess money and nothing to do with it because they earn interest and a bank sells government bonds if its' required reserves have dipped below 10%. This was all the time I had to debate tonight but, I encourage you to post more arguments for me to rebut.", "qid": 41, "docid": "6113a489-2019-04-18T20:02:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.6425628662109375}, {"content": "Title: You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first. Content: Happy Holidays. I'm playing devil's advocate here (a bit). So: Most of the time your argument is true, however I can think of several extenuating circumstances that could override your argument: for example: Someone's bills are due, they owe you $500, they owe the bills $800, they have $900 in the bank account. If you are someone's friend, than you should yield to the bills that need to be payed. Vaguely incoherent, I realize, but hey...", "qid": 41, "docid": "f0cb200d-2019-04-18T20:00:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.6423665285110474}, {"content": "Title: People need to save to pay off their debts Content: In order to avoid the credit crunch trauma re-occurring people need to reduce their debts. Let us not forget that this recession was due to people not being able to repay their loans, be they mortgages, overdrafts or credit card loans. What we then need people to do is to save their money and repay the debts that they owe. By paying off their debts, banks will receive money that they then need to use to repay their debts to the Government, then the Government can repay what they owe. What is best then is to encourage people to save in order to pay their debts in order for our country to be able to repay its debts in order for our economy to improve.", "qid": 41, "docid": "f3057566-2019-04-19T12:46:34Z-00009-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.6422234177589417}, {"content": "Title: Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) Content: Yes, plaintiff Williams was responsible for the payments on her purchase, but every individual deserves a second chance, even though they did missed a payment and became defaulted on their prior account doesn\"t mean it will happen once again. Walker-Thomas, on the other hand should have been a more responsible business owner, and had better business decision making skills. Knowing that the purchaser Ms. Williams had a prior account in default and still extended her credit to be able to purchase the stereo set she wanted, even though Walker-Thomas knew she wasn\"t financial stable. Should the contracts be overturned on grounds of unconscionable acts of poor business practice? The answer should be answer accordingly to the ruling of favor on Williams, yes, she knew she couldn\"t afford to make a purchase or to take on \"more debt\" sort to say, but she did. Just as if you\"re approved for a credit card knowing that you already owe the creditor a certain amount of debt or balance, and is struggling to make the minimum payments you\"re going to still make purchases and take on additional debt. So who is to blame on that part is the creditor, if you know an individual can\"t pay back a loan and missed payments why would you lend out additional money? Just like Walker-Thomas, he knew Williams owed money from a prior account she possessed with his company, but still with poor decision making, and unconscionable business acts, he still went ahead and let Ms. Williams take on an additional loan for a stereo set knowing her financial hard ship she was in currently at the time of the loan was established to her.", "qid": 41, "docid": "dbe45287-2019-04-18T16:15:30Z-00005-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.6420036554336548}, {"content": "Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: Thanks for the great topic! I'm going to present my case in LD simply because it is the format I know best. My opponent does not need to follow this format if he does not want to. I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: the use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed. Definitions: Credit Score - A computer-generated score used to determine how likely a person is to repay a loan. should - indicative of moral obligation tightly curtailed - significantly reduced Resolutional Analysis: Because the resolution indicate a change, specifically curtailing the use of credit scores, the only neg burden is to uphold the status quo. Furthermore, because the resolution indicate moral obligation, the pro MUST provide an ethical reason why the use of credit scores is immoral. Value: Justice Justice is defined as each person getting what they are due. Because we are talking about changing the availability credit ratings, it is important to examine whether or not it is just that the people using such data are able to. Criterion: Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the most common and most simple moral frameworks. It holds that an action is right in proportion that it tends to promote happiness and wrong in proportion that it tends to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness pain and the pervasion of pleasure. In conclusion, what one is due is determined by whatever would produce the most total happiness. Contention 1: Credit score is an important indicator A. ) Credit score is a measure of trustworthiness and foresight If you look to the definitions, credit scores are the likeliness that someone will pay back a loan. Another way to put that would be a credit score is the likeliness that someone will keep their word. When one takes out a loan, one gives their word they will pay it back. When they don't, for whatever reason, they are not keeping their word. B. ) It is important to be able to trust the people you deal with. When hiring people, leasing your property, or simply lending someone to someone, it is important that you can trust they will uphold their part of the bargain. By seeing the person's credit score, you are able to determine if this person is trustworthy. Contention 2: Curtailing credit scores is hypocritical. A. ) Other, similar scores are used every day (and are very much supported) One very good example is a criminal record, or the sex offender record. If you follow the affirmative's logic, the use of these records would also have to be banned. In a criminal case, if one of the people near the crime is known to have a record of violence, the police should NOT, according to the affirmative logic, be able to have this person as a suspect. Furthermore, companies, even day care centers should NOT, again following the affirmative logic, be able to use the sex offender record to disqualify certain people from working there. Therefore, in order for you to vote aff the aff must also prove that the use of these \"scores\" should also be tightly curtailed. Contention 3: Curtailing these scores is IMMORAL A. ) Curtailing the use of credit scores has the potential of causing much harm. When companies hire employees, give someone a lease or any similar action, they must, in order to stay in business be assured that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain. People with bad credit ratings have a history of NOT upholding their side of these deals. If these companies were forced to work with these people, they would go out of business, and all the people they were currently helping would be left out to dry. In conclusion, because credit scores are important as an indicator of trustworthiness and because stopping the use of credit score is hypocritical and immoral and unjust, I urge you to vote NEG. (CON) Although The pro's first post stated that I was to make the opening argument, there are a few points in the pro's first post I would like to address. 1. ) \"Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example)\" If you look to the resolution, I as the con, have to do none of these things. The only thing I have to prove is that the use of them should NOT be curtailed. However, if you look to my case, you will see that I did cover these points thoroughly. 2. )", "qid": 41, "docid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.6409180164337158}, {"content": "Title: The loans are preventing economic stability Content: The loans are only a tiny part of the economic problems faced by third world countries, and no-one knows what effect (if any) the dropping of the debts will have. if the loans were dropped the countries may actually have MORE economic problems because the 'First World' countries are not keeping an eye on them.", "qid": 41, "docid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00010-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.639714241027832}, {"content": "Title: No debt Content: University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can\u2019t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00025-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.639463484287262}, {"content": "Title: The recession is torturing students enough. Content: Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.", "qid": 41, "docid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00025-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.639154314994812}, {"content": "Title: college should be entirely government funded Content: yes. agreed that kids that do well in high school do get much needed financial help in college. What about the kids that parents earn too much to receive any state help? Parents might make 60k a year and that is too much for a kids to receive any help at all. with a blow like this kids become discourage to even attend college at all, and let put it like this : more college debt = less college graduate. less college graduate, the harder time this child would have at finding a decent job.", "qid": 41, "docid": "53650086-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.6386005878448486}, {"content": "Title: Free college education Content: Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: \"Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the \"transition to adulthood\" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39\" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. \"The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend \"a mere $62.6 billion dollars\" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012.\" Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...", "qid": 41, "docid": "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00005-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.6380636692047119}, {"content": "Title: All third world debt should be dropped Content: Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay", "qid": 41, "docid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.6370387077331543}, {"content": "Title: Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would. Content: People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.", "qid": 41, "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00098-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.6367365717887878}, {"content": "Title: Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur... Content: Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failure are not so terrible as to deter people from ever wanting to start up their own business. Outside America (e.g. in Europe) the legal consequences of business failure and bankruptcy are often so bad (e.g. liquidation rather than reorganisation is the norm, barring those involved from being company directors, taking all their personal assets including their home, making it hard to ever borrow money again for any purpose) that many men and women who have bright ideas are afraid to pursue them. Not coincidentally, the USA has a much more dynamic economy than other developed countries without Chapter 11-style provisions, creating many more new businesses and therefore more jobs.", "qid": 41, "docid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00017-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.6365693807601929}, {"content": "Title: Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) Content: It may be true. However, Williams came to Walker - Thomas on her own free will. So, is the company really the one to blame by providing her customer service? In the contract itself, there is not going to be fine print stating we offer second chances. A deal is a deal at the end of the day and the consequences are going to be stated. It is like making a promise and sticking to it. She made a promise by signing the contract and promising not to default. She ended up defaulting and she did not stick to what she initially signed. Williams knew that she had an overdue balance as well just as Walker- Thomas was aware. But, she really saw the stereo set as a necessity although she is living a struggling life. The contract should not be overturned because because the company is not doing anything wrong. If anything, Williams needs to stop going to the company knowing that she cannot afford these items or if she does, pay her installments on time and not default. Your comparison was great with the approval of a credit card. However, that is the individual's responsibility because they chose to add on additional debt, That is not anyone else problem but theirs. If I was struggling, I am not going to dig myself in a hole knowing that I am not going to be able to get out of it no time soon. This is where meaningful choice comes in because on behalf of the company and customer, both have knowledge of the terms within the contract. Similarly to the creditor example with the individual who cannot pay back a loan, that is meaningful choice because you wanted to take the loan out knowing that you are struggling and not be able to pay it back. The creditor is going to lend out more money because the customer keeps on coming to them and digging themselves in a hole more. With that being said, Ms. Williams is a part of this meaningful choice just as Walker- Thomas is because it is a contract and they obviously agreed.", "qid": 41, "docid": "dbe45287-2019-04-18T16:15:30Z-00004-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.6365073323249817}, {"content": "Title: Moral hazard Content: Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?", "qid": 41, "docid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00022-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.6364386081695557}, {"content": "Title: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Content: Daniel Gross. \"In Defense of Detroit\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions.\"", "qid": 41, "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00097-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.6364027261734009}, {"content": "Title: debt unites students Content: Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more \"My Dad is richer than your Dad\" bullying.", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00040-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.6357299089431763}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": 41, "docid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00015-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.6350194215774536}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and \u201cfind themselves\u201d while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "qid": 41, "docid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00015-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.6350194215774536}, {"content": "Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: Thanks Con. DEFENSE1) Students have no moneyCon misrepresents her source's statistics. While her source[3] says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans. There is a huge difference. 47% of all families reported borrowing to pay for college. So, we know free transport would benefit at least half the college students because they are in debt. The average college graudate has a debt of $19,000 [4]. The already high price of tuition continues to increase [5]. Con says the debt hasn't affected them yet but it will. Students cannot increase their debt by buying cars or paying full price for public transport every day because it will snowball once they graduate. They need every sort of free service they can get.Unemployed people might have low money as well but their requirement for transportation is lower than that of college student as I show in point 2. Lower income people are able to work full time so despite their hourly wage being lower, they can earn more cash than college students and also don't have a staggering amount of debt. Paying for a car or transportation necessitates that students work longer hours. College students working more than 20 hours a week on campus or off negatively affects students' academic performance [6]. College students should be allowed to focus on their academics by having transportation taken care of.2) RequirementPeople who have jobs will be able to afford cars or at least be able to afford public transport by paying the full price. College students have a large amount of debt and limited time to work and so have a higher need for free transportation. They also need to travel far more frequently to class and back than someone who is just unemployed. My opponent says her school provides free transportation. My school on the other hand just cancelled the service[1]. Instead they work with the county's public transport agency to provide free transport to students. The ability of a University to provide transport is unreliable but if they work with their state, it is far more reliable as it is funded by the government. 3) Pay after graduation Taxes are used for many purposes, not all of which benefit the person paying the taxes. For example, if part of your taxes are being used to construct freeways, but you don't have a car and never use the freeways, can you legitimately complain that it is an \"unfair financial transaction\" or that it is \"theft\"? Taxes are meant to benefit society as a whole and this is a great way to give benefits to people who need them.4) University owes themPart of the reason students pay such a large amount of money to Universities is not just for tuition but for the facilities the University offers. My school [1] works with the public transport agancy and makes a deal with them for students to be allowed to ride free at taxpayer's expense. Universities should be doing this in all counties because this is a facility that is really needed.REBUTTAL1) Other uses Con would rather use taxpayers money for Social Security and debt. Carpooling, she says, is good for the evironment. Public transport is actually better since more people will use a bus than can fit into a car. Public transportation also saves 1.4 billion gallons of gas a year [2]. This would actually help pay the US debt on oil. Walking may be good for health but people cannot realistically walk long distances to class.2) Increased useCon says free transportation would increase use to the point of being too expensive. Not the case if only college students are given free transportation. The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full. In Riverside, California, college students ride for free [1] and there is no problem of overloading as the public transport is still running (though University operated transport closed for unrelated budget reasons). Sourceshttp://bit.ly...", "qid": 41, "docid": "d8f0bd3-2019-04-18T18:42:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.6343308091163635}, {"content": "Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: Hi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that \"SOME OF THEASE\" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide \"not all of them, and it is a real fact and not \"OUTRAGIOUS\" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family\"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had \"8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over \"40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his \"1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the \"14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 \"\" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it\"s been severely under-reported. I can\"t ignore it though, because I\"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I\"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America \"I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness.\" source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, \"Up to Our Eyeballs\" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he \"retires,\" in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says \"on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success.\" not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly \"peace of mind\", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those\" successfully hired graduates\" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say \"'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts\" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are \"underemployed\" not \"unemployed\" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads\"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education \"\" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions\" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads \"In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to \"\" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree\" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)", "qid": 41, "docid": "d8daa153-2019-04-18T15:42:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.6341965794563293}, {"content": "Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: I'm in college and have to deal with this number of times a year as far as i know no student is able to be denied loans since it comes in when their credit score is still new and unused. The system is set up that between scholarships and financial aid most students especially with a good gpa and sat should have no problem paying for college. The money you're talking about a young uneducated worker getting is minimum wage if you worked full time (60 hours a week about the same amount as school) something no student in school will be able to keep up with you would have allocated $15,000 in a year assuming your state has a ~8$ minimum wage in Georgia where i am it's 5.15$. It's a good deal to a kid who doesn't pay for bills or meals but when you try and put it towards tuition you won't keep it for long. since the average cost to pay for a school year is around $32,405 at private colleges and $9,410 for state residents at public colleges. My personal scholarships and Federal aid for a private college pay for about 30,000$ a year which would take two years of a 14 years working a minimum wage job in some states. Those transportation options create issues like now you take time and gas money away from family and i don't know where you are from but a golf cart is not street legal in many cities and suburbs. It would not be viable transportation it also doesn't handle bad weather.", "qid": 41, "docid": "d9a85746-2019-04-18T12:44:10Z-00002-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.6340372562408447}, {"content": "Title: Rebuttal: On contradictions Content: First and foremost, we do not agree that banks use incorrect risk assessment models for high-risk private loans (as is proven in our previous rebuttal). Furthermore, even assuming bad risk assessment, your proposed model deals with a very small amount of loans because others would still be made with bad assessment, so it is not clear why to limit ourselves to such a small part of all loans. We are extremely content that the proposition benefited from our Econ 101 lessons and finally acknowledges that their cap would prevent risky (but not excessively risky) loans from being made, because previously (in their second argument) they claimed that \u201cby capping the interest rate on a principal sum, the total amount of money a client repays the bank, will be less than it otherwise might be\u201d. Knowing this contradiction, we can easily explain why they think that we are contradicting ourselves. Since the proposition so sincerely believed that their policy would allow poor people to pay less in interest, we simply outlined that low interest rates in general stimulate spending, which is contrary to what they wanted in the first place. We never believed that this policy would encourage credit taking - we simply pointed out that by believing that once you cap interest rates, risky loans will be made at these rates, the proposition would be implicitly promoting more borrowing (although that would not be successful). We explicitly stated that the cap per se will not promote borrowing and we are happy to repeat that once more. Hence, the proposition sees contradictions in our line just because they are unable to see their own ones.", "qid": 41, "docid": "3607cc01-2019-04-19T12:45:00Z-00020-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.633638858795166}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. \u201cStill Paying Off that Student Loan\u201d. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549", "qid": 41, "docid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00016-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6316309571266174}, {"content": "Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. \u201cStill Paying Off that Student Loan\u201d. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549", "qid": 41, "docid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00016-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6316309571266174}, {"content": "Title: Bailout of US automakers Content: Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers", "qid": 41, "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00039-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6313552260398865}, {"content": "Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a \u201cdomino effect\u201d on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans \u2013 such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.", "qid": 41, "docid": "184b3d4f-2019-04-19T12:46:55Z-00010-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6307013034820557}, {"content": "Title: Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems Content: Fewer LoansUnder the Islamic banking system the lenders will be less willing to lend to small businesses because they have to take on much more risk that they have to under the mixed banking system. This means that ultimately more people will be trapped in poverty, unable to escape because they cannot get any capital to start a business. The Problem of InterestI think my opponent should be reminded that the option of default is open to those who become trapped in debt. Now this does have its drawbacks but these people are not eternally trapped in debt. Furthermore remember that accumulated interest means that more people can have loans granted to them. Also under the Islamic system when money isn't repaid on time there are a number of problems. The first is inflation, the value of money tends to decrease and because of this without charging interest banks will constantly loose money this means the economic viability for banks will be difficult.The other problem is that banks will struggle to grantee a certain amount of income which causes problems both for share prices and the maintenance of a permanent staff.", "qid": 41, "docid": "61cd3b7e-2019-04-18T15:47:01Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6303439140319824}, {"content": "Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;\"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower.\" The source I provided stated;\"An Associate\u2019s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor\u2019s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor\u2019s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor\u2019s degree.\" Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.", "qid": 41, "docid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00001-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.629971444606781}, {"content": "Title: MBA Content: Debt from MBA can be a major burden.", "qid": 41, "docid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00040-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.629362940788269}, {"content": "Title: Balanced Budget Amendment Content: Sorry for the misunderstanding about round one. First, to defend my own point. A BBA would slow down congress indirectly. I gave the example of approaching the debt ceiling, which, I think we can agree, is highly relevant. The deadline imposed by the debt ceiling exacerbated existing rifts within Congress. The rifts in turn slowed down decision making. What a BBA would do is act as sort of a \"mini debt ceiling\". As Congress approaches their limit, they will begin (or rather continue, but worse) squabbling over bills to excessive degrees. You use the example of a family in your first contention, and I think that is a suitable parallel, so I will use it as well. Let's say that the primary provider for the family (I realize it's stereotypical but I'm going to use the father) gets a bonus. At first, it's \"Yay, let's buy stuff!\" as the money runs out, the family has to start choosing more. Whereas in the beginning Jane could get a new blow dryer AND Johnny could get a new baseball glove, when the money starts to run low, they begin to argue over who gets it. The same thing would happen on a larger scale as the limit's approached. Now you have Republicans and Democrats fighting for the rest of the money, neither willing to concede. We know this happens because (unfortunately) very similar circumstances to what you propose recently occurred and these were the results. Introducing a BBA would be like creating a debt limit (I know it's not DEBT, but it's the same idea) that would be even more recurrent than the one existing now. Further regarding your first point, cannot a family apply for a loan? Nearly everyone, when buying a new car or house, will take out a loan for it. They don't have the $300,000 for that new colonial on the market, but they can still buy it because they can get a loan for the money. They will receive the loan because the bank trusts them to pay it back. The same things happen on a larger scale. The United States, until recently, had the highest possible credit rating, meaning people trust us to pay back what we borrow. Even when it was downgraded, it is still extremely good. As Jon Stewart points out, (paraphrasing, but it's pretty close) \"We went from AAA to AA+? Why is everyone so worried? If you go out to get a porno and find out its only XX+ instead of XXX, are you really THAT disappointed?\". And the fact is, we received said downgrade because of congress' inability to function effectively and efficiently under the imposition of a deadline. Experts estimate that the tipping point of the United States' debt is at about 180% of the GDP, and right now we are at around 100%. Where we are is sustainable. Japan is one of the world's strongest economies, and their debt is roughly 200% of their GDP. Your points about the acceleration of debt is a problem, but you do not account for changing circumstances. A very large portion of the increase in debt is due to the war in the middle east, and the recession. The war on terror has cost $1.3 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That cost is drastically reduced with the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and decreasing levels in Afghanistan. (By the way, that is not military spending over those years, it is money spent specifically on the war on terror and does not include domestic upkeep, aid packages, etc.) The second major cost in that period is the recession. The 2008 bailout alone cost $700 billion with $150 billion in added corollaries introduced in congress. Hundreds of billions more have been spent on stimulus packages, and other economic band aids. So we can see that rather than being a continuing exponential increase in debt, the numbers you provided in fact represent a peak . The number we need to really worry about is not in dollars but in percents. If America incurred another hundred billion in debt, we'd barely feel it. But if say Nepal incurred a hundred billion dollars of debt, they would be completely devastated. Where it is now, the debt as a percent of GDP is sustainable, and according to http://www.supportingevidence.com... is projected to level out in coming years and then decline to lower, more normal levels. Another problem with a BBA is that it makes long term spending difficult. Congress would have to account for future scenarios in determining spending projects. If they guess the GDP would be higher than it ends up being, there would be a budget shortfall that could result in painful cuts to programs we need because we cannot support them at the time, even if it just for a year. So, to reiterate my points, imposing a BBA would act detrimentally to Congress' ability to function, it is unnecessary because the current and projected debt exists at sustainable levels, and that it would cause complications in long term budgets plans. It is for these reasons that we can plainly see a BBA is not viable, recommendable, or desirable.", "qid": 41, "docid": "85299632-2019-04-18T18:32:30Z-00006-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6289416551589966}, {"content": "Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers. Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous. Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments. C1P2: Student Loan - There is no \"cheap\" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree. None of these situations are in the control of a consumer. C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process. I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying. C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination. C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job. \"System of credit bureaus...\" 1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a \"bad\" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc. 2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the \"mercy\" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how \"good\" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income? In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act. C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm. C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless. C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are. C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all. AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse. AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness. I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom \"all people are created equal\" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.", "qid": 41, "docid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6287878751754761}, {"content": "Title: Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor Content: I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any \"trickling down\" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.", "qid": 41, "docid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6282730102539062}, {"content": "Title: Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Content: Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. \"Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay...\" The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. \"[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students.\" The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.", "qid": 41, "docid": "1f55a567-2019-04-18T13:39:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6280813217163086}, {"content": "Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score. I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line. Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example). I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!", "qid": 41, "docid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6277177929878235}, {"content": "Title: Scrapping tuition fees could mean moving to a graduate tax where students do not need to pay anything up front. Content: The current system is surrounded by misunderstanding. This is because the debt as we know it isn't \"a massive cheque\" but rather a repayment of a debt as part of a persons salary over time. In effect this is something vary similar to a graduate tax.[[Nicholas Barr on why loans are better than a graduate tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/24/nicholas-barr-graduate-tax%5D%5D", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00031-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6271131038665771}, {"content": "Title: Saving economy outweighs moral hazard of auto bailout Content: Steven Pearlstein. \"The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve\". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - Not only are the Big Three not deserving, but to help them out of their current predicament would also set a lousy precedent in a market-driven economy where the possibility of earning great wealth is supposed to be balanced against the possibility of failure[...] And yet it is probably the wise thing to do. This is a uniquely inopportune time for these three giant companies, with their hundreds of thousands of employees and vast national network of suppliers and distributors, to be forced to go through the painful process of bankruptcy reorganization.\"\\", "qid": 41, "docid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00102-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6268160939216614}, {"content": "Title: College should be entirely government funded. Content: I understand the crime rate issue but you have to take into account that many students who currently receive financial aid only show up to get their book checks at the beginning of the semester and during the middle. Not everyone is cut out for school. Some students are in debt sometimes not cause they wanted to go to college but had no choice but because their relatives wanted them to go.", "qid": 41, "docid": "dfe65544-2019-04-18T18:09:36Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6267284154891968}, {"content": "Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.", "qid": 41, "docid": "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00004-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.626463770866394}, {"content": "Title: The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow Content: The opposition's argument here is a masterclass in flip-flopping. On one hand they support 'rationally' (we use this term VERY loosely) made risky loans, on the other they demand government-provided education for borrowers. On one hand they believe the debt spiral is not worth government intervention, on the other hand they demand more transparency in loan agreements. The reality is that cleanly spelled out theory does not capture the dangers that risky loans have for both the borrower and broader society (that third party that DOES suffer). First, the state often intervenes when people make bad decisions that have consequences for themselves (drugs, suicide, sometimes gambling, seat belt usage). We do this because: (a) rationality is very hard to prove - when someone is in a debt spiral they are *not* rational, they are desperate and act out of desperation, as our sources show (and actually as the opposition concedes when they say this is a 'last resort'); (b) those people who are making bad decisions become easy prey for people looking to bleed them dry, and thus they need state protection; (c) damages to an individual's life generally have broader consequences for families and friends who are *not* implicated in the decision making process. Second, there is tangible third party harm - the harm to society that we outlined at the beginning. Risky loaning is dangerous (as the last 12 months have shown - bankers being ABLE to make dangerous risky loans that are never going to be paid back) and undercuts savings. Third, the opposition's soft support actions (education and information and transparency) are (a) not mutually exclusive with our policy, and (b) unlikely to be able to help - information campaigns have failed, unequivocally, to prevent the massive growth of drug abuse in most parts of the world (and the spread of AIDS/HIV, and the proliferation of gambling addiction, etc etc etc). Finally, the reality is that people cannot live and survive on credit or loans, and any society that endorses this is bound to run into problems (blossoming debt crises across the world, as we cited earlier). Eventually debt will come back to bite the borrower, sooner or later. The later it is, the more deadly the venom.", "qid": 41, "docid": "3607cc01-2019-04-19T12:45:00Z-00027-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6261405944824219}, {"content": "Title: Why the focus should be on economy , not the debt when it comes to the federal budget Content: .. As the con side it falls on me to show why the debt that a nation owes others is one of the most important aspects in regards to federal budget and shall elaborate on the following: If you take the nation to be a person, debt would be what the first priority would be considered. No nation should think they have disposable income until they have paid off their debts. Until debts are paid off, there might as well not be a federal budget, it is the deciding factor. Thank you.", "qid": 41, "docid": "b8df4773-2019-04-18T17:40:25Z-00003-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6259489059448242}, {"content": "Title: Debt deal avoids a disastrous default. Content: \"NECESSARY - AND BAD.\" Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: \"The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment.\"", "qid": 41, "docid": "372877fc-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00023-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6256024837493896}, {"content": "Title: People who get home loans are welfare babies! Content: I think my opponent is trying to make the case that since nobody will help you pay your home loan, Then that means you're not a welfare baby. I remain unconvinced. Does my opponent deny that most home loans since the great depression are made available through government subsidies? These loans require some form of public investment. Home loans can be streched out over a 30 or even 40 year period as opposed to the 3 to 7 years that private banks used to do, This is made possible by other peoples investment in your loan, Including taxpayer investment. Those who meet the criteria to be qualified for a home loan can do so because of these programs, Those who don't meet the requirements for a home loan still will have some of their taxes taken to help fund programs that they themselves cannot benefit from. Just as someone who does not meet the criteria for welfare, They will still have some taxes taken away to fund a government program that does not benefit them. Let talk about these stringent requirements that are needed to secure a home loan. Just a couple months ago, Congress eased banking laws that were put in place just after the housing bubble burst (Oh how easily we forget the lessons of the past). Https://www. Wsj. Com/articles/how-congress-rolled-back-banking-rules-in-a-rare-bipartisan-deal-1527030512. It happened in 87, It happened in 07, Now the pendulum has turned back toward easing banking loan rules, And that's the first domino in line to fall, Leading us on a path to more economic hardship. Before those crashes, Anybody with a face could get a loan. Who's to say that banks will not continue to prod lawmakers to convince them to roll back bank lending rules even more? After the next market crash, Who's to say those banks won't tuck their tails between their legs and give congress the poor puppy dog eyes and say, We need a bailout? I think my opponent was trying to elude to the fact that home loans aren't so easy to get because certain requirements are needed. I find that argument to be a smidge complacent. Maybe right now it's difficult, But as history has shown, Lending rules are not anchored. Just sit back and watch how much easier these loans will become to get, And be horrified at how quickly everyone will forget the lessons of the past. The US has an excellent credit rating. US bonds are considered to be a solid investment. If we don't keep our credit intact, Taxes will soar. Using our system of bonds wisely is of utmost importance. Investment in our infrastructure by selling bonds is a very good idea because interest can be made, That interest eases the amount of money taxpayers must spend to invest in things we need to invest in, I. E. Infrastructure, Our education system, And healthcare. A lower credit rating will permeate negatively in every aspect of public interest, And put added economic stress on all taxpayers. Our commitment to subsidize home loans puts an added burden on our credit rating. I am happy to hear that my opponent is doing well with his pursuit to own a home, But one thing we've learned in the last stock market crash was that nobodies jobs are truly secure during an economic downturn. Leave us not forget that in the few years that followed the housing market crises, The idea of a recession proof business was laughable. We all want to know that our jobs are secure, But we can't always count on that. When jobs are being lost up and down the board, People are going to miss payments on their home loans, It's inevitable. It doesn't make them bad people, And they can't necessarily be blamed, But sometimes it can't be helped. When our commitment to pay out on the bonds that the US has sold can't be met, Taxes will either go up to try and pay those bonds, Or taxes will go up because we can't rely on using bonds for public investment. During economic strife, The last thing we wanna hear is, It's gonna get worse because taxes are going up. The economic stress that subsidized home loans put on taxpayers, Our credit rating, And our general public interest is not sustainable. People who get home loans ARE welfare babies!", "qid": 41, "docid": "78bebf1b-2019-04-18T11:22:15Z-00001-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.625502347946167}, {"content": "Title: Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Content: Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality", "qid": 41, "docid": "8944c7f4-2019-04-18T12:00:04Z-00000-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6252983212471008}, {"content": "Title: Free University Education Content: \"But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans. Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true.\" \"No immediate financial barrier\" does not mean \"no financial barrier.\" Many sensible people aren't going to throw themselves tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for college, and, due to these risks, won't go to college. If someone gave you a choice between getting one punch in the face, or some Tylenol and two punches in the face after you took it, you might very reasonably choose one punch in the face. The same principle applies. You may very well make up the money for the student loan eventually, but until that time it can be a very crippling long-term financial burden that can severely limit one's choices in life. Many people cannot take this risk, and so are therefore unable to go to college. Adding to this point, when risk is removed from the situation, people may be more bold in courses and careers that they choose to take, which could lead to the filling of high-demand jobs that require tertiary education, such as nurses or web designers. This gives back to society as a whole, further compounding on the reasons why this benefits the public and is worthy of tax dollars. My opponent continues to insist that people with degrees will refuse to work out of their degree area. I highly doubt, especially with the student loans that my opponent advocates, that graduates would rather sink into unemployment than, probably temporarily, get a disagreeable job. My opponent uses the U.K. as a representation of the world, even though it accounts for less than 1% of the world's population. My opponent's main point seems to be that we don't want more college students. As stated above, he uses numbers exclusively from the U.K. I could attempt to prove him incorrect within the U.K. specifically, but, as aforementioned, the U.K. is not representative of the world or even the West as a whole. Unless more applicable data is provided, I will assume that the provided data and the directly corresponding arguments are not valid. This allows me to move to more cerebral aspects of why we want more people in college than my opponent seems to think that there should be. For example, my opponent says that \"Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does.\" I absolutely, totally agree with this point. However, this entire claim is completely dependent on the word \"necessarily.\" Of course people can educate themselves to a level equal to or even higher than that of college education. However, this is not by any means the norm, especially outside of isolated fields. If people normally educated themselves more than schooling did, there would be no schooling. \"If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the \"27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted.\" Even if college had no career benefits (it does, this is hypothetical) it has benefits outside of careers. People who go to college are exposed to more viewpoints and people and ideas than are most other people, and are given the skills to think critically. Reasons such as these are why people are taught seemingly inapplicable subjects in school such as history and art and philosophy and literature: they make us better people. Going to school is not all about getting a job. It is a big part of it, yes, but not the whole thing. A citizen going to vote who has been educated on history and consequences will be able to make a better decision than someone who hasn't been. Someone who has discussed altruism in a classroom setting may be more charitable than others. Someone who has been educated in art could make someone's day by articulately comparing their visage to Nascita di Venere. Someone who has read The Catcher in the Rye may have the drive to reach out to an antisocial or depressed person and help them. Education helps us in the business world, certainly, but it does so, so much more for us. The Civil Rights Movement, anti-war movements, and other vehicles of social progression all have their roots on college campuses. Tax dollars pay for things that are much more ridiculous than this. We could raise taxes just a little and provide not only equal career opportunity for all, but make people to be better. They might not get this chance otherwise, due to the heavy financial burden that they would undertake in doing so. To quote the French philosopher Emmanuel Jaffelin, \"Let us remember that in Greek, the word 'School' ('skhol') means neither client nor debt, but 'leisure.'\"(1) 1-http://sedulia.blogs.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "1b21a2f2-2019-04-18T15:02:36Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6252144575119019}, {"content": "Title: The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan Content: The governments of the debtor countries knew exactly what they were signing up for when the took out the loans! Why should the loans be dropped just because they are struggling to pay? A bank wouldn't drop a customer's debt if they were unable to pay!", "qid": 41, "docid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00024-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.624930739402771}, {"content": "Title: Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available Content: The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA\u2019s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.", "qid": 41, "docid": "e3f93a3a-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00015-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6243271827697754}, {"content": "Title: AIG did not file for bankruptcy; bonus contracts still valid Content: Thomas Keeley. \"In Defense of AIG Bonuses\". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - \"it\u2019s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings. [...] Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again.\"", "qid": 41, "docid": "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00063-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6238605380058289}, {"content": "Title: Developed economies can handle perpetual debt. Content: Countries may avoid defaulting on their loans, but that does not mean there are no repercussions to excessive debt. Nations with better credit ratings can receive loans at lower rates because they are considered a safe investment. Higher interest rates dig a government deeper into its hole, as it must now find a way to pay back even more money. In the interest of preserving low interest rates, thereby allowing tax dollars to be more efficiently directed towards services, governments should keep their budgets balanced for a good credit rating.", "qid": 41, "docid": "37bfee71-2019-04-15T20:22:27Z-00018-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.623730480670929}, {"content": "Title: College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses. Content: My opponent stated that college students have options and don't have to pay for college alone as well as students who do get scholarships or grants should be responsible to manage their money and make arrangements to be able to succeed in their career path. I do not agree with this statement because many of the organizations that offer scholarships and grants are strict with how the money can be spent. In fact according to many colleges, \"they deduct automatically the cost of tuition from any financial aid they extend to students. The students never receive a check.\" Many colleges require that the money students receive to be used only to cover expenses on books, room, board, and tuition. My opponent also stated that students are adults which is why they should be capable of managing the money they receive from scholarships, grants, and loans. The evidence I provided before proves that although students may be legally adults, they still are restricted to what they can spend the money they receive on. This validates my claim that since students are restricted to what they spend their money on, they should be careful when selecting courses for the expenses may be high and that will deprive money from other areas. Therefore, students should not have the freedom to choose their courses. https://money.howstuffworks.com...", "qid": 41, "docid": "5cd1966b-2019-04-18T11:36:32Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6235631704330444}, {"content": "Title: State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state Content: Almost every young adult today is expected to have a college degree. It is a social norm in todays society. Many people have a lot to consider when applying to colleges. Things such as location, size of the school, its reputaion and its majors are things that will decide whether you will attend or not. But the most important thing that people have to consider is the cost. Whether a community college, private college or state college, this educational expense can affect families and students. Even State colleges can cost up to about $30,000 a year. This leaves students coming out of college with extreme debt. This is causing a major issue in today's society. After college, young adults are expected to live on thier own and fend for themselves. After leaving school, students realize that they will not be able to afford the expensies of living on thier own and they soon find themselves moving back at home with their parents. College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent. This is not going to be happening if they are forced to move back home as soon as they are finished getting their degree. With an average cost of $30,000 per year for college tuition, a four year degree will cost the student $120,000. This is a tremdous debt for anyone to burden, much less a young adult who has just graduated college. Adults purchasing a house take on this level of debt and then arrange for it to be paid back over twenty to thirty years. Many of the loans afforded to students are required to be paid back in much less time. How, with little to no experience to speak of, can a new graduate get a job paying enough to both support themselves and pay back this enormous debt. They cannot. So, the student ends up living at home with their parents to speed up the process of paying back their loans. If the former student gets a job paying $40,000 per year, their take home pay will be about sixty percent or about $25,000. Now if you take all of these earnings and put them towards the outstanding college loans, it will take about five years to pay back the loans. However, this is not reality so it will take much longer. Most likely, the pay back of the loans will be more like $10,000 per year. With this pay schedule, the payback is now up to twelve years. I'm also assuming that these loans carry no interest. Not likely! How can you even think of going to a bank to obtain a credit rating or another loan with this much debt on you? Other countries don't put this burden on their young adults. If education is a priority to get our economy running again the way we need it to, then the education of our youth is a top priority. That being said, how can the education of youth be a priority if the cost prohibits so many students from attending and getting a college education. In this economy, a college education is not an option, it is a requirement. By making state colleges free for students living in that state, we will make college education available to anyone who wants this education.", "qid": 41, "docid": "28b3999f-2019-04-18T18:29:22Z-00009-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6233682036399841}, {"content": "Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. \"Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,\". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.", "qid": 41, "docid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6230490207672119}, {"content": "Title: financial stress is part of university life Content: As much as students may moan about the mounting costs of education, what being a paying student provides is a sense of pleasure. Students will often congregate to talk about their financial worries. Some may form protest groups. However, as much as they complain about it,they find a certain satisfaction in being in such a predicament. It is almost a form of pleasure to see the loan accumulate. What it provides them with ultimately is a sense of self sufficiency which they would not6 get if University education was free.", "qid": 41, "docid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00038-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6225762963294983}, {"content": "Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: If you ever really looked into student loans you will see that the teenager would have to pay of the loans that they got from the college.When the student of the college gets a loan they will need to pay back the school after that semester that they are doing.Also, some of the families cant afford getting loans because of how poor they are, with the transportation issue they could always get s ride from some one or they can have their own permit on a 4-wheeler or a golf cart, they really dont need a drivers license.", "qid": 41, "docid": "d9a85746-2019-04-18T12:44:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6223495602607727}]}
{"query": "Should fighting be allowed in hockey?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. \"Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. \"There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because \"it won't do anything\". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans \"will just end up fighting\" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.", "qid": 42, "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00002-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.8556020259857178}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8543389439582825}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Fighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.", "qid": 42, "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00003-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8508671522140503}, {"content": "Title: Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned Content: Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...", "qid": 42, "docid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00001-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8497596979141235}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )", "qid": 42, "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8434253931045532}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00005-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8276886940002441}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!", "qid": 42, "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00003-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8146204948425293}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for \"big hits\" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the \"right way\" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00000-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.801307201385498}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; \"as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players \" slightly more than one of every five in the league \" are injured.\" These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00001-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.7988688945770264}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: Hockey is kinda Violent", "qid": 42, "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.7845734357833862}, {"content": "Title: American Football Fighters Content: The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.", "qid": 42, "docid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00000-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7818721532821655}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00006-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7712701559066772}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.770712673664093}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: \"Don Sanderson\" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game.\" Simpson: \"I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?\" It\"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it\"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death\"even an accidental death\"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We\"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.", "qid": 42, "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00002-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7695498466491699}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.", "qid": 42, "docid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00000-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7587004899978638}, {"content": "Title: BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports Content: I graciously your invitation and take up the Negative position on the challenge. To insure that we are talking about the same thing I give the definition of a combat sport as a sport in which the competitors make physical contact with each other and engage in one-to-one combat. Examples are: Boxing, Karate, Jujitsu, MMA fighting, etc. It is now my job to argue that the Government should not pass laws banning combat sports. Rounds 1 and 2 are for preliminaries, 3 and 4 for case development, and whatever rounds remain for rebuttals and closing arguments. Good luck in the debate!", "qid": 42, "docid": "f3244b27-2019-04-18T16:16:35Z-00002-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7553534507751465}, {"content": "Title: Competitive spoprts Content: Should kids be allowed to play competitive sports yes or no?", "qid": 42, "docid": "2e3556c7-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00001-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7537047863006592}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey needs a lot of skill and it has a high physical component to the game. Any debate will have some opinion in it. Hockey is the best sport cause of what I previously mentioned. This debate was supposed to be opiniated.", "qid": 42, "docid": "c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00001-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7528442740440369}, {"content": "Title: is hockey better than american football Content: I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that \" In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice.\" This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football.\"There are no weapons in football.\" This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal.\"In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage.\" Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?\"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost.\" This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures.\"if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die.\" Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch.\" Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound.\" That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up.\"A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them.\" Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not.\"I could go on but there really is no contest here.\" Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?\"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.\" And this is exactly why football is the better sport.Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.As I said in round one, \"in American football anything is being involved in the sport.\" The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.I leave it to the voters.", "qid": 42, "docid": "8aad4958-2019-04-18T17:51:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7501778602600098}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don\u2019t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884bca-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00004-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.7490777373313904}, {"content": "Title: is hockey too violent Content: hockey is not too violent", "qid": 42, "docid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7474464178085327}, {"content": "Title: Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey Content: Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00002-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7396305799484253}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Fighting Content: My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.", "qid": 42, "docid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7391557693481445}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I'll give you one thing. You are such a master at the profession of being a Hypocrite! Hey, at least you where honest. I will go and give at least one reason for 6 of my opponents points, on why they are flawed, including rebutting his rebuttal. :) DARTH KIRONES SECOND POINT: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!!!! This seems very flawed. Yes, it might be exciting as a fan to watch, but you have to put yourself in the player's shoes. You are getting punched and shoved, until you get slammed to the ice by your opponent. You start to black out, but vaguely see some hands carrying you on a stretcher into the Locker Room. How the heck is situations like this \"good\"? Also, my opponent stated that they give bigger penalties if serious injuries occur. This is also false. They only give longer penalties if it is a hit that injures someone. In a Hockey fight, even if you knock someone unconscious, the penalty is still five minutes. As Darth Kirones says: \"the penalty is small\". Too small! DARTH KIRONES THIRD POINT: The Scoring He fails to see two things when saying that goalies in Hockey try harder than goalies in soccer. Just because you do not face as much shots in Soccer does NOT mean, at all, that you are trying less hard. Yes, there was less shots, but, the goalie made all the saves, didn't he? IF the soccer goalie faced more shots, it would have been a more accurate comparison because the soccer Goalie in that game did not have to work very hard to block less shots. That definitely does not mean that if there was more shots he would not have to work very hard though. Another thing. Because there is a lot less defence it is way easier to get shots on net in Hockey, then in Soccer, where there is more defensive players. DARTH KIRONES FOURTH POINT: Hockey is a better team sport Just because there is a shift in people on the ice does not make it more of a \"team sport\". It just means that you have different players on the ice. How does that make it more of a \"team sport\"? And the limit for NHL hockey is 23 players per Club, where as in Premier League Soccer, there is a limit of 25 players at a time. Seems to me there are more \"job opportunities\", as my opponent puts it, in soccer. DARTH KIRONES FIFTH POINT: Diving So my opponent says that he doesn't like people getting hurt. Ok, one more Hypocritical thing. He is cheating for Hockey right? Hockey is one of the most physical and highest contact sport. Well look at this: \"The highest rates of injury occur in sports that involve contact and collisions\"- University of Rochester sports statistics. My opponent might say that hockey players have more protection to prevent them from bug hits. This helps, but not enough. Players are still injured daily from big hits in Hockey. DARTH KIRONES SIXTH POINT: Faster This point is flawed for one major reason. My opponent stated that \"The word \"Longer\" and the word \"Better\" are NOT the same\" If you where a true loyal fan to a soccer or Hockey team, like many sports fanatics are, \"Longer\" and \"Better\" might very well mean the same because fans would love to see there favourite team for longer. This makes going to soccer games more enjoyable. DARTH KIRONES SEVENTH POINT: Promotion of Winter Fitness My opponent states that you don't get the full experience of soccer indoors because you don't have the \"sun shining on your face.\" Soccer does not need the perfect breeze and the amazing sunlight to be able to play. Also, if you wanted to emphasize that Hockey is such a winter sport, then why would you say: \"Just play indoors!\" That ruins your whole first point! If you want Hockey to be a winter sport, then you play outside, utilizing the ice. DARTH KIRONES REBUTTAL: Yes, hockey has unlimited overtime periods, but those very rarely go over 1 extra period, or 20 minutes extra time, and is ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS! Thanks, jacobie1121 References: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... http://www.fifa.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.738771915435791}, {"content": "Title: That UfC should be banned. Content: I think in this statement \"but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport\" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as \"blood sports.\" In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and \"damage\" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where \"people are intentionally causing harm to each other.\" If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what \"causing harm to each other\" means.", "qid": 42, "docid": "249416df-2019-04-18T15:26:50Z-00000-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7363115549087524}, {"content": "Title: Gladiator Battles should be Legal Content: I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as \"it's unethical! \" or \"killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! \" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 42, "docid": "51e5d59b-2019-04-18T18:18:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7332004904747009}, {"content": "Title: International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties. Content: However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 \u2013 Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling \u2013 that's all scripted and choreographed \u2013 it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 \u2013 Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 \u2013 Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners \u2013 any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 \u2013 Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 \u2013 Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.", "qid": 42, "docid": "a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00001-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7298867702484131}, {"content": "Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: It might not be against the rules per se, but it's certainly against good sporting spirit. Perhaps you have had this debate at least one too many times. Let the voters vote against me if they wish, but you should accept your rebuke for unsporting conduct.", "qid": 42, "docid": "70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00002-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7295986413955688}, {"content": "Title: Dogfighting should be legal Content: A few things to clarify:I will be arguing that dogfighting should be legal Dogfighting is a type of bloodsport in which (generally) you oppose two game dogs against each other in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters. Although I am not entirely FOR dogfighting, I believe it should be legal.", "qid": 42, "docid": "bacefc52-2019-04-18T11:07:59Z-00003-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7293310761451721}, {"content": "Title: The NFL is too soft Content: Sure, bone-crushing, skull-fracturing violence might be more entertaining... But consider the players. These new regulations are all about avoiding serious, damaging injuries.", "qid": 42, "docid": "4f9fce8b-2019-04-18T15:42:37Z-00004-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7277445793151855}, {"content": "Title: The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport Content: Thank you for taking a part in this and for having much respect. I assume you play soccer because you seem to write more and be most passionate about it, but that is just an assumption. In soccer, the goalie may have to leave his small box to play the ball. But the hockey goaltender must do the same to play the puck. And as the goal may be 4x the size if an Nil size, the ball is 10x bigger than a puck. The puck can be tipped, there can be multiple passes before a shot, the goalie can be screened and the goalie can be hit by another player, which may be illegal but is rarely called by referees. In football, what I meant by they aren't on the field all the time is that if your a quarterback, your not going to be on the field when the defense is on the field. Baseball, the pitcher does need to choose the perfect pitch, but they have about a minute to do so. The hockey goalie must do the equivalent but in a split second Dance, dance is mostly a team sport where no body contributes the most. And if it is a single dancer, when they make a mistake, they cant be pulled and humiliated, they get to keep going on Wrestling, just so we are clear, we are talking about cage fighters and not that fake wwe stuff right, that being said, fists and kicks don't hurt as bad as a puck to the groin. Plus, id like to see a wrestler skate with that much pads on. On the armless ping pongers, I give them many applauds since I know I couldn't do it, but its still not that different id they're playing everyone like that. The goaltender may not be as important as you say, but it is the most difficult there is since all goalies must use the Same size net from mini mights to beer league, all goalies must skate which does not apply to any other sport. Finally all goalies must have some of the greatest hand eye coordination there is. Because unlike baseball players. If they miss the puck, its a goal. So I ask you this, if the hockey goaltender isn't the most difficult position in sport, then who is.", "qid": 42, "docid": "231c59cf-2019-04-18T16:12:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7251914143562317}, {"content": "Title: That UfC should be banned. Content: UfC should be banned because all it is, is people beating each other up. It is very dangerous and they could get seriously hurt.", "qid": 42, "docid": "249416df-2019-04-18T15:26:50Z-00003-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7219388484954834}, {"content": "Title: As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned. Content: As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned, as it is already in countries like Sweden, Cuba and North Korea. Even if adults wish to fight each other for sport, violence should not be encouraged by financial reward. The amateur sport is at least much better regulated, with credible governing bodies and tough rules on wearing helmets, the length of fights, the role of the referee, etc. Knock-outs are very rare and serious injuries much less common than in the professional game (although there are still deaths each year in amateur boxing).", "qid": 42, "docid": "abf7ee52-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00023-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.7218434810638428}, {"content": "Title: At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Content: No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called \"violent\" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.", "qid": 42, "docid": "a779bd19-2019-04-18T15:32:40Z-00000-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7198340892791748}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: 1.) Embellishment - If you are entire argument is based on a video made by some desperate guy determined to undermine the GREATNESS of Soccer using some archaic video footage of nondescript teams. I dont know what to say. I base my arguments on fact and the fact is that these days players who act like that are penalised. Here is the proof--- (there goes the argument on \"embellishment\". ) 2) Accuracy - This is a video of a 40 yard kick in the corner of the goal protected by a goalkeeper well above 6'3 with an entire wall in front of him . 40 yards almost the 2/3 of the length of a hockey rink. that's almost like an Ice hockey goalie scoring from his half. I doubt if you could show me a video of a ice hockey player make the puck swerve in the air from 40 yards out. 3) Toughness - Since you seem so hell bent on the toughness of this game let's analyze this a bit a) Adaptability - Soccer is played in rain , storm , snow and sweltering heats of brazilian maracana with temp of 42 centigrade, Does a Ice hockey player go through the same , No its always over ice , they would probably faint in any other condition. b) Endurance - How can one compare a game of 20 min halves of ice hockey with 45 min halves of hight tempo game of soccer. MLS in US is a very pathetic example of soccer , with sub standard players and worst style of play. If one wants to know how fast this game can be one should at least see barcelona FC in action, which would pale any. Yes any ice hockey game in pace and tempo. c) Ice hockey players wearing virtually a full body armor is not a contact sport, its sheer hypocrisy. I mean why have any protection if they are so tough play just the way actual rugby players slug it out. Rugby is a contact sport which in true essence has tough men not ice hockey. And if my purpose of watching sports is to see tough men i would watch boxing, judo , taekwondo , wrestling not ice hockey. The small minority of people who watch ice hockey watch it for their skill on ice not toughness. Some more facts which would make the position amply clear 1) Soccer largest watched sports in the world , World cup soccer most watched event on planet after olympics 2) Soccer clubs richest in the world more than NFL, NHL, Baseball etc etc. (If you can show me stats to disapprove this I would concede) PS - Ensure caution in choosing topic , either put \"Ice Hockey is better than soccer \"or accept both . Field hockey is still more popular than any Ice hockey.", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7191845178604126}, {"content": "Title: children should be allowed to box in school. Content: sorry I forgot to outline the rounds and i meant boxing in general (gym and after school). I feel it is wrong to allow them to play rugby which you sprint at other people and slam into them but ban boxing. you can get hurt much more in rugby with broken bones and being trodden on by studded boots and people see that as fine but with boxing if you control the power of your punch and where proper protection it should be reasonably safe. I understand that there is a degree of risk in every sport.", "qid": 42, "docid": "f1c64e5b-2019-04-18T14:02:33Z-00003-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.717683732509613}, {"content": "Title: Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Content: \"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason.\" Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. \"With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. \"Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?\" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? \"Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence.\" I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.", "qid": 42, "docid": "8fd0a899-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00003-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7175397872924805}, {"content": "Title: fighting should be banned from the NHL Content: noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.", "qid": 42, "docid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.715306282043457}, {"content": "Title: Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed Content: Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of \"human cock fighting\" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of \"sportsmanship\". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.", "qid": 42, "docid": "8fd0a899-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00004-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.714131236076355}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking Content: From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows \"Body checking.\" This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean \"no contact.\" There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.", "qid": 42, "docid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00001-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7136636972427368}, {"content": "Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: I would like to start my stating my disappointment in con for deviating from the planned debate, but we can be flexible for the sake of time and amicability. In Con's first refutation he states the he would assume that if you do not know how to ice skate he hope you would not be playing professional hockey, and I agree, but he is leaving out one major thing about professional sports. Each and everyday of their lives including their professional career they are constantly learning and re-mastering fundamental skills. So even though we are debating common fundamental skills, you can not deny that a professional player at one time had to learn how to play the game, and must continue to practice. I chose the professional level of play so that common rules would be placed into effect instead of certain rule sets where balks are not counted in baseball or checking isn't allowed in hockey, or any other rule differences among different age groups. I gave you flexibility, I think I may appeal to you for some leniency in this instance. In addition to mastering skating, which if anyone has ever tried before, you know it is very difficult to simply go slowly with your girlfriend, much less go balls out towards a puck with a defender hanging on your back. A hockey player must also learn how to use his stick as an extension of his hands, which is not easy to get used to either because the stick is not a part of your body as in soccer or basketball where you can use your feet and hands respectively. Applying more to the professional level a hockey player must also be quick to think as there is a certain strategy to the game that takes more than a couple years to master. A player must learn where to move without the puck as well as with it, and players must jostle with defenders in order to get that crucial positioning, in addition to the offensive side, players must also recognize the same opportunities the other team has while they are playing defense. Conclusion: Although Con would like to make my mastering skating argument irrelevant the fact of the matter is that hockey players must continue to practice and work hard at that skill in order to maintain their high level of play. In addition if a hockey player suffers an injury he/she must, in some cases, completely re-learn how to skate and play in general. While he/she will pick up the concept more quickly the fact of the matter is there are more skills a player must master and practice in professional ice hockey than say boxing where they must only learn to punch, or football where players must mainly know how to kick and ball handle. In Con's second refutation he/she has misunderstood the my argument. I am not saying that a sport's danger defines it's difficulty, but instead that danger compliments the skills the players on the ice possess and perform. . http://www.youtube.com... in this video we see Blackhawks defenseman Brian Campbell skate back to track down a loose puck with Capitals forward Alex Ovechkin, known as a dirty player on his back. In the video at the 0:04 mark we see Campbell look back and see Ovechkin, knowing full well that he will be hit on this play Campbell maintains focus, tracks down the puck, and gets rid of it. A display of speed, skating, hand-eye coordination, strength, and most importantly focus all in one simple hockey play. You can see it again here . http://www.youtube.com... where Vernon Fiddler at the 0:03 second mark tenses up because he knows a hit is coming but keeps focus on a get rid of the puck. I can pull this examples all day. The point is that yes hockey being dangerous does not make it the hardest sport to play, but the danger the players are put through and the skills they are expected to being able to command under that danger make ice hockey a difficult sport. In Con's their refutation we see him/her come back to a point made earlier which I have already touched upon. Even though the skills are expected of pros you can deny the fact that they have once had to learn the skills, and they must still continue to practice and master that skill in the present. But Con does bring up an interesting point, \"As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. \" In the excerpt above con basically states that difficulty is relative, which is the whole basis of his argument, which I must admit is a tad bit annoying, no offense con, but everything can be relative. Hitler is evil to me, but I'm sure the White Power group down the street thinks of him as revolutionary, so I view your whole argument invalid in a debate setting. In addition you view swimming as harder, but I can guarantee you there are more people who can swim around the world than there are who ice skate, one continent in particular comes to mind. *Cough*Africa*cough* And with a whole continent out of the running I would say I have substantial evidence to refute that point. Argument: Con unfortunately I can not provide you with a player who has experienced both professional ice hockey and another sport. I think I know why though, because ice hockey players must devote their full attention and focus to their sport because they must practice so much to continue to master the skills and fundamentals of the game. But I challenge you to find me a professional ice hockey player who said hockey was easy, and don't give me some sarcastic quote please, it must be sincere. Conclusion: Ice Hockey is and continue to be the hardest sport to master and play at a high level. It is a team game, so you must rely on other people to perform their duties which let's recap, involves hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, accuracy (shooting), and most importantly and most underrated SKATING.", "qid": 42, "docid": "d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00003-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7135190367698669}, {"content": "Title: Ice hockey is better than Hockey Content: I would first like to straight that my argument is specifically pointed towards that hockey is better than ice hockey because of the dangers, but first of all i would like pro to start with their statement before i interfere. To you Pro", "qid": 42, "docid": "1568e11-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00005-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7122510075569153}, {"content": "Title: My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours. Content: Hey, sorry fr not posting but i broke my hand in a hockey game a coup[ple of days ago and that was myt reason for being inactive. Since I cant really type well, or fast currently I'm gonna forfeiut the rest of the debate in hopes of debating it sometime in the futre. Good luck to patsoz and I hope to debate this again sometime. Sorry.", "qid": 42, "docid": "fad80602-2019-04-18T19:13:29Z-00001-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7122111320495605}, {"content": "Title: Dance is a Sport Content: I think you misunderstood what I said I didn't say there was no rules in competitive dance I said in dance. They're are two different things. Dance is not a sport but competitive dance is. It's like being in the nutcracker is not a sport but being in the competition is. I understand that competitive dance has rules I knew that but in say the ballet the nutcracker you perform so there's no rules. And I did not say AT ALL that you don't need to practice you do what I said is that the dance stays like same while in say hockey the plays change because someone on the other team changes that. No one changes you're dance that you compete against. You misunderstood what I meant. Competitive dance is a sport but dance is not. There's a difference in between the two and the question was is DANCE a sport. That's why my answer is what it is.", "qid": 42, "docid": "5ddca51f-2019-04-18T17:57:22Z-00007-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7114765644073486}, {"content": "Title: THW ban boxing Content: I will mostly be using the default font and Times New Roman. Unlike my opponent, I will not be making my arguments as a section, just as paragraphs. I assume that my opponent will agree with me that boxing is a violent sport. I will be talking that we should not ban violent sports, and boxing. I will be using the phrase, \"My team\" some times, as I mostly wrote these arguments in a team debate in another account. Now, let's get started with the debate. First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment. In this source [1], the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U. S. , though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports. Boxing is a violent sport, and is entertaining. We shouldn't ban it. Also, in this source [2], it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \"Boxing should be on the top. .. \" And in golf, it says, \"This is really a sport, but. .. \" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost [3]. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked! !! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing. More people As in this argument I have shown that boxing and violent sports are very entertaining to watch, and that we shouldn't ban boxing, and shown what could happen, and probably would happen. Because of entertainment, vote for Con. My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \"Even a bad law is a law. \" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \"safety\". That is ridiculous. And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. My last argument is really a basic question. .. What is a violent sport? Boxing is a violent sport [4], and my opponent would agree. There are many sources to see that boxing is violent [5]. So, boxing is a violent sport, and it says that violent sports are fun, but what are violent sports. They involve killing, probably. This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source [6]. My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. Like, most violent sports are fun. Boxing is a violent sport. It is fun. Most other violent sports are fun and famous too. But almost every sport is violent. Then if we ban boxing, people will argue that there will many other violent sports which we won't ban, and ban them too. Then baseball, soccer, etc. Will be banned to. So we have two choices. a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports. I have shown that boxing is violent, and that we shouldn't ban these sports. Therefore, vote Con. Thank you. My sources[1] . http://www.thetoptens.com...[2] . http://www.thetoptens.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] . http://www.bcmj.org...[5] . https://www.google.fr... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 42, "docid": "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00004-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.710843563079834}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is the best sport in the world Content: Hockey players are not always getting charged like football players. Also who wants to watch a ball get kicked around for a couple of hours or have stoppages all the time in football, watch a ball get thrown at a net or hit back in forth over the net. Hockey is very exciting to both play and watch.", "qid": 42, "docid": "c1132701-2019-04-18T15:43:06Z-00003-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7106415629386902}, {"content": "Title: Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles Content: No you are living in New England, which is hometown of hockey. If you are a citizen of Massachusetts you should rather support hockey than football. I do not think that you won this debate but I think I did. So we should not have a football due to the reasons that I gave. beside we should more focus on our hockey program and make even more prestigious Mount hockey team.", "qid": 42, "docid": "45382ef9-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7104636430740356}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. \u201cHockey is a faster sport.\u201d (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going \u201cover 30 mph\u201d (Pensfan\u2019s figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two \u201c20 mph\u201d people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That\u2019s all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at \u201c105 mph\u201d, that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn\u2019t even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: \u201cA recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world.\u201d COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that \u201che toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing.\u201d Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn\u2019t it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn\u2019t mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh\u2026.you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. \u201cA large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles\u201d Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. \u201cEmbellishment\u201d Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What\u2019s more, you pay money for tickets. It\u2019s better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It\u2019s easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT\u2019S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. \u201cAverages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)\u201d That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00000-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7104125022888184}, {"content": "Title: The Boston Bruins are the cheapest team in hockey as of their series against the Montreal Canadiens. Content: I didn't know high hits that break peoples jaw's were considered \"clean\" hits. Also at least the Bruins have enough respect that they will drop the gloves if a player from the other team doesn't like there rough style of play. Last the cheapest team in hockey was the 1974-1975 Flyers. Thanks to them rules like the third man in penalty came into existence. What they would do was they would have there star player Bobby Clarke do anything to get under a players skin. Then when the player reacted they would have every player get over to the fight and knock the snot out of the player who hit Bobby. Now that right there is messed up, and on top of that they ended up winning the cup because they beat the crap out of every team they played.", "qid": 42, "docid": "43fe4d7c-2019-04-18T16:08:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7085820436477661}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: Lets get the points over with. Argument #6: Faster I'm going to be a bit hypocritical and break the rule that I set for myself that I will save my rebuttals for the end. The longest game of hockey would be longer then the longest game of soccer. Why you may ask? Hockey has unlimited Overtime Periods in the playoffs. Now, I know that totally contradicts my point, but I felt I needed to refute your first point right away. Anyways, my point. Usually a Hockey game is 60 minutes long with two intermissions. Not only the game is faster but the player moves faster and the pace is faster due to the small area of play. The speed causes more action because the players can catch up quite quickly to the puck. They also may know that due to the limited time frame they need to put on a very fast but entertaining show. The word \"Longer\" and the word \"Better\" are NOT the same. Argument #7: Promotion of Winter fitness We can all agree. Hockey is a winter sport. Whether your a Canadian like me or from Scandinavia or Russia or any where cold you know that it's difficult to do exercises because of the winter. You can't go jogging. Soccer and Baseball are much more difficult to play but Hockey? All you need is some gear, a puck and friends and your ready to not only have snowy fun but much-needed exercise. The cold should never stop you from being healthy. In fact I would say Hockey promotes fitness year-round. There is field hockey in the spring and summer, In the fall you can play street hockey and I am sure there are many more types of hockey that can be played! Now Jacobie, I can already here you typing \"What about indoor soccer?' Well, do you get the full experience of the wind at your back? The sun shining on your face? Do you get that warm summer feeling in indoor soccer? Two letters: NO. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal my friend! Thanks.", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7069295644760132}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.706824004650116}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: Sorry for the delay. Argument #3: The scoring The year is 2010 and the world cup is blazing off in South Africa. Come June 25th is a match between Honduras, two OK-level teams, and Honduras shoots TWICE in 90 minute, Switzerland shoots t the net five times. and whats the score? 0-0. In a hockey game the average amount of shots is 30 and yet the score is almost ALWAYS higher. What does this say about soccer? That the players are slacking? I think it says that the goalies of Hockey are trying harder as I see no beauty in a 0-0 game. Now. Jacobie1121 may say the goalies in soccer do work hard and that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. To answer the first rebuttal by repeating myself. SEVEN SHOTS TO 30. A goalie has to block 15 goals wearing tons of equipment but a soccer goalie has to block 2-5 goals with just a special goalie shirt and pants but yet the one who wears less and has to block less is the harder worker? No. Simply no. The second rebuttal would be that there are 0-0 games in Hockey as well. There are more shots in hockey, allowing there to be more opportunities for goals. Whether it's a close miss or an epic goal those shots are what brings us to our feet. Argument #4: Hockey is a better team sport In a hockey game the team is constantly changed around allowing for there to be more job opportunities and time to play while in soccer it's almost always always the same players. Because there are more skilled players in a lineup there is a greater chance of an exciting game because the talent changes quickly. Different players play with different styles which can be both bad and good. And we all love a good game-changer or game-destroyer! Argument #5: Diving I don't like to see others get hurt. But I HATE people who fake getting hurt for their own benefit. They are athletes. And being fair is a code that all athletes should follow. Why should reward those who fake? They get another player in trouble to give him/her a penalty or to get the person who was framed kicked out. Imagine you were a respectable player in soccer and someone pulled a dive claiming you tripped them. Would you say at least he did not get actually hurt? Or would you mention how unfair that is? The answer is obvious. I have no tolerance for cheaters whatsoever. I include a video about diving to see the sheer quantity of these fakers. I'm ready for your response", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00004-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7067840695381165}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: The reasons which have been enlisted are the Speed and Toughness or the level of contact allowed.I am a bit appalled at the choice of the two. Firstly the topic is Hockey is better than soccer. Where as my opponent fails to give legitimacy to the game of field hockey which is more popular and widespread, rather he chose to focus all his attention to Ice hockey. I don't want to get into semantics but Hockey is a much broader term which encompasses both forms and hence ignoring one for the other is unjustified. Secondly the quality of the game is never judged solely on the pace of the game. The parameters are the level of skill required , technical ability, team cohesion, simplicity and the high stakes involved. A spectator gets his money's worth while witnessing the sheer wizardry of Lionel Messi as he dribbles past 4-5 opposition players before putting the ball into the goal. While doing so he displays the positional awareness of both his teammates and opposition players, moving the ball at pace , performs evasive maneuvers, makes several judgments almost simultaneously. If this is not the what displays peak of human ability then I do not know what might. Similarly when Cristiano Ronaldo takes a free kick from 40 yards out , he kicks the ball with strength at specific angle which makes the ball swerve at pace before hitting the back of the net , leaving the goalkeeper dismayed and the spectator amazed. This is what elevates football from being just a game to a religion a faith. And talking of pace Borussia Dortmund forward Pierre emerick aubameyang clocked faster than WR sprinter Usain bolt over a 40 yard stretch. I would love to see an Ice hockey player attempt such a feet on foot . Thirdly Soccer is not a contact sport it is a game played in the mind and executed with skill on the field. There is no scope of contact in this sport hence it is looked upon severely by the referee. Ice hockey players have elaborate paraphernalia to make this a contact sport. Yet contusion , lacerations , concussions, broken bones are regular part of it. We do not know how many promising careers might have prematurely ended because of a rash tackle in hockey rink. Moreover judging a game just because it is not tough enough and players avoid injuries is just a bit sadistic. I recommend Boxing if someone is so inclined towards manning up, let the skill prevail on the field and not brute force.", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.70655357837677}, {"content": "Title: Is Horseback Riding A Sport Content: You propose a good statement saying that there is not a possible ground for opposer to argue. What I do not understand is why, by choice, did you decide to accept this debate? If you knew it was a truism, why continue with this arguement? In definition, it is a sport, but to some people, it is not considered a sport because of the appearance of the level of difficulty it is set at.", "qid": 42, "docid": "ac54db00-2019-04-18T15:23:43Z-00003-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7056393623352051}, {"content": "Title: Collisions are an example of violence that has no place in baseball. Content: Baseball is not a contact sport. It is not a sport that is supposed to rely on violence. This is one commentator\u2019s point: \u201cif you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch [American] football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There\u2019s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it\u2019s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules.\u201d[1] Baseball tries to make the game safe for its players. That\u2019s why beanballs\u2014pitches that endanger hitters\u2014are disallowed. Baseball should not promote violence, and it certainly shouldn\u2019t allow it when players\u2019 careers hang in the balance. [1] Dave Cameron, \u201cIt\u2019s Time to End Home Plate Collisions,\u201d FanGraphs, May 26, 2011, http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/its-time-to-end-home-plate-collisions/.", "qid": 42, "docid": "f83473c9-2019-04-15T20:22:40Z-00019-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7055648565292358}, {"content": "Title: Hockey should be America's past time. Content: I believe Hockey should be America's past time for many reasons. 1: It takes a significant amount of balance and coordinating to skate on ice while controlling a stick and puck and also be run into. 2: Hockey is the most physical sport besides sports like boxing. It gives the viewer entertainment because fighting seems to be a big joy to watch for citizens o the U.S.A. Particularly men. 3: Hockey is, in my opinion, the most enjoyable sport.", "qid": 42, "docid": "49b078ea-2019-04-18T17:39:26Z-00003-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7048338651657104}, {"content": "Title: Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools Content: CON has lost. CON's last statement was the following:'Ok, i never said i wanted it banned or anything but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt. 'That entire statement is irrelevant. (S)He hasn't responded to the fact that no sports are violent, and the resolution is: 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools. ' Therefore, the statement 'but people that dont want to do it shouldnt have to, forcing physical activity is abuse. if its not forced then it isnt,' does not have anything to do with the resolution.", "qid": 42, "docid": "f37e79be-2019-04-18T15:05:52Z-00004-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7047156691551208}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will NOT save my rebuttals for the end. I will Rebut my opponent's points now and give some more of my own: My opponent said that you could \"play air hockey\". The resolution we are debating has to do with if soccer is better \"sport\" than hockey. Air hockey is not a sport, no mater how awesome it might be. Also, my opponent says an advantage for hockey is fighting. Beating someone senseless does not seem like a great thing to me, no matter how much the fans like it. Take a look at this video where Kevin Westgarth of the Calgary Flames is fighting. He ends up getting a concussion: Anyways, back to the points. Argument #3: Popularity Soccer has a way bigger popularity and viewing rate than hockey. Here is a quote from fifa.com: \"715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany\". Now, let's take a look at the numbers for the Stanly Cup: there was a average of 4.91 million viewers of the 2009 Stanly Cup Playoffs final round per game. What's more, most amount of people watching a single NHL game was between Chicago-Montreal in 1971 was 12.4 million. 12.4 million people versus 71.5 million people. Thus, soccer is way more popular than Hockey, creating a much better business from ticket buying and merchandise purchasing. Argument #4: Inclusiveness Worldwide Soccer can be played in so many countries, no matter the status. For Example, take the country Cameroon. They are not in the greatest situation for economy, yet still have one of the greatest National Teams in Africa. Soccer is also played in Canada and the USA, even though it might seem way to cold. Yet Hockey is only primarily played in North America and Europe. It is usually only in colder countries. Ever heard of a Hockey Team in warm Africa? At least I have not. Ever heard of a soccer team in cold Russia? Yes! Argument #5: Easiness to Learn Hockey takes a lot of skill and equipment to learn. First, you need a stick, a puck, skates and ice (if you are playing on ice, witch is the most common form of playing by far). Then, you need to learn how to skate, so you might take lessons. Lessons cost a lot of money. Then, you have to learn how to skate, shoot, and keep control of the puck at the same time! In soccer you need only shoes. My opponent might say: you have to run and shoot and dribble in soccer at the same time too, BUT, running comes naturally where as skating you have to learn and take classes. One more thing: Please take into account that in Debates you vote on a debater that has good points NOT the side you would personally take in a real life situation. Thanks", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00005-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7044128775596619}, {"content": "Title: Should we ban contact sports for 12 and under (youth) Content: I'd like to point out that my opponent actually meant to be pro (saying that we should ban contact sports for 12 and under), so he still has the burden of proof. 1. \"First of all, there are about 3.5 million injuries regarding contact sports per year\" You need to cite your sources 2. \" Let's say you make B team or C team at your school, you might think your not good enough so you might do something to hurt your self\" If you join the team you have to understand that they chose you because you are good. They wouldn't let you join if there was any way you couldn't meet up to the standards. Even if they did let you in and you weren't good at it, you wouldn't hurt yourself. You would quit or get kicked. 3. \"If you get hit hard in a game or practice it can lead to serious brain injuries or a broken arm or leg\" Most youth injuries are minor and don't last long. Now to prove why they should stay. (I'd write more but there aren't enough characters)", "qid": 42, "docid": "d5f4c59e-2019-04-18T12:01:10Z-00000-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7043944597244263}, {"content": "Title: eSports should be recognized and respected as official sports Content: Alright time to get down to work here. Your argument is now based on the fact that there are other less physical competitions that are considered sports however there is some problems with that. Should we start drawing the line on what a sport is? By definition there are already games that are considered sports that shouldn't be. Such as pokers, chess, and the only one important in this debate videogames. Let's examine virtual verses reality. Every sport that is a sport has interactions between two or more people. Someone you can touch and interact face to face with. Egames does not have such teamwork as hockey, basketball, Soccer or any other \"classic\" or real sports. Stressful situations does not make something a sport. If you can make a good comparison between a classic sport and egames we may have something. However all we have is people glued to monitors. If esports is going to be considered a sport all videogames will become a sport. Rough and tumble interactive skilled sports is what has been the sports since the beginning. From the stoneware when ancient hunters would hunt wooly mammoths, sports have been around since ancient times. It is not time to make a virtual reality where what I watch on TV is other people watching a screen. For the definition of sports and the difference between reality and virtual it is clear that now is not the time to confuse the two. http://mp1st.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "2ac397ba-2019-04-18T14:00:50Z-00002-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7041784524917603}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Time for rebuttals First argument The cost and the simplicity does not make soccer better than hockey. Hockey is a sport of talent. Not everyone can skate or stick handle, but everyone can run and kick a ball. Second argument The pace of the game has a big factor in entertainment. Would you sit and watch a game of any sport were the players just walked around slowly? That would not be a good sport to watch. While you talk about a man dribbling past 4 guys, a hockey player can do just the same with a puck. Have you ever watched someone split the defense before? Hockey players also display the positional awareness of there team mates and opposing players while keeping pace with both them and the puck. Hockey players are the fastest people on two feet while on the ice. Hockey players also demonstrate skill on the ice during a game while also adding in contact, making more of a challenge. Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Third argument The video is just showing a few clips of what constantly happens during a soccer game. Hockey players do not embellish because that gives them penalties. Soccer players embellish a lot. Fourth argument This one is simple. Large net small goalie, not many goals. Small net large goalie, still more goals then soccer. Simple as that. Fifth argument Have you ever watched the winter classics or the other outdoor games hockey players have been in? They play in a lot of snow. Hockey is mostly played in doors so they are not really exposed to this weather. That makes it better for fans. You do not have to worry about games being canceled/rescheduled because of weather. Sixth argument The equipment does not protect you from everything. There are gaps in the equipment. And getting hit as hard as they are, the equipment just simply absorbs some of the power behind the hit, but it will still hurt ( trust me) when players fight they take off there gloves ( throw down) helmets are not allowed to be taken off, but most of the time they come off with the power of a hit. Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Seventh argument Out of bounds rarely happens during a hockey game. Getting the game back in motion happens in a matter of seconds. http://video.nhl.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.7036746144294739}, {"content": "Title: Soccer is a better sport than Hockey Content: I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a \"Team Sport\". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a \"Team Sport\", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for \"faking\". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT\"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)", "qid": 42, "docid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00003-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7034841775894165}, {"content": "Title: Basketball is better than hockey Content: Hockey is no doubt the better sport. 1. It is full of fast paced action, as well as exciting hits and goals. 2. No one makes dumb comments about hockey, like \"ball is life\" for basketball. 3. Hockey players don't yell stupid taunts at each other like \"brick city\" or \"biscuits\"", "qid": 42, "docid": "c98c7791-2019-04-18T15:57:27Z-00002-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7034125328063965}, {"content": "Title: Collisions are exciting and fun to watch. Content: Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it\u2019s for the wrong reasons. Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves. It\u2019s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes. Watching Buster Posey\u2019s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they\u2019re wrong to do so. Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport. Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy. Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.", "qid": 42, "docid": "f83473c9-2019-04-15T20:22:40Z-00008-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7032804489135742}, {"content": "Title: At which age should young adults be to play violent sports Content: How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.", "qid": 42, "docid": "a779bd19-2019-04-18T15:32:40Z-00008-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7030824422836304}, {"content": "Title: Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools Content: Hello, CON. Your thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should not be compulsory in schools.' My thesis is: 'Rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing should be compulsory in schools.'The resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' however, rugby, wrestling and boxing are not violent sports. PRO hasn't provided any definitions, so I have the honors now. DEFINITION OF 'VIOLENT' :Noun1: Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or somethingREFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...DEFINITION OF 'WRESTLING' :NounThe sport or activity of grappling with an opponent and trying to throw or hold them down on the ground, typically according to a code of rules.REFERENCE:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...So as you can see, if you wrestle with someone, that person doesn't intend to harm you, all they intend is to hold you to the ground, with means of using force if necessary The article 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' [1] states: 'There is no general intent in boxing to injure the opponent. Rather, the primary aim is to score the most points by hitting strictly defined regions of the body.'Therefore, boxing is not violent. Rugby is not violent because when tackling in rugby, all you mean to do is bring the opponent down by using force, you don't intend to hurt anybody. This debate should already be over because my opponent's listed sports are not violent but, even if they were violent:REBUTTALS:1) 'No of course it shouldn't, some kids are not up for this and it embarrasses them,'Yeah, and track-and-field in my school is mandatory, I don't feel up to it (I don't like jumping and running around; I like more organized sports) but I still do it anyway. CON also said that it embarrasses kids but why would a kid be embarrassed? 2) 'we must also take into account physical harm could be caused. It is child abuse and a way of embarrassing kids.'Every physical activity has the potential to end up in harm. Again, track-and-field is mandatory in my school, and it can end up in pain. Again, how does any sport embarrass somebody, let alone a 'violent' sport?3) 'I know some dummies will say its about toughening people up but its unlikely it will happen in real life' ...What? Sports do toughen you up. The article: 'Should Boxing be Banned? Arguments For and Against,' states: 'Boxing requires a high degree of physical fitness, if you wish to be successful, and so it teaches young people to look after their bodies.' You have to be fit to play any sport.4) 'Also IT IS NOT EXERCISE AT ALL BECAUSE WRESTLING ISN'T RUNNING AROUND, AND RUGBY IS PHYSICAL ABUSE'I want to point out that my opponent just did the Internet equivalent of shouting. Shouting at your opponent in a debate is never acceptable, and there should be no exceptions here. Apparently, the only form of exercise is running around. How about push-ups? Also, rugby does involve running around, and CON claimed it was a violent sport. Rugby is not physical abuse.DEFINITION OF 'PHYSICAL ABUSE' :Physical abuse is an act of a person involving contact of another person intended to cause feelings of physical pain, injury, or other physical suffering or bodily harm.REFERENCES:http://en.wikipedia.org...You do not intend to hurt somebody when tackling in rugby, therefore, rugby is not physical abuse.5) 'although its not that serious physical abuse but people could feel uncomfortable doing it so there are some dumb people who think people should have to embarrass themselves for the sake of some dumb pe thing but after what i have said no one could come up with an opposite arguement.'My opponent just admitted that violent sports don't have very much physical abuse. How do kids get embarrassed from a sport?I just refuted everything my opponent said, and demonstrated that rugby, boxing and wrestling are not violent sports. Therefore, I urge the audience to vote for PRO.[1]-http://superbrainwave.hubpages.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "f37e79be-2019-04-18T15:05:52Z-00006-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.7021360397338867}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than football Content: Argument #4: Hockey is more difficult to play Hockey is waaaay more challenging to play then football, especially ice hockey. First of all you got to learn how to skate. Then you hare to learn how to pass with a stick and all of that stuff. Then you have to get into even more shape so you don't tire out in the game and then you have to play 3-4 times a week! You also have to travel and practice. Imagine how sore you would be! Football may be tough but hockey is way tougher! And what if you get involved in a hockey fight? You could get beat up a bit adding to your troubles and all of that gear you have to wear! That is 20 pounds extra! All of these factors add up to make Hockey one of the most difficult sports out there. Argument #5: Hockey is much more worldwide \"The Arab Cup of Ice Hockey was intended to be an annual international ice hockey competition involving teams from Arab nations. The inaugural tournament took place on the 16th to 20 June 2008 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A 2009 competition was planned to be held in Kuwait City, Kuwait but was cancelled.\" Imagine that. Arabs playing ice hockey in the boiling sun. If you have been to the middle east you would know how freaking hot it is. http://en.wikipedia.org... Check that out. All of those countries play ice hockey. But wait! There are even more forms of hockey then just plain old ice hockey! Even more countries play different forms of hockey! Even more. Hockey is an Olympic sport and football is not, making hockey even more international! Well, I hope you post something. DarthKirones", "qid": 42, "docid": "9ff09ca9-2019-04-18T16:11:19Z-00001-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7017589807510376}, {"content": "Title: is hockey better than american football Content: Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.", "qid": 42, "docid": "8aad4958-2019-04-18T17:51:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7013669013977051}, {"content": "Title: Legalize Fighting Content: Welcome, I negate the resolution that fighting of all sorts should be legalized as long as there are no mental impairments. 1. That's essentially legalizing murder. How you ask? For instance folks may not know when to stop. The fighting could include guns (as you said \"all forms of human on human fighting should be legal\") 2. People are stupid, as in other aspects of life, without government protection, some people would falter. 3. You may not know what your getting yourself into: A fight happens, one man is losing so he pulls out a concealed gun, boom dead. I await my opponents response.", "qid": 42, "docid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00003-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.7013556361198425}, {"content": "Title: This house believes \"Video Games Be Considered a Sport\" Content: Hi guys! Today we will be debating the topic, should games be considered sports? I am taking the PRO stance in this debate whereas whoever else accepts it takes the CON stance for this. Here is the breakup of how the rounds will work: ROUND ONE : Is simply acceptance, no arguments to be posted ROUND TWO-FOUR : Is arguments/counter arguments ROUND FIVE : Is arguments/counter arguments as well as why you took up this stance in the first place. RULES:- - There will be no swearing - Please answer in all rounds - Cite your sources either gradually or all at the end. - Please use fact rather than opinion in your debate as this a fact based debate. REMINDER: Don't forget to use the six hats!", "qid": 42, "docid": "19e9442f-2019-04-18T12:16:01Z-00005-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.7009804248809814}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than soccer Content: Okay first off thanks for debating. Now I'm going to say that hockey can be played year round. Nobody really plays on the ponds anymore. I play all the time in the summer. And ice rinks aren't as cold as you think, they are usually kept at 50degrees and the ice is cooled from below. You where saying that only being able to use your feet makes soccer harder and more unique and I do agree, but hockey is similar. In hockey you can use your hands (but only to bat the puck out of the air) but we also have to control a smaller object far from our body with a stick. We have to be able to know where it is on our stick without even looking at it, and we are doing this while we are on skates. people generally do not realize the amount of coordination you need in hockey. Also the power, agility, and explosivness needed is unbelievable. My last point for my argument is that hockey is faster and more entertaining. Because hockey is being played on skates, it is very fast. Shifts are short so every player comes out fast and powerfull. The ice rink is way smaller than a soccer field. This creates more action near the net and way more shots on goal. The goalies are constantly making huge saves and making big plays. In soccer there are less shots and less action. The physicality of hockey also makes the game more fun. I do think some of those cheap hockey fights are stupid but they are fun to watch some times. So that's all I'm writing for this round thanks again for debating!", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf884c46-2019-04-18T12:56:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.7008830308914185}, {"content": "Title: is football more dangerous than rugby Content: As a raw game, I would say rugby is more dangerous. If you want more information, I've seen several good articles written about getting rid of hard pads in hockey, which I applied to football here. It might be a good idea to look them over.", "qid": 42, "docid": "84957aaf-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.7006436586380005}, {"content": "Title: THW ban boxing Content: Thank you.Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.My strategy in rebuttal: (\"Argument\" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal:1. \"First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment.\" -CON.-Legalize duels then!2. \"In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports.\" -CON.- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.3. \" Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \"Boxing should be on the top...\" And in golf, it says, \"This is really a sport, but...\" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. \"-CON.- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.4. \"What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing.\"-CON.- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.5. \"My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \"Even a bad law is a law.\" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \"safety\". That is ridiculous. \"-CON.- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!6. \"And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. \"-CON.- Legalize suicide.7. \"This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. \" -CON.- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.8. \" a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports.\"-CON.- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "qid": 42, "docid": "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.7005307674407959}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than football Content: That is a shame. Argument #2: Hockey is better for fans Don't us sports fans want lots of games? In hockey each team plays 82 games. 41 at home, 41 away. There are 30 teams in the NHL so the grand total of season games is 2460! In the NFL there are only 256 games! Like stated before, NFL games are very interrupted and the small number of games is just not worth it! And the playoffs in hockey are also much longer. See? There are many games and because teams usually play 3-4 times a week during the season there will be plenty of games with your favorite team! Argument #3: The variety If you saw my debate with Jacobie1121 about soccer and hockey you would have seen that I used that argument for Hockey before, but that will not stop me from using that argument here. Hockey has many variations. The most common version is ice hockey. However there are many other forms. There is field hockey for those who don't like the ice and cold. There is sledge hockey for the disabled. There is street hockey for those who just want a game, and many more! Hockey can be played by anyone. Don't like ice hockey? Play field hockey! Simple as that. Well, that's all for now. DarthKirones. Thank you.", "qid": 42, "docid": "9ff09ca9-2019-04-18T16:11:19Z-00002-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.7000952959060669}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America Content: Well this will be tough because we have different definition of sport. I don't believe that chess is a sport. Now i'm not saying that the world's great chess minds don't deserve major props but it is a skill. It is something that you can be good at. it takes no athletic ability just brain power. A sport takes both. A sport takes athletic skill, good decision making, and creativity. I think that there is a ton of things people don't consider about hockey. It's not just ten guys beating on each other and skating up and down a rink. There are tactics and situations and plans A-D to go through in your head while your on the ice. You need to read the other team while they attack. Plan the best way to kill a penalty. Choose he personnel that best matches the style of play or the tempo or the situation your in. Having to depend on team-mates, not just yourself. All sports are like this but i just think hockey takes more skill on more levels.", "qid": 42, "docid": "815cc433-2019-04-18T19:58:09Z-00003-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.699982225894928}, {"content": "Title: Informal: Hockey is \"better\" than baseball. Content: The clash of the titans: A United States past time versus a Canadian made sport. This is my first debate, to please bear with me if it is not professional or in proper format. I will be learning a I go. I intend on defending the primarily North American sport of hockey in saying that it is a \"better\" sport than baseball. It has been a long winded argument amongst my friends and I wish to see how the internet feels about it. I know better is a subjective term, but I wish to break down the argument into a few major points that are both important to the players and the viewers of the sport. These points are: Average televised game length, average time of action, games per season, importance of each game per season, skills required to play, difficulty scoring, and type of team play. Knowing that calling a sport \"better\" is changed constantly by context but in general, I feel these are important characteristics that are contained in each sport and I would like to defend that hockey stands to be a better spectator sport and requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. Thank you in advance to my debater and I wish to keep this as mature and information based as possible.", "qid": 42, "docid": "94e6a5e1-2019-04-18T19:05:27Z-00005-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6998140811920166}, {"content": "Title: Curling is a sport Content: To me and probably is not a sport. I rather have regular hockey.", "qid": 42, "docid": "c7bfe202-2019-04-18T11:52:02Z-00003-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6974149942398071}, {"content": "Title: Playing a Catcher in Baseball is Harder than Playing Goalie in Hockey Content: This is also my first argument and good luck to my opponent. I think that be a goalie is tougher because of all the shots you have to take, and how crowded the area in front of the net can get, especially on an empty net. Hockey is also a physical sport and the goalie needs to help defend and stick up for his teammates. Goalies are also most of the time captain of the team.", "qid": 42, "docid": "57726c5b-2019-04-18T17:26:46Z-00004-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6972660422325134}, {"content": "Title: NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football Content: I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.", "qid": 42, "docid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00004-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6971058249473572}, {"content": "Title: Convince me that baseball is more entertaining and a \"better\" sport than hockey. Content: I hope you'll feel better soon and I understand your situation. We have now reached the final round and I will refute my opponent's points, reinstate my main arguments, and tell you why I believe I should win. Refutations 1. \"Like in baseball, a hockey puck is 5 and is shot between 80 and 100 mph, which requires strength, speed, and accuracy because the puck needs to fit into a very small space between the pads of the goalie and the posts of the net. I feel that this is more difficult because of the shot to goal ratio compared to the pitch to hit ratio in baseball. \" I agree with your statement that making a hockey goal is difficult. However, as you yourself stated, it is easy for a goalie to save a goal, for he has a 90% chance to. In hockey, there is an easy and a hard end, whereas, in baseball, nothing is easy for the batter, pitcher, and catcher. The pitcher has difficulty by throwing the ball into a 4 ft x 6 ft box and throwing a fast pitch and knowing how to throw numerous pitches. The batter needs to judge the pitch's speed, time the ball, and make good contact so that he can get on base. The catcher also has difficulty because sometimes a pitcher can throw a wild pitch and the catcher needs to get it or else runners will advance on the bases. Hockey difficulty is as difficult as baseball, which is exactly what I am arguing for. 2. \"Typically in baseball, the pitchers are not good hitters, and thus are not great on offense. Hockey players need to have skill sets that make you good at both offense and defense. \" Not necessarily, because in hockey you have your specific positions i. e. your forward left winger, center, and right winger and your left and right defenseman. You also have your Star and Sniper who are considered the best players. You also have an Enforcer to protect the Star in a fight. Each hockey player has his designated role to win the game. In baseball, you have some people who specialize and focus on a specific role, such as pitcher who wants and needs to excel at his job. Just because you are well-rounded, doesn't necessarily mean you are good. You can be a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Hockey and baseball are similar in this way. 3. \"Fitness is very important in every sport. Baseball has \"spring training\" where baseball players train, however, the sport itself is less physically demanding than hockey. Hockey players that - \" Seeing as your argument was for some reason suddenly cut short, I can't truly refute this. However, I will try to say something about this. Batters need plenty of muscle to hit the ball well and deep and leg muscle to sprint around bases. Catchers need great reaction to catch wild pitches. Infielders need reactions and speed to catch line drives and good throws to get runners out. Outfielders need to run fast to some fly balls and catch them. Pitchers need arm strength and endurance to get through those tough, long games. Hockey players need endurance to move up and down the ice, speed to get to the puck, and strength to hit it hard to score a goal. And they especially need good eyes to find the puck and good coordination. These sports are similar in skill and fitness. Here are my arguments once again. 1. As the Proposition, I stated the resolution and argued that hockey and baseball are similar in skill. 2. Baseball requires strength as does hockey. 3. Coordination, endurance, and speed are evident in both sports. 4. Both have their own difficulties that players can overcome.", "qid": 42, "docid": "3655f1b1-2019-04-18T19:03:59Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6967476606369019}, {"content": "Title: Boxing should be allowed in Prisons Content: My apologies, a giant Nazi duck attacked my house and I was busy and stuff. Even though Boxing is a dangerous sport but how dangerous? It's more of a gentlemen sport, you're talking about MMA being dangerous. And I do boxing, there are a lot of rules as well; It limits how dangerous it could. So far, you never presented any evidence whatsoever, against my argument. I mean even if we do introduce other activities such as Football, (One of the most dangerous sports) there still might be violence but I favor Boxing because people can release their anger on their opponent instead of doing it in the courtyard. You still have not provided evidence that they will take this outside but, the prisoners actually became interested in boxing and some of them actually joined boxing leagues. There were no reports of violence outside the prison, upon release after boxing.", "qid": 42, "docid": "2e186eb1-2019-04-18T17:26:00Z-00000-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6966351270675659}, {"content": "Title: Esports should be officially considered as a sport Content: Okay, I will rebut what my opponent has said in Round 2. My main problem with my opponent is that he seemed to not have read what I wrote. On multiple occasions, I find myself having to think for a long time what he means before concluding that he must have not read properly. I urge voters to take note of this. Anyhow, allow me to explain. My opponent starts off with questioning is chess a sport? Dude. I just said in Round 1 that chess for the most part, is not considered a sport. Did he not read this? Perhaps he just skimmed through... Then he says that hockey does not require you to go out. Yeah, but you definitely sweat right? I never said that it is a requirement of a sport that you must be outdoors. I said that sports have to fit our traditional views and a big part of these views are almost always that you have to go out and/or sweat. I never said that it was a strict REQUIREMENT. Then he said \"video games represent things we do every day? No way! In your everyday lived, very few jobs require mouse control etc\". Okay firstly, even if I did say that, what would be the significance of that? So what? I never said anything about how a video game should or should not represent something you do every day. The most I said was that any game teaches you important skills you can implement every day like perseverance, strategic thinking etc. And then yet again, my opponent accused me of saying that since esports does not have mental exertion it is disqualified as a sport. I am TOTALLY SPEECHLESS. WHEN DID I SAY THAT? I said that esports do not contain PHYSICAL exertion. Things like this make me feel extremely discouraged of debating with my opponent who doesn't seem to be able to read very well. I am sorry I am being somewhat rude but you can imagine how I feel when it seems my opponent doesnt even bother to read what I said and quoted stuff which I did not say and in some cases exactly opposite to what I said!", "qid": 42, "docid": "80fe4db8-2019-04-18T14:02:04Z-00001-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6965886354446411}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill. The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball. Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event. ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise. In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons: 1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game. 2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers. 3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans. 4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it. Sources: {1} https://www.nhl.com... {2} http://www.espn.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00002-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6964113116264343}, {"content": "Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Okay, it is my belief that all sports are equally difficult to play at a professional level, and that's what I will be proving to you. I know that Pro asked me to choose a sport, but as all sports are equally difficult, there is really no point in choosing any single sport. First, let's take a look at the definition of hardest, or difficult. According to Merriam Webster, difficult is defined as: hard to do, make, or carry out. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;The main point of all of Pro's arguments is that Hockey is a very dangerous sport. The more dangerous a sport is, does not mean that the sport is much more difficult to play. I agree that some sports are much more dangerous than others, but I disagree with Pro when he uses danger as a basis of how difficult a sport is. Okay, I will get into a rebuttal of Pro's arguments. Refutation 1:Pro states that \"Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand\". First, I would assume that if you do not know how to skate, you would not be a professional hockey player. I must remind everyone that the topic that we are debating today is the Ice Hockey is the Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. This means that all players will already know how to skate. And what about water sports like swimming, or water polo? These sports you need to know how to swim in order to play. I would say that swimming is much harder to learn than skating, as skating is pretty much just running on ice. Hockey could potentially be the hardest sport to learn but not the hardest sport to play at the professional level. Refutation 2:This is an argument about the danger of Hockey. But if a sport is much more dangerous, does it mean that it is much more difficult to play? Let's take a look at some other dangerous sports. Skydiving. Skydiving is an extremely dangerous sport. By Pro's logic, this means that this sport is also very difficult to play. However, it is not. All you have to do is to pull your ripcord while you're in the air to deploy your parachute. It is very easy to do. UFC Fighting. Also an extremely dangerous sport. But all you do is punch the other person and avoid getting punched. Also not a very difficult sport to play. Okay I have shown you 2 other dangerous sports. What you're essentially saying in this argument is that Hockey is a difficult sport to play, simply because it is dangerous. No. Just because a sport is dangerous, it doesn't mean that that sport is difficult to play. Refutation 3: Pro says that \"Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating. \"Once again, these are pro players, so they already know how to do these skills. However, other sports require focus and hand-eye coordination as well. Hockey is not the only sport that requires this focus. In basketball, for example, you need good hand-eye coordination to score 3-pointers, to pass to your teammates. You need focus in order to score that layup, or that free throw. In football, you need good hand-eye coordination to throw those long passes, to score that field goal. You need focus in order to run as far as you can to get a touchdown. In badminton or tennis, you need good hand-eye coordination in order to even hit the birdie or ball. You need focus in order to predict where your opponent will hit the ball to. As you see, hockey is not the only sport that requires hand-eye coordination and focus. I have shown you many other sports that require the same skills. And just in case Pro says that skating is difficult to learn, I would say swimming is much harder to learn, as there are several different strokes that you need to learn. Therefore, hockey is not the hardest sport to play on the professional level, all sports are equally difficult. Arguments:Okay, let's get into some arguments.1. SkillsAll sports require some skill in order to play them at the professional level. Hockey is not the only sport. It really differs from person to person. Some people may find skating easy to pick up, while others may find swimming much easier to learn. You cannot generalize all people under one category and just say that hockey is the most difficult sport to play. All sports have their advantages and disadvantages and the difficulty of each sport will vary from person to person. For example, let's use math. Okay, so I'm asian, and you're probably european, I would assume. I find math easy to learn and do. You would probably find math difficult, and you can't understand certain concepts. However, when we learn about european history, it would be much easier for you, than for me. What I'm saying here is that some people find certain things easier than other people. I can't just say that math is the easiet subject, because what about you then? Since you find math difficult, my statement would then be false. It is the same with this resolution. You're categorizing all professional players and saying that hockey is the hardest sport to play. What if someone finds hockey easy? Like Wayne Gretzky for example. Then you're statement would be false. Conclusion:The only way you're statement can be true is if you can prove that all professional hockey players find hockey the most difficult sport to play at a professional level. Then, you would also have to make sure that these pro hockey players also have to play other sports at a professional level, otherwise their opinion would be biased. There is no possible way you can do that. Therefore you have lost this debate.", "qid": 42, "docid": "d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00004-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6963081359863281}, {"content": "Title: we should ban boxing as a sport professionally Content: 1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.", "qid": 42, "docid": "cf1b4187-2019-04-18T16:20:19Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.696233868598938}, {"content": "Title: American Football Fighters Content: I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.", "qid": 42, "docid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00002-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6950913667678833}, {"content": "Title: Informal: Hockey is \"better\" than baseball. Content: This is one of my first debates, too, so we have the great fortune of being able to explore this debating medium together, without worry of using a \"professional or proper format. \" Although the terms you have proffered are vague and ambiguous, I accept them given that my understanding of what I must do to win is correct, as I outline it below To win this debate, I will have to show that hockey is not a \"better\" sport than baseball. For one sport to be considered \"better\" than the other, you have stipulated two points that must be met: hockey must be \"better\" as a \"spectator sport,\" and better in the sense that hockey \"requires more skills (both mentally and physically) for the athletes. \" Because these two points do not correspond to each other in any way that we can measure, I will take it for granted that I will only have to show that one of these claims is false. If I prove that baseball requires as much or more skill than hockey, then I will have won. And if I prove that baseball is as good or better a spectator sport, then I will have won.", "qid": 42, "docid": "94e6a5e1-2019-04-18T19:05:27Z-00004-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6947416663169861}, {"content": "Title: Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports Content: Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.", "qid": 42, "docid": "5b92d463-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00004-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6945421695709229}, {"content": "Title: The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. Content: Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled \"Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen\" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state \"Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent\"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete.\" {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...", "qid": 42, "docid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00000-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6944964528083801}, {"content": "Title: Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level. Content: Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, \"Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!\" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!", "qid": 42, "docid": "d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00005-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6944106817245483}, {"content": "Title: Students should be able to defend themselves against bullies Content: I am aware that fighting back against the bully is illegal, and of the zero tolerance policy . But what the debate is about is whether or not they should be able to fight back. I know it's not allowed, but I think it should be.", "qid": 42, "docid": "7548319a-2019-04-18T15:55:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6942933797836304}, {"content": "Title: MMA is Human Cock Fighting Content: It is a disgrace...a blood lust. Anyone who denies it is being less than truthful. The whole point is to submit the opponent in a violent manner..choke, knock out, TKO, etc, and lots of blood is spilled in the process. Boxing is the same really. Sports that display skill and toughness, such as amateur wrestling, would not bring in the big dollars because they don't result in a bloodied and humiliated opponent. Hence, society demands more brutality. C'mon folks...be truthful... MMA is just another reflection of the decline of society.", "qid": 42, "docid": "33185be2-2019-04-19T12:45:36Z-00015-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.6940584182739258}, {"content": "Title: Lyoto Machida has an advantage over Mauricio \"Shogun\" Rua Content: I don't know what debaters are into UFC, however i felt a need to bring up this debate topic. If there is anyone who would be willing to accept as the con, please comment first, so i can write up my first argument.", "qid": 42, "docid": "67698da3-2019-04-18T19:17:21Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.693972110748291}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is a better sport than football. Content: Well Josh, on the argument about all the pads and equipment that football players wear, hockey players wear just about the same amount of padding as football players. And wouldn't you say that hockey players need to be very endured and have to change directions at the blink of an eye as well? For example, the puck consistently is either batted or knocked around on the ice multiple times in the matter of a few seconds. So, wouldn't you say, that as a hockey player you need to be ready to change directions as fast as the puck does? In the argument that football is more popular than hockey, you are right in the sense that hockey stands beneath football in popularity, *in the United States. Football is an American made sport, where as hockey is a Canadian made sport. It is clear that football would be generally more entertaining and popular to the American public then hockey would be. However, internationally, hockey is much more popular then football. So overall, Hockey would win the popularity contest.", "qid": 42, "docid": "311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6939404606819153}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than football Content: Let us begin. Argument #1: The speed Both Hockey games and Football last 60 minutes of game time. However Football get's irritating and even boring to watch. Why? Because an actual game will take 3 hours. That's right. There is more time spent with time outs and penalties then actual game play. Hockey is not stopped every 10-20 seconds. Hockey players just play. The speed of the game is not too short that you will disappointed but not so long you will be bored. There is no point in watching a long stretch of stoppages punctured by 10 seconds of game play. Sports fans, you want to watch games and have a few breaks, you don't want to watch breaks with a few seconds of game play, do you? Also, the overall pace of Hockey Games are MUCH faster. The playing fields are smaller which in this case is usually ice, the players go faster and the ball goes faster. Waaaaay faster. Faster players mean more competition to get to the puck. More competition means better games. Better games means happy fans. Thanks for accepting, I would do more points but I am a bit busy. It is mothers day and I have a mother to be with. DarthKirones", "qid": 42, "docid": "9ff09ca9-2019-04-18T16:11:19Z-00003-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6938983798027039}, {"content": "Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: i would like to start off by saying good luck. I also think it is very cool that you played hockey, i have been playing since i was 4 ( so about 11 years) and it takes a lot of energy which is good for my ADHD. i would also like to apologize in advance for my spelling i have dyslexia. to start hockey is better then tennese because theres more action. in hockey players are always moving from one end of the ice to the other and you have a puck moving all over the place at speeds of up to 90+ mph. there is also fighting involved. were in tennis players cant fight, hockey players can drop there gloves and start throwing punches. ( although not until college or profesionals) hockey players never stop moving, they skate faster then anyone can run. it takes up so much energhy that they have to change lines every 30 to 45 seconds so they always have fresh legs on the ice.", "qid": 42, "docid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00004-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6938737034797668}, {"content": "Title: Other sports have changed rules to make game safer. Content: Dr. David Geier. \"Should MLB ban home plate collisions?\" May 30, 2011: \"changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports.\"", "qid": 42, "docid": "7ef85aba-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00054-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.69318026304245}, {"content": "Title: Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport Content: Hello! First i would like to thank my opponet for letting my debate this topic with you. I disagree, i do not think that boxing should be allowed to be catagorized as a school sport, or to be allowed in school at all. Boxing will actually increase the amount of bullying that goes on in school. The bullies will be able to box their opponets, and be allowed to beat the crap out of them, and get away with it. What will people do when they go up against a guy who can box? And worst of all, it would be allowed. The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it. Thus boxing would be bad for bullied students.", "qid": 42, "docid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00004-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6929742097854614}, {"content": "Title: Hockey is better than Soccer Content: Pro, who has full burden of proof, has made the point that hockey is more fun as you move at faster speeds. This is firstly untrue as the players themselves, if anything, move faster in soccer as they fight in a 'melee' style with the ball rather than a 'ranged' style in hockey. In hockey you can be moving our stick as a pivot around your body and shoulder rather than actually be speeding around. In soccer all tackles and all moves involve actual body-based movement and therefore you are moving at greater speeds. The only thing that moves faster in hockey, whether it's on field or ice, is that the actual ball or puck move faster within the game than the soccer ball does in soccer. This not only makes spectating and filming it for TV-based spectating a lot harder as well as real-time commentating but also is a major health risk and is why soccer players can wear nothing but shin pads and be fine but hockey players on field have to learn to use the bat itself as defence and on ice have literally padding top-to-bottom and still get life-threatening injuries. I won't use sources, case studies or go into details as yet. If Pro wants to call me out on any of my claims, I'm happy to oblige in later rounds.", "qid": 42, "docid": "46fa6c07-2019-04-18T14:24:53Z-00004-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6924507021903992}, {"content": "Title: Tennis is better than hockey Content: Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.", "qid": 42, "docid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6920450925827026}]}
{"query": "Should bottled water be banned?", "hits": [{"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Bottled water should be banned!", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00009-000", "rank": 1, "score": 0.9003642201423645}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 2, "score": 0.8650672435760498}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: Way to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. \"Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!\"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a \"waste\" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major \"argument\" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00004-000", "rank": 3, "score": 0.8436460494995117}, {"content": "Title: Water quality Content: Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because \"we don't need it\" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000", "rank": 4, "score": 0.8392727375030518}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: thank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000", "rank": 5, "score": 0.8313151001930237}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00007-000", "rank": 6, "score": 0.8265835046768188}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00008-000", "rank": 7, "score": 0.8232228755950928}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is \"too much government. \" By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a \"punishment\" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00001-000", "rank": 8, "score": 0.8116248846054077}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: I believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, \"Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. \" [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. \"In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. \" states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any \"unclean\" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that \"Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. \" [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00003-000", "rank": 9, "score": 0.8102067708969116}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: My argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - \"These two brands are essentially filtered tap water,\" - Meaning they are safer than tap water....\"And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.\" - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - \"While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established\" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - \"Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.\" - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)\"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources.\" - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy....\" the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.\" - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:\"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY\"\"I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 10, "score": 0.8060734272003174}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. \"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\" Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00006-000", "rank": 11, "score": 0.7993742823600769}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We\u2019re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we\u2019d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00007-000", "rank": 12, "score": 0.7757499814033508}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: However, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: \"No one knows what the health outcomes are. \"This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, \"we don't know and I don't want to find out\". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that \"Bottled water is not safer\". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, \"Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption\". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered \"injurious\", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]", "qid": 43, "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00004-000", "rank": 13, "score": 0.7749634385108948}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water Content: In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00031-000", "rank": 14, "score": 0.7718327045440674}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.\" How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00008-000", "rank": 15, "score": 0.7706820368766785}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00008-000", "rank": 16, "score": 0.7665133476257324}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00009-000", "rank": 17, "score": 0.7639768123626709}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00009-000", "rank": 18, "score": 0.7621829509735107}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain\"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a \"For drinking only\" sign). A tap\"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00004-000", "rank": 19, "score": 0.7591651678085327}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with \u201cspring water\u201d on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don\u2019t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...", "qid": 43, "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00009-000", "rank": 20, "score": 0.75789475440979}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group\u2019s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there\u2019s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00023-000", "rank": 21, "score": 0.7576419115066528}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: 1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the \"harmful\" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as \"wasting\" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00006-000", "rank": 22, "score": 0.7573610544204712}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting \"Beiber-Fever\". Tap water sucks.", "qid": 43, "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 23, "score": 0.7572250366210938}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] \"In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. \" [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. \"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining.\" [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1]http://www.totallydrinkable.com... [2]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... [3]http://pediatrics.about.com... [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water", "qid": 43, "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 24, "score": 0.7532088160514832}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. \"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.\" The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: \"In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\"[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn\"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: \"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.\" It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. \"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.\" Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument \"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water.\" Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? \"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.\" Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. \"Less regulated. No such point was made.\" It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] \"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.\" No proof given. \"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.\" Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. \"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.\" It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] \"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.\" No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00007-000", "rank": 25, "score": 0.7514912486076355}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: Thanks for a well written response! \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. \"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.\" Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. \"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA\"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, \"the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children\".\"[1] \"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are.\" Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] \"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.\" Let's see his refutation: \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00005-000", "rank": 26, "score": 0.7510426640510559}, {"content": "Title: My opponent picks the potential topic. Content: Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible topics for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. A good example of a topic is 'bottled water should be banned' while the topic 'books' should At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, define the topic and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. 5th round-Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. The topic has to be debatable worldwide. \"My opponent picks the topic.\" is only a placeholder for real topic, so you may NOT post \"I am not posting any topics, therefore I win\" or something along those lines. Also, please post topics that are easy to debate on both sides.Failure to follow the rules and format stated above results in a full 7-point forfeit to the opposing team.PLEASE READ THE FORMAT AND RULES.I hope we have a good debate. Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 3000Thank you.", "qid": 43, "docid": "461ead88-2019-04-18T16:28:38Z-00006-000", "rank": 27, "score": 0.7473258972167969}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00004-000", "rank": 28, "score": 0.7466816902160645}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. \"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.\" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro\"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00002-000", "rank": 29, "score": 0.7463986873626709}, {"content": "Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00033-000", "rank": 30, "score": 0.7463598251342773}, {"content": "Title: Soda should be banned Content: Soda shouldn't be banned because part of human rights is we choose what we eat and drink so banning soda would take those rights away. Also, as soon as soda is banned, a new junk will take its place that is maybe even worse so that we will never be rid of un healthy food Furthermore, banning soda would make lots of people lose jobs which our society would have to deal with. This is why it is silly to ban soda, we have bigger problems to solve!", "qid": 43, "docid": "f3fd5f9a-2019-04-18T13:42:56Z-00002-000", "rank": 31, "score": 0.7430882453918457}, {"content": "Title: Its harmful to the environment Content: There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00012-000", "rank": 32, "score": 0.7413573265075684}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): \"(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking.\" Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!", "qid": 43, "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00002-000", "rank": 33, "score": 0.740937352180481}, {"content": "Title: Drinking Water Content: 1) Drinking water can serve as both a human right and a commodity. There are many companies that sell bottled water as a commodity like the Con claims and I am not denying that or saying that is wrong. However that does not completely negate the idea that humans have a right to clean drinking water because whether or not drinking water is a commodity or a right in a situation depends on two things, access to it and the right to keep it. In sub-Saharan Africa like the Con said there are many countries that are strapped in water resources. However the case is here that these areas have too little fresh water resources available to sustain their populations, not that they are taking it from people and giving it to other people. Drinking water becomes a human right when people have access to it and then that access is compromised or taken away and those people now have no other access to clean drinking water. Anything other scenario though water becomes a commodity so drinking water is a human right and a commodity, and just because it is one does not mean it negates the other. 2) If Drinking water was a human right, it would not abolish the existence of bottled-water companies. These companies take water from a place where they are not taking it away from other people, and market it as a commodity based on convenience. It is their product and they have the right to sell it, and since drinking water can be a human right and a commodity, bottled water companies can still sell these products. Lets look at the thirsty jogger in the Con's example. As the jogger goes into the store to take the water, that is plain theft because in this case the water is a commodity, a product sold by a company and put on sale. The Jogger still has other access to other sources of drinking water such as the tap in their own home or the water fountain right outside the store. If the Jogger buys the water, and then has it taken away from them, and that bottled water was the only source of clean drinking water they have in their life, THEN it is a violation of human rights. However in the jogger example shown here the bottled water is of convenience to the jogger, not of guarantee, so no human rights are in question and the jogger still has to pay for the water. \" If we affirm that access to drinking water is a human right, then there is ultimately nothing stopping this scenario from becoming a very stark reality\"Think of the right to free speech. A protester cant simply walk into a store and take a megaphone to go back outside and say why they think corporations are not people right? of course not. That is because the megaphone, like the water, is in this case merely a commodity sold on convenience. All humans have the right to free speech but according to what the Con's logic says there would be people stealing megaphones from stores all the time. If the Con thinks that if access to water was a right then people have the right to take water, then if the Con believes free speech is a human right then people have the right to steal megaphones too. If that person then has his megaphone taken away by a cop while the protester was not breaking any rules, then that could be an infringement on the rights of the person's freedom of speech. The water argument goes the same way because like the megaphone, the water was originally just a commodity that could be bought and sold. It is only when those things are taken away does it become a violation of human rights. 3) \"all he's done is help frame the debate and claim that anything that is necessary for survival is a right. However I would like to remind all the voters that without a legitimate warrant to back this claim up, all I have to do to refute it is say that it isn't true.\"Here the Con is saying that I am claiming anything that is necessary for survival is a right, and wants me to provide a warrant to back this up....Human right: Includes the right to life (The Con and I previously agreed on this)Right to life: The human right that humans have the right to live Live: For a human to live they need food, water, shelter, etc. Water: Something necessary for humans to live and must have access to in order to do soIf a person is denied their only access to water, it endangers their right to live, that right is defined as a human right, so the right to access clean drinking water is a human right.", "qid": 43, "docid": "9621632a-2019-04-18T18:35:10Z-00004-000", "rank": 34, "score": 0.7384915351867676}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: \"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli\" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? \"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. \" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 35, "score": 0.7380958795547485}, {"content": "Title: It is time to stop buying bottled water Content: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00006-000", "rank": 36, "score": 0.7369328737258911}, {"content": "Title: It quite simply can taste better. Content: There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00032-000", "rank": 37, "score": 0.7364005446434021}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: Many bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. \"Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?\" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive \"Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water.\" (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment \"Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007\"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose.\" (2) \"Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat).\" (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer \"Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants.\" (2) \"The fact of the matter is\" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests.\" (3) \"Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element.\" (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? \"There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.\" (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won\"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "qid": 43, "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00005-000", "rank": 38, "score": 0.7353588342666626}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0", "qid": 43, "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00000-000", "rank": 39, "score": 0.7346919178962708}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00000-000", "rank": 40, "score": 0.7342930436134338}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00006-000", "rank": 41, "score": 0.7328092455863953}, {"content": "Title: Water quality Content: The quality of water is very high in this country is very good. In foreign countries bottled water is only consumed because they cannot drink the tap water. There is no need to drink it.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00025-000", "rank": 42, "score": 0.7316617369651794}, {"content": "Title: plastic bags Content: should plastic bags be banned", "qid": 43, "docid": "3eb41a46-2019-04-18T15:12:32Z-00003-000", "rank": 43, "score": 0.7285400629043579}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it\u2019s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00006-000", "rank": 44, "score": 0.7283461093902588}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: Here are your arguments and my responses \"Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap.\" There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. \"Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks.\" Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5\"40 mM.' [1] \"You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive.\" Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. \"bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not\" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...", "qid": 43, "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 45, "score": 0.7222082614898682}, {"content": "Title: Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles Content: You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!", "qid": 43, "docid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00002-000", "rank": 46, "score": 0.7220653891563416}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: It is conceivable that should the demand for bottled water dwindle, manufacturers would have to shut down production in many factories. This would make bottled water less widely available and therefore more expensive. It logically follows that this added expense and dwindling availability would effect aid and charity agencies who rely on cheap, readily availabe bottled water supplies for helping with widespread floods, and other natural disasters.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00029-000", "rank": 47, "score": 0.7210041284561157}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water Content: We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00030-000", "rank": 48, "score": 0.7205592393875122}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. \"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.\"[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn\"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.\"[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. \"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\"[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00009-000", "rank": 49, "score": 0.7187614440917969}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is \"federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants\"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. \"fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%\"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b\"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.\"[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...", "qid": 43, "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00002-000", "rank": 50, "score": 0.7186883687973022}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00002-000", "rank": 51, "score": 0.7165087461471558}, {"content": "Title: Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water Content: This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...", "qid": 43, "docid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00002-000", "rank": 52, "score": 0.7139235734939575}, {"content": "Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is \"prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned\" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - \"Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made.\" Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" had been changed to \"water\" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned\" implies that overall, it should be banned. Consider this hypothetical topic: \"People should be brutally slain\" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because \"People\" refers to people in general. Here's another one. \"I'm better than my opponent.\" PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" to mean \"Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination\", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00002-000", "rank": 53, "score": 0.7129126787185669}, {"content": "Title: plastic bottles should be banned Content: Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!", "qid": 43, "docid": "5141ec23-2019-04-18T11:29:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 54, "score": 0.7128799557685852}, {"content": "Title: Water is a toxic/addictive substance Content: Many people will disagree with me on this but i believe that water is a very addictive/toxic substance. I am willing to argue against anyone who would like to be the con in this argument.", "qid": 43, "docid": "17b7dd6b-2019-04-18T14:55:18Z-00007-000", "rank": 55, "score": 0.7115574479103088}, {"content": "Title: alcohol Content: Should alcohol be banned? and people who drink automatically be sent to jail?", "qid": 43, "docid": "b2cd5f0d-2019-04-18T12:02:26Z-00001-000", "rank": 56, "score": 0.7092998027801514}, {"content": "Title: NO,need to ban just reduce the use of plastic Content: I don't think it using plastic should be banned, but we should reduce the use. Plastic is necessary and has it's uses, but we could reduce and replace plastic shopping bags, for example, with cloth or brown paper. Our aim should be to seek alternative measures.", "qid": 43, "docid": "df04454e-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00047-000", "rank": 57, "score": 0.7089456915855408}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: In response to my opponents challenge. \"Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. \" \"The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water.\"(1) \"The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. \" (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...", "qid": 43, "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00003-000", "rank": 58, "score": 0.7073942422866821}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is harmful Content: I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.", "qid": 43, "docid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00006-000", "rank": 59, "score": 0.7068676948547363}, {"content": "Title: Water is a human right and therefore cannot be owned, sold, bartered or traded Content: Hello, to everyone who reads this and to my worthy opponent. Well, I completely agree that water is a human right and cannot be owned sold or bartered. To assure you guys, water is actually free. Nobody stops you from drinking water from the ponds or rivers. If anyone does that you can shut them up by shouting it out that water is a gift of god and not your property. For instance the rural India, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer \" mostly to irrigate the fields; but the same water is also used for daily needs like bathing, drinking etc. The water one gets in the drinking bottles is also free, what the companies charge for is the plastic used in making the bottle, the cost of molding a bottle and that of purifying the water and adding essential minerals. THANK YOU!", "qid": 43, "docid": "f2c83f90-2019-04-18T17:06:57Z-00001-000", "rank": 60, "score": 0.7061629295349121}, {"content": "Title: Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned Content: First, thank you Who for taking and responding this debate so quickly. I'm glad, Who, that you knew exactly what dihydrogen monoxide is. While I was hoping for someone who didn't know, I am prepared to refute my claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. Yes, Dihydrogen monoxide is hydric acid, H20, or water . However, a qualification has not been set to what it should be banned from, to, or from where. Actually gathering up all of the dihydrogen monoxide in this world would be imposible, as there is no container big enough to fit all of the water in the world simultaneously. According to http://www.dhmo.org... , Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made. However, fictional and non-fictional, I will limit this debate showing why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned in any form, thus as the resolution does not qualify that \"all\" dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. I propose that if I find any reason why dihydrogen monoxide should be banned, I win the debate. 1. Dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from all mogwai. After watching Gremlins, I would strongly suggest that dihydrogen monoxide NOT be placed on any mogwai, for any reason, what so ever. In spite of the fact that this causes mogwai to reproduce, the potential for harm from one mogwai can be detrimental to society. This can clearly be seen in the Gremlin series of movies. On a side note, I'm sure that all wicked witches, regardless of their directionality, would support a ban of dihydrogen monoxide, as that book and movie \"The Wizard of Oz\" has clearly shown that when placed upon the skin of a wicked witch, it causes almost certain death. However, I am not a proponent of wicked witches, so I do not plan on supporting this stance. 2. Contaminated dihydrogen monoxide should be banned from drinking and entering all other sources In third world countires, it is determined that bad drinking water kills 4000 children a day. http://www.unicef.org... Additionally, grey-water runoff from farms, factories, and sewer drains causes a contamination of drinking water supplies making water undrinkable and potentially carcinogenic. \"Indeed, it contributes to the greenhouse effect. So much so, in fact, that without it, our planet would be too cold. The greenhouse effect is not 'bad', it's necessary for our planet to have suitable temperatures for human (or most other) life.\" Yes, dihydrogen monoxide does in fact contribute to our warmth and weather patterns. But it is also a leading cause of damages in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, and various other weather related phenomena. Is rain not dihydrogen monoxide? The last time I went out in the rain I'm pretty sure it converted to water. Please inform me if someone else has had any experiences of being rained on by nature by something other than water. \"Perhaps the reason we find water in tumors is not because they caused the tumors, but because humans are made of mostly water\". One of the leading causes of tumors is contaminated dihydrogen monoxide. While I will agree that it is not dihydrogen monoxide in its pure form that is causing the cancer; instead, it is the vector. Many communities already have a ban on dihydrogen monoxide if the chemicals in it are not safe for human consumption. 3. A ban on dihydrogen monoxide does not necessarily mean a ban of the chemical, rather a ban on the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Frequently, during summer months, many states, counties, and municipalities impose bans on water. This is due to the shortage of dihydrogen monoxide, not the complete prohibition of the substance. Since this is done to preserve the continued supply of water, the con is suggesting that in times of drought, we should not ban or ration water supplies. Most importantly, the con is suggesting that we never place a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. While I will admit that it is a vital and necessary component in all this organic, Who is suggesting that no ban should, in any form, be placed upon it.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00003-000", "rank": 61, "score": 0.705094575881958}, {"content": "Title: Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles Content: First, I think you don't know that price of bottled water is 1000 times more than tap water, and you can boil the tap water and pour it into glass cups. Second, aluminium cans are also a choice to replace plastic and many drinks are packed with aluminium cans. They are large amount produced. Lastly, plastic can't smelt so they exist in this world for more than 1000 years at least. But glass and aluminium can be smelted down and change into something new. THE END", "qid": 43, "docid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00001-000", "rank": 62, "score": 0.7045542001724243}, {"content": "Title: Bottled Water is better than Tap Water Content: Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)", "qid": 43, "docid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00001-000", "rank": 63, "score": 0.7043505907058716}, {"content": "Title: Water is bad 4 u Content: Do you know how many people choke on water every ten seconds? One. And that's way too many. We need to fix this. This is a serious problem that is nationally unrecognized. People need to be aware of water and its hazardous effects on the human throat. People also need to learn how to correctly swallow water. I am here to debate whether or not water should be sold in schools, sporting events, or even in grocery stores. I think we would be safer if we didn't even have oceans.", "qid": 43, "docid": "902de397-2019-04-18T12:43:39Z-00001-000", "rank": 64, "score": 0.7040553092956543}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water Content: This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00016-000", "rank": 65, "score": 0.7038110494613647}, {"content": "Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00015-000", "rank": 66, "score": 0.703300416469574}, {"content": "Title: Refrigerators with water dispensers and ice dispensers are better! Content: Before I begin: thanks to my opponent, as well as the voters. 1. On what basis is this claim founded upon? Because it is certainly a false notion. A 24-pack/35-pack of 500mL bottled water costs $4~6 at Safeway, even cheaper at Costco. Now, one-gallon waters costs a dollar, and it lasts an average family (with four people) half a week. That means $2 per week, $8 per month, and ultimately $96 per year. Even cheaper is getting water filled from a water vending machine. They are quite safe, with multiple stages for clarification; yet, they do not compromise their cheap price tag (20 cents or so for a gallon). The $760 claim is simply preposterous. If bottled water was that expensive, then they would have become long obsolete. As for the cost, bottled water is not the only option. Water filters, like Brita, are also a great alternative. A 10-pack costs around 45$ at Costco, and each should be used for three months (recommended). That means that, for $45 (plus the cost of the water filter itself, which costs as low as $25) one can last 30 months, or two years and a half. 2. The same goes for bottled waters and filters. Buying three - five bottled water every time you drop by your grocery store will keep you well-supplied for at least a week and a half. Water filters also allow users to get water anytime they want (as long as they have tap water). 3. Anecdotal evidence = / = applicable in debates. Apparently, your so-called friend has not heard of buying bottled water or using water filters. It's his fault for being allured to sugar rushes. 4. Yes, tap water is not very healthy. That is why there are healthy alternatives available in today's market that are cheap and inexpensive. 5. Source for this claim? Water filters are quite scrupulous when it comes to eradicating all the debris out of the water. Sole contention: There is no reason to pay an extra of hundreds of dollars when there are two prominent alternatives that are cheaper. The cost to fix a water dispenser could also add on to the already-hefty price tag. Vote Con. Sources: http://www.howitworks.net... http://hypertextbook.com...", "qid": 43, "docid": "96617488-2019-04-18T19:02:49Z-00000-000", "rank": 67, "score": 0.7030460834503174}, {"content": "Title: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Content: Thanks to my opponent. \"Fluoride should not be added to drinking water\" is an absolute statement. My opponent's position therefore seems to be (and his initial post appears to back this up) that fluoride should not be added to drinking water under any circumstances and that if it is currently being added then this should be stopped. My position is simple: In some cases (notably, areas where people aren't getting enough ) then fluoride should in fact be added. I will examine my opponent's arguments and sources first. \"1. Fluoride is poisonous.\" All substances are poisonous, including all food, drink and medicines. Toxicity is determined by dose. The amount of salt you would find in most salt cellars (dispensers) would be more than enough to kill you. Even water itself, the very substance that anti-fluoridation campaigners seek to protect the purity of, will kill you if you drink too much. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... \"on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to \"contact a poison control center immediately\" if you swallow your toothpaste.\" It doesn't say that on my tube of Colgate Total. \"2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda.\" On the contrary, the use of fluoride in drinking water has been made to seem desirable by science and only opposed by propaganda. If you define 'propaganda' then we could discuss this in more detail. \"3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay.\" Obviously not. Teeth decay for many reasons and were decaying long before fluoride was ever added to water, however fluoride absolutely does protect against tooth decay, as the evidence in my sources will prove. \"4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY...\" I guess the argument to this point hinges on whether you are pro universal health care. I am and firmly believe that there is enough evidence to show that fluoride in the water saves taxpayers enough in free dental care for kids from low income families. \"5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount.\" My opponent is absolutely correct that we need proper evidence of overall fluoride intake, if people, especially young children are definitely getting enough fluoride then there is no need to give them more, but this is often not the case as I will prove below. The quote with statistic does not cite any scientific source, merely makes unfounded claims. My opponent's sources are both websites set up by anti-fluoridation campaigners and do not express a balanced view, I urge readers to examine them and compare them to my sources below which are scientific or journalism based. \"To its critics ... the sure benefits .. may pale in comparison to the uncertain consequences...To its advocates, fluoridation is one of the most effective ways of achieving equality in dental health...no-one seriously doubts that fluoridation does stop decay.\" http://news.bbc.co.uk... \"Fluoride can greatly help dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay. It also reduces the amount of acid that the bacteria on your teeth produce...Fluoride is found naturally in ... water supplies, and is also added to some.... One part of fluoride for every million parts of water (1 ppm) has been shown to have the best effect. All water contains some fluoride.\" http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk... Can't believe I am out of space already, not used to this word limit. Resolution negated. Thanks.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e2687b9c-2019-04-18T19:25:11Z-00004-000", "rank": 68, "score": 0.7003616094589233}, {"content": "Title: People believe the marketing hype too much Content: so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00014-000", "rank": 69, "score": 0.698856770992279}, {"content": "Title: It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing Content: Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00026-000", "rank": 70, "score": 0.6986890435218811}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway Content: In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00022-000", "rank": 71, "score": 0.6981345415115356}, {"content": "Title: You choose, I choose. Content: The resolution is: \"American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply.\" This is country specific because third world countries clearly need flouridated water supplies. My opponent has chosen Pro and this is split BOP. My opponent reserves the right to swap positions if he wants to in the first round. I am prepared to debate either side.", "qid": 43, "docid": "60870993-2019-04-18T13:10:06Z-00005-000", "rank": 72, "score": 0.6979198455810547}, {"content": "Title: This House would monetize water Content: Good day, The resolution that stands before us today is THW monetize water and we on side opp strongly disagree. For the reasons I will now state for you. 1. Water is a human right Water is a human right we should not be able to sell it just as we do net sell air This is absolutely ridiculous water is a right not a product we can sell We need water to survive and so we should be monitoring the use of water not Selling it 2. What about less privleged people What happens in third world countries where people can barely afford food and homes never mind the price of water wich by the way is 1Million times the price of tap water. people are dying from no clean water and we want to sell it to them? This is infair and unjust. 3. There is no garuntee of cleanliness Bottled water is often just tap water that is slightly filtered and given a fancy package plus there is still no garuntee that the water provided will be 100% pure and clean no matter what it says on the package people can still keep dying of these water realated parasites and even worse they will be paying for something that could make them sick or even worse kill them This is absolutely unjust and inhumane 4. What about Corp.s If we allow Corparations to gain such a huge resource such as water what is gaurenteeing that they won't take control and make it almost imossible to get enough water We cannot risk this happening For all the reasons I have just stated and many more this resolution Must and SURLEY will FALL Thank you", "qid": 43, "docid": "f486d045-2019-04-18T12:46:49Z-00001-000", "rank": 73, "score": 0.6973873376846313}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con) Content: You call me trolling? Look who is talking, I should report you. This debate has nothing to say. Of cource Tap Water is better. Who wouldn't agree?", "qid": 43, "docid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00000-000", "rank": 74, "score": 0.6969753503799438}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: People prefer variety. There are various flavors of water available, to suit whatever your preferences are. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00005-000", "rank": 75, "score": 0.6952214241027832}, {"content": "Title: Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun Content: No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.", "qid": 43, "docid": "db49fdec-2019-04-18T14:34:53Z-00001-000", "rank": 76, "score": 0.6935181021690369}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: i meant bottled water is a scam", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00001-000", "rank": 77, "score": 0.6918495893478394}, {"content": "Title: Bottled water should be banned Content: FYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks \u2014 and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist \u2014 somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the \"Blue Gold\" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks", "qid": 43, "docid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00003-000", "rank": 78, "score": 0.6901013255119324}, {"content": "Title: DDO TT2: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. Content: Introduction:I will now present my rebuttals.I have to remind everyone that Pro's position is that Drinking water should be a human right and not a commodity and Con's position is that Drinking water should be both a human right AND a commodity. In other words both positions only disagree on the commodity part.Rebuttals:Contention 1: Here Con contradicts himself. He states that he is arguing that drinking water \"can\" both be a human right and a commodity, but in his first contention, he challenges drinking water being a human right and how it would be better as a commodity.I will discuss both points:Drinking water as a human right AND a commodity:Drinking water can't be a human right and a commodity at the same time. By definition, drinking water as a human right should be able to be claimed as a matter of right. If drinking water is sold, people that can't afford it would be deprived of their human right.Every other definition of human right used could lead to a fallacy of equivocation.Drinking water as a commodity and not a human right:This is the position that would make sense for the contention. From the contention, Con states that having drinking water as a human right is dangerous because tyrannical governments could take advantage of that, and that drinking water as a commodity doesn't have that problem or similar issues.I disagree with Con's argument here. A tyrannical government being able to affect human rights is not a problem on what are these human rights. Life is a human right too, and if it's \"beneficial\" to these tyrannical government to control it, I guarantee you that it will find other ways to do it.And drinking water being a commodity doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't guarantee it's acquisition (or easy acquisition) in a country with a tyrannical government, specially if they can control the companies that sell this water, or what enters or leave the country. But not only that but there is a new entity capable of controlling this important resource for life, the companies. [1]Contention 2: Here is another contention that challenges drinking water as a human right.As the theory of Hohfeld states, here can be no right in one person without a corresponding duty in another. [2] This is important because a right is not less right because it \"requires work\".Contention 3:\"Is it justified to take away a private water supply for the sake of others?\"Yes, it is. Because it is a human right and because it is necessary for the life of these others. Every economical disadvantages from those companies will be benefits for those that acquire the human right to water. And it's not only to survive, a better health leads to less money used on health care and medication. Then Con states that there might be problems with ownership. These problems are only relevant if water is not a human right.The reason is because human rights are more important than ownership, if these are attempting those rights, example slavery.People owning other people is against human rights, so that ownership should not be respected.So I ask Con to establish his position correctly in the next round so I can address it correctly.One last thin for this contention, the third link is broken.Contention 4:Here we are back to the first position.It is false that currently water is treated as a commodity and a human right.UN recognition of the human right to water doesn't make every group respect that recognition. [1]And as stated before, drinking water can't be a right and a commodity at the same time.There are also cases where privatization didn't work like in Chile. [3]Rebuttals on \"attacks of Pro's case\":P1: Con agrees on the first point but is back to the second position. He mentions a problem that is explained in the first contention which was already addressed.P2: Con agrees again and claims that this can be done with drinking water as a commodity, which is false considering the huge amount of people that doesn't have access to drinking water because they can't afford it.P3 and P4 are addressed on the rebuttals of the contentions.I await for the Con's response and the clarification of what seems to me like a contradiction.Thanks. Vote Pro.Sources:1. Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized (Video). http://www.youtube.com...2. http://www.ourcivilisation.com...3. http://www.eclac.org...", "qid": 43, "docid": "117e9c52-2019-04-18T16:02:17Z-00003-000", "rank": 79, "score": 0.6887516975402832}, {"content": "Title: People should eat all food in drink form Content: People can still choke on water and other drinks. Even if we made all food in drink form, it would be taking away one of the greatest things in our life. Everyone loves food and I think everyone can agree that a burger is better than a burger smoothie. It would be like banning all beaches because there are sharks in the water. Sure there are some shark attacks, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of it all together.", "qid": 43, "docid": "ef56560f-2019-04-18T11:33:44Z-00000-000", "rank": 80, "score": 0.6883102059364319}, {"content": "Title: Summary Content: The motion in debate calls for the proposition to defend that in general, the sole owner of and provider for water should be the state. They have failed. There is no piece of evidence they presented that I didn\u2019t either successfully debunk or accepted and then used against the motion. Some of their points weren\u2019t supported by analysis or evidence. They said companies can\u2019t be trusted to justify the proposal but in their rebuttal they accepted that governments, like Venezuela\u2019s, can\u2019t be trusted either. They said that the government is the only proper agent because of having the budget and the political support. I demonstrated that there are huge private companies and that there is growing discontent with state monopolies and growing acceptance of privatization (like in Scotland) and that a policy\u2019s popularity is different than it\u2019s quality. They proved that fresh water is dwindling, but failed at explaining why that means the motion should be approved. I countered by showing how by giving away water, you could cause it to dwindle faster. They conceded that there can be some privates amongst suppliers Prop We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Prop. contradicted itself. First they said that prop one cannot play with supply and demand with something as important as water. Privatize water would be like privatize air. We need them equally and the state should provide enough for everyone. And then, in another point they said prop We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state. So on one hand water should be free or near free (no supply and demand games) and on the other they say they are not suggesting free bottled water. And does a bottled water company enter the category of need? No. I provided a framework for analysis for the examples of both State being successful and privately owned companies failing: they\u2019re isolated examples. I provided evidence that proves state owned is a bad idea because it usually fails. I explained why they usually fail. Political abuses, lack of innovation (when innovative technologies like desalination are crucial), too cheap prices creating a high demand. Also, I linked the examples of private failings to them being protected by the government\u2019s dealings with lobbyists and pressure groups. Lastly I provided spaces the poor to still get water while keeping the quality for everyone else. For this reasons, I think this policy should be opposed.", "qid": 43, "docid": "d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00037-000", "rank": 81, "score": 0.6878153085708618}, {"content": "Title: Soft drinks should be sold at school Content: School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!", "qid": 43, "docid": "c29734a-2019-04-18T15:46:37Z-00007-000", "rank": 82, "score": 0.6875598430633545}, {"content": "Title: You choose, I choose. Content: I'll be presenting an argument \"For\" the resolution \"American municipalities on balance should choose to not flouridate their water drinking supply.\" As per the comments, Wylted and I have agreed to share the BoP.I'll be presenting arguments in a punctuated form, hitting on the main idea. Later in the debate, I will expand upon these as needed. Argumentation1. Fluoridation is unethical.It is a generally understood American ideal that people should not be forced to do things they do not want to do. This is especially relevant in areas where some unnecessary and unhelpful action is being forced upon us.While it may be easy to think about water as a \"service\" that one does not have to use, one cannot forget that Americans are required to pay taxes for their water. That means this service is not free, but instead a product that is being purchased from the local government by the people. This purchase is in no way a choice on the part of the citizen. As such, municipalities are abridging the people's freedom of choice by forcing them to imbibe a substance that they do not want. Fluoridation is not a reflection of the will of the people, but instead an arbitrary choice by the government of the United States. The situation would be no different if instead of fluoride, the government introduced opiates or some truth agent into the water system. In that scenario, the people would still a) pay for it and b) have no choice in the matter. Not flouridating the water is the natural solution to this ethical dilemma. 2. Water fluoridation is unnecessary. When water fluoridation was introduced in the 1940's, there was not adequate access to fluoride in the United States. It was used by dentists, but no \"over the counter\" fluoride products were made. Today, the opposite is the case. It is commonplace for toothpastes, mouthwashes and other teeth cleaning agents to have fluoride included in the product. As such, it is no longer necessary to fluoridate water, as ethical and cheap alternatives exist. It cannot be said that \"poor people don't have access to fluoride\", as these teeth cleaning agents are inexpensive and massively available. Those who do not use toothpaste and similar products are actively making a choice that could result in tooth decay. This choice is their fundamental right as Americans and it should not be taken away. Bad dental heigene is in no way a communicable disease. A person with bad teeth in no way poses a risk to others. Therefore, there is no justification for forcing \"dental health\" upon people, since their choice to have poor dental health only negatively impacts themselves. Furthermore, it cannot be said that poor dental health negatively affects others through economic mechanisms. One cannot go to the emergency room for lost or decaying teeth nor can they use other publically funded medical services for that issue. As such, the economic cost of choosing to have poor dental health is not transferred to other parties. 3. Water fluoridation may not even be medically beneficial. There have not been any controlled tests of water fluoridation, which sets it apart from every other legal drug offered to the public. [1] Some studies (mainly those performed by government agencies) find that water fluoridation increases dental health. Others find no link between fluoridation and dental health, while others still find that fluoridation has negative health benefits that go far outside dental health. Given the apparent lack of consensus on the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the claim that water should be fluoridated becomes even more dubious. Not only is it unethical, not only is it unnecessary, but it may be flat out ineffective at accomplishing its stated goal. Recognizing this, my previous two points stand even stronger, as one cannot claim that there are demonstrative health benefits that exist to outweigh unethical and unnecessary water fluoridation. ConclusionThis has been a cursory introduction of my arguments. I will likely not present any arguments that are unrelated to the ones presented here. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1 - http://www.livescience.com...;", "qid": 43, "docid": "60870993-2019-04-18T13:10:06Z-00004-000", "rank": 83, "score": 0.6874300241470337}, {"content": "Title: It is true that currently thousands of people are employed by the alcoholic drinks industry. Howeve... Content: Not only would banning alcohol infringe people\u2019s civil liberties to an unacceptable degree, it would also put thousands of people out of work. The drinks industry is an enormous global industry. There are not good enough reasons for wreaking this havoc on the world economy.", "qid": 43, "docid": "d919728-2019-04-19T12:46:57Z-00014-000", "rank": 84, "score": 0.6868346333503723}, {"content": "Title: This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks Content: First I would like to start off by refuting my fellow opponent's arguments. But before I do, I would like to clarify that I am NOT supporting his side. I am on proposition so it's my obligation to defend the resolution. The resolution states that \"This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks.\" I am hereby supposed to agree and give reasons why we should ban the sale of large-sized soft -drinks. My arguments say that soft-drink itself is harmful and the ingredients inside harm us even further to severe diseases. I also mentioned that soft-drinks contribute to environmental damage. And my last argument was saying that soft-drinks are part of the reason why obesity is skyrocketing in USA. So my arguments do not support my opponent's side. My opponent claiming that my arguments support his side is a clear misinterpretation he made. Now, I would like to move on to refuting. My opponent's first argument states that the government shouldn't restrict some people's pleasure. Is killing yourself a pleasure? Sure you might feel comfortable and joyful that instant, but it's government's obligation - duty - to alert us and motivate us to do the right thing. Again, as I said in my previous argument, drinking large-size soft-drinks can actually harm each and everyone of us. Drinking large-size soft-drinks can affect the environment in a negative way and eventually harm us - either indirectly or directly. The government should take part in something the whole US citizens could be harmed. My opponent's second argument is that restricting will inhibit our freedom of choice. The government has a right to act accordingly if we are planning to kill ourselves. It might sound ironic that you might be killed by drinking large-size soft-drinks but continuous consumption of this beverage will result in unpleasant and nasty diseases. Again, government is allowed to help us with our choice. The police force try to save us when we are about to jump off the bridge. This applies to government. The government is trying to help us, not take away our freedom. By saying that government is trying to take away people's freedom, my opponent misunderstood the purpose of the large-size soft-drink ban. My opponent's third argument is that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. This argument is helping my side. He is saying that not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. I will accept his argument. Yes. Not banning sodas will cause too many diseases. Thank you opposition for supporting my side and actually giving strong evidence to support my side. Lastly, I would like to make one more argument of my own. My argument is that although sad, most American\"s don\"t have the self-control to be allowed to make free choices about what they eat. This is what I was saying the whole time. People need government's supervision. About 60% of people who drink soft-drinks can't restrict themselves from developing serious diseases and obesity. Of course, some of this might be accountable for people with diseases or medical disorders that aren't their fault, but that\"s only a small portion of the 60%. That\"s 6 out of 10 people; if those 6 people COULD control themselves, they probably would have already, and they wouldn\"t BE obese in the first place. Thank you and please vote for proposition.", "qid": 43, "docid": "bbc5b97a-2019-04-18T16:48:53Z-00000-000", "rank": 85, "score": 0.6867293119430542}, {"content": "Title: Smoking bans are unconstitutional Content: I believe such things should be left to small business or places that want to ban it. To give big government power (and I'm not conservative) to make laws banning things is similar to Prohibition. It's tyranny. Only institutions should be able to determine whether to ban something or not.", "qid": 43, "docid": "8c754bbc-2019-04-18T17:05:45Z-00001-000", "rank": 86, "score": 0.6865886449813843}, {"content": "Title: Soda should be banned Content: Though soda by no means should be banned forever, I must ask, are we debating about schools or all of life?", "qid": 43, "docid": "f3fd5f9a-2019-04-18T13:42:56Z-00001-000", "rank": 87, "score": 0.6850080490112305}, {"content": "Title: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Content: I welcome the readers and my opponent. Resolved: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Even though society as a whole has been conditioned to accept that fluoride is \"good for us\", that is in fact not the case. Have you ever thought about how fluoride \"protects\" our teeth? Does it not do this by \"killing\" the bacteria that are on our teeth? So how does it \"kill\" these bacteria? Well, it must be \"poisonous\" to enable it to \"kill\"...and it is...and if fluoride is ingested it doesn't magically become \"unpoisonous\"...it is still poisonous, and is therefore harmful. That is why it should not purposefully be added to anyone's drinking water. Pro will attempt to affirm this resolution and offers the following points of consideration for the readers: 1. Fluoride is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Even on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to \"contact a poison control center immediately\" if you swallow your toothpaste. 2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda. Originally this poisonous by-product (fluoride) involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today. Through the use of propaganda, fluoride has been made to seem to be desirable, rather than treated as the poisonous by-product that it is. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f5] 3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by the action of cariogenic substances which release acids which then attack tooth enamel. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f6] 4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY to have this fluoride added to their water. People are being forced to pay for poison to be added to their water! This is yet another reason that it should not be added to drinking water! 5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount. http://www.nofluoride.com... [2nd red triangle in points] I now look forward to my opponent's response.", "qid": 43, "docid": "e2687b9c-2019-04-18T19:25:11Z-00005-000", "rank": 88, "score": 0.6848528385162354}, {"content": "Title: Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality. Content: The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered \"healthy\". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)", "qid": 43, "docid": "f48cd399-2019-04-18T12:36:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 89, "score": 0.6845390796661377}, {"content": "Title: Which water is the best water Content: According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities\u2014such as distillation or coronation\u2014are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama\u2019s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.", "qid": 43, "docid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00001-000", "rank": 90, "score": 0.6837308406829834}, {"content": "Title: Alcohol Content: Thank you. Since it's not been established, the BoP is on Con. Alcohol is currently legal, and as such, he is arguing against the status quo. I'll briefly rebut my opponent's arguments and mention my own. I'll expand these in the next round. My opponent argues that alcohol should be banned because it sometimes negatively affects society. However, this is faulty reasoning. Simply because something sometimes affects society negatively, this does not mean it should be made illegal. Cars cause car accidents sometimes. Does this mean we should ban cars? Of course not. My opponent argues: P1: Whatever affects society negatively and causes people to die should be banned P2: Alcohol affects society negatively and causes people to die. C: Alcohol should be banned. As you can see, the first premise is what I have attacked. It's simply too broad, and would also mean the ban of many other things. (Ie. texting). How many people die from texting while driving? Should we make texting illegal? Obviously not. My arguments: I'll briefly mention that since so many people drink alcohol, More than half of Americans 12 and older drink alcohol. (http://alcoholism.about.com...) It's unlikely that simply banning alcohol would stop them from drinking. I'll also mention that alcohol sales contribute greatly to the economy. To ban it would create a vast blackmarket, which the US economy would have to fight. In other words, the US wouldn't be making any money from alcohol sales, and would have to spend money to fight it. My opponent's arguments stand refuted.", "qid": 43, "docid": "299f3b0e-2019-04-18T15:45:14Z-00002-000", "rank": 91, "score": 0.6836604475975037}, {"content": "Title: water be considered a public good and not be privatized Content: Answers to my opponent's questions: 1. I don't see why not. There are several private water companies (such as the American States Water Company) that co-exist with the government's water department. Their prices would have to be similar to the water department's in order to compete. 2. I would think this question is irrelevant to the debate. True, taxes paid to the government translate to public welfare, while bills paid to a company go to the company's employees/shareholders, but in either case you are trading money for the things that you need. 3. \"Will the bills payed by the public be consistent with their water usage?\" Assuming that the private companies in question are in US, I would say that there would have to be a fixed rate on water in order for the company to survive. If water companies were as corrupt as Bechtel, they would quickly lose their customers to the Water Department. My opponent asks me to cite a source. I would like to ask him how one searches whether bills payed by the public are consistent with their usage. If he cannot answer this question satisfactorily, ignore his request for a source. 4. Well, to start off with they conserve water (www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=208593). Also, bottled water industries promote recycling (evidence is printed on water bottles). CX: Main round 1. Explain how the fact that companies are motivated by economic profit means that they cannot provide affordable water to all individuals. 2. True, water is a right, but is purified water a right? 3. Explain how the relationship between culture and water is relevant to this debate. 4. How often does a water company dramatically increase the price of water? CX: CX 1. \"...the money we pay to the government does not go to the governments pocket rather it is used to help the public in every way possible.\" Really, so government officials don't need to be paid? Water department employees work for free? The cost of purifying and transporting water is nil? As you can see, many of the expenses related to water are the same for public and private. There is thus no real economic difference between getting your water from a public or private source. My opponent claims that \"we would have to pay about three times as much money as we pay the government\", but this is derived from an extreme case of corruption, and not from his experience or from a reliable source. 2. \"...the money used to improve these technologies still comes from the public. By advancing there technologies, they are moving forward but they also need the budget needed for the advancement.\" Very true, but it would be the same if the government was advancing these technologies. The private sector has more incentive to advance these technologies because of competition, as mentioned before. 2a. \"...there is no need to improve the purifying technology used by the government.\" I'm sure that was the mind-set of the general public before cars were made. 'We don't need to improve our transportation. Our horse-drawn carts have served us for quite a while and are very efficient if you ask me'. 3. \"My opponent; however, failed to provide me with a scenario in which the privatization of water showed a positive outcome.\" See my Jerusalem Post source from my answer to my opponent's question 4.", "qid": 43, "docid": "af608b89-2019-04-18T18:42:49Z-00002-000", "rank": 92, "score": 0.683596134185791}, {"content": "Title: Drinking Water Content: For the sake of maximum clarification, I will refute my opponent's argument in the exact order he has presented them. 1. + The resolution gives my opponent the burden to prove that access to drinking water is a human right instead of a commodity. Meaning he is not allowed to attempt to achieve both at the same time, he must show that access to drinking water ought not be a commodity, and ought instead be a human right. + We've already established that access to drinking water is need for survival. That is painfully obvious. My opponent has not, however, established that it is a right. He has the claim, he lacks the warrant and the impact. + My opponent neither proves nor establishes anything here. 2. + The argument my opponent makes here is equivalent to a forfeit. He is advocating that water can exist as a commodity, which violates his BOP to show that water is instead a Human Right. + Exactly, the jogger's act is theft. Which shows us that he does not have the human right to have access to that drinking water. Furthermore to refute the later half of my opponent's argument, he has yet to establish access to drinking water as a human right. + In regards to my opponent's free speech example, I must ask; what? What on earth is my opponent attempting to advocate here? The right to free speech, and access to drinking water are two completely different things. The former is a deeply established right, one in which the parameters and restrictions are clearly known. The supposed right to \"access to drinking water\" is exceedingly vauge, and unfounded in the first place. Furthermore, my opponent has the burden to specifically outline the right to access to drinking water before they may make an argument such as this. Otherwise this argument unfounded and unviable. 3. + The logical syllogism my opponent provides doesn't suffice to advocate access to drinking water as a human right. Were this logic to suffice, then suddenly everything is a human right is one can justify it linked to another right. For instance Black metal: Includes the right of free speech Speaking of murder: Links to black metal Mass murdering millions of people: Linked to black metal Mass murder: Is human right protected under the freedom of speech. In conclusion, my opponent's warrants are weak and do not suffice to warrant access to drinking water as a human right. He does not meet his own burden of proof. And his clash on the Con case is far from viable. There can be no other vote in this debate than for the Con.", "qid": 43, "docid": "9621632a-2019-04-18T18:35:10Z-00003-000", "rank": 93, "score": 0.6823391318321228}, {"content": "Title: non therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals should be banned Content: it should be banned because would you want to have the animals antibiotics in your system", "qid": 43, "docid": "98717f16-2019-04-18T19:14:34Z-00003-000", "rank": 94, "score": 0.6822382807731628}, {"content": "Title: Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda Content: Although you are valid on your thoughts, you are not seeing the big picture. I do not believe banning soda from children will solve any problems. If a parent is (unlikely) able to keep a child from having soda, they will be exposed to it later on in life because of its prevalence in society. I believe the only way to take the problems of soda out of the picture is to take soda out of American society. Overall, I believe denying soda to a toddler does not avoid any life long problems.", "qid": 43, "docid": "3b9029a2-2019-04-18T18:21:07Z-00004-000", "rank": 95, "score": 0.6811687350273132}, {"content": "Title: Ban Highly Processed Foods Content: I believe Pro has fallen well short of justifying a ban on \"highly processed foods\". The arguments put forth indicating that these foods are unhealthy were anemic at best. None of the chemicals Pro mentioned behaved like, say, cyanide. These are more of the \"consume it everyday for years and MAYBE there will be health concern. \" Even then, the evidence is correctional at best. Everyone eventually dies. The question is the expediency. Should foods contain labels that indicate the ingredients used? Yes. Should foods that contain chemicals that are lethal from short term exposure be banned? Absolutely. Should ingredients that have weak or non-existent empirical links to adverse health conditions be banned? Obviously not. We don't restrict freedom without a really good reason. Pro has NOT come near a good reason. Thank you.", "qid": 43, "docid": "28b9a748-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00000-000", "rank": 96, "score": 0.6809311509132385}, {"content": "Title: Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con) Content: I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn\"t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources.", "qid": 43, "docid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00000-000", "rank": 97, "score": 0.6808278560638428}, {"content": "Title: Lift soda ban from schools! Content: I think schools should lift bans on sodas and sugary drinks because some children can contain themselves after a Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, PowerAde, and Sprite. The only drinks that should be banned are energy drinks like Red Bull, Monster, MIO ENERGY, etc. because they give people lots of energy and Mountain Dew which contains Yellow 5 which increases behavior issues.", "qid": 43, "docid": "7b4f34d2-2019-04-18T17:50:08Z-00003-000", "rank": 98, "score": 0.6799886226654053}, {"content": "Title: Privatization of Water Does more Harm Than Good Content: If we're making up arbitrary semantic observations, then yes I would agree that your argument both initially and to this point has been left lower than 5000 characters. That mattering in any sense of the word is not something I would agree. It's really about the importance of Privatization of Water\" and it doing more harm than good. I have prepared points on both how it exists today and why, would you like to rebuttal or should I continue making points to support my argument? Because it won't be possible for me to refute arguments you haven't made yet. And to be clear\" the topic worth debating is the debate topic.", "qid": 43, "docid": "afc262c7-2019-04-18T12:41:21Z-00000-000", "rank": 99, "score": 0.6798672676086426}, {"content": "Title: Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine Content: Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world\u2019s major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist \u2014 somewhere.", "qid": 43, "docid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00028-000", "rank": 100, "score": 0.6794065237045288}]}